This is the anti-smoked salmon item.  Please count off if you don't like
salmon, so I can correct my previous idea that there are only 5 people in the
world that don't like smoked salmon.  

(This item was created to alleviate drift in another item.)

45 responses total.

Ok - allow me to go first - eeewwww!  #1

Let me go second.  EEEEeeeewww!  #2

It's okay.  I prefer it grilled, though.  The only problem is you have 
to run anything you cooked or served or ate the salmon with through the 
diswasher twice to get the smell out.  It's the only food substance I 
know of that does that.

ancho chiles do that as well... on clothes anyhoo. 

Re 3  I have never had that problem and I eat fresh salmon fairly often.

Yucky

Yum

        Mmmmmm, smoked salmon ...

Smoked salmon has generally been okay the few times i've had a bit.  It's
vastly more expensive than fresh and doesn't taste as good, so i only have
it when i notice it at a buffet or similar.

re #4: The solution to that is to be more careful when you eat and not 
get any of the ancho chilies on your clothes in the first place. :)

yum, baby, yum!

  I don't like smoked salmon (or pretty much salmon of any sort..) and
  I don't like coffee..  And yet curiously I chose to move to Seattle..

tasty! but i can't think of any food that i don't like...

really, i can't.

I like smoked salmon.

re10:  kinda hard to do when you're working the
lunch rush ay a mexican joint

Re 13  That's becaues you've never had pickled walnuts!

Nor meat loaf cookies, I'll bet!

mmmmm! those are called *hamburgers*, grampaw!

I meant chocolate chip meat loaf cookies, with pimentos.

do they sell it at meijerses?

sounds taysty!

I wanted to like salmon.  Fish good, red meat bad.  I ordered it while in
Seattle.  When in Rome...  But I ate all the veggies and could only get half
the salmon down.  And that was a struggle.  Even though it looked appetizing.
Never have I chowed down all the veggies and left red meat on the plate. 
Maybe smoked would be better.    But I won't be gambling my hard earned dollar
on it.  

i had some salmon tonight for dinner. i wrapped it in tin foil (no wax paper)
with butter and a few basil leaves, then placed it in a pot of a little
boiling water - lid covered for 15 minutes. it was superb.

Salmon is difficult for restaurants to cook properly.  Maybe a good Japanese
steakhouse would do it right?

hmmmm.. what about Copper River on a cedar plank?

cedar plank is a good way to cook salmon..

Salmon is difficult for restaurants to cook properly???!

(Of course, the last time I had salmon in a restaurant, it was raw...)

        Too many lazy, incompetent, or overburdened cooks.

Not enough demand for salmon, so most restaurants won't have especially fresh
stock nor much experience cooking it.  Steaks are easy; everybody eats steak,
and cooks get plenty of practice.  I usually figure Japanese restaurants are
bit more fussy about the fish they serve, given the importance of seafood in
Japanese cuisine.

Red meat?? The last time I had salmon, it had a definite red hue to it.

Fish is not generally characterized as red meat, silly =)

which begs the question: is pork really the other white meat?

no .. its just the 'nastier meat'. but pork loin prepared the right way is
enjoyable ..

Everybody does not eat steak.  Even carnivores often try to reduce their fat
intake.

  As an aside, I've been noticing lately a lot of statements with 
  construction similar to Sindi's "Everybody does not eat steak," in #32.
  Clearly what she means is that there are people who do not eat steak
  but am I the only overly-literal reader who thinks that what she's
  actually saying is that nobody eats steak and that instead of saying
  "everybody does not" she should have said "not everybody does"?

  It seems like I come across this sort of thing very frequently lately.
  Is Sindi's formulation acceptable as common usage or are such statements
  just plain wrong?

That's in the category of annoying fads, like stopping two car lengths 
short of the stop line at a red light.  People hereabouts started doing 
that in numbers a few years ago, but not so much nowadays.

I would have said 'Not everybody eats steak' except in response to the
statement 'Everybody eats steak'.  For some reason it sounds better to negate
it with the not in third place, where it can be emphasized.  Not everybody
eats steak - you would expect that to be followed by some other phrase such
as - some people eat beans.  I don't think English normally lets you put a
strong emphasis on the first word in a sentence, and third word is more
commonly emphasized (or third syllable, anyway).  AbsoLUTEly.

Just in terms of clarity versus ambiguity, the phrase "Not everybody [x]" 
is infinitely clearer than "Everybody does not [x]".  My own take on it 
is that the point of language is to convey meaning.  One way is to use 
the words for emotional effect, such as in poetry or song, and another 
way achieves the communication of cognitive concepts.  If the aim is the 
latter, then clarity is the goal.  The result of combining the 
expectations and perceived rules of English expressed in #35 with the 
responses to them is contrary to that goal.

There is a major difference between the written language, which relies solely
on word order, and the spoken language, where intonation is more important.
I was using, in writing, the spoken language.  Everybody does NOT eat steak
as opposed to Not everybody eats STEAK (some eat BEANS) or Not everybody EATS
steak (some people BURY it).   I don't recall hearing NOT everybody eats
steak.  Or even not EVERYBODY eats steak.

This is one case (out of many, i'm sure) in which the "written language," 
as you say, is the way I say something, because it is unambiguous.

The spoken language is unambiguous, with intonation.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss