The Goat Pen

hedge wrote: ↑Sat Jun 05, 2021 8:43 am I woke up around 4 this morning, but then rolled over and went back to sleep for about an hour, during which time I dreamed that I drove up to eCat's house and found him sitting on the porch in a rocking chair reading the paper. His wife and the boy were on the porch swing. I can't remember what we said, but the planks of the porch were painted pale blue. It's been close to 20 years since I've seen eCat in person, but for some reason it wasn't like some 20 year reunion but rather just popping over to visit a neighbor that you see frequently. I guess that's what happens when you've spent a couple of decades interacting more or less daily with someone, even if it is online. And thanks to Facebook, I had a pretty clear visual image of eCat as well. Interesting times we're living in...

you should come by one day

must be something about my family - wife at 3 day old shrimp this morning. hoping she recovers before we go out with a group for dinner tonight

Damn, what's with your fambly and shrimp??

yea I don't know, it must a be weakness we have

She troopered thru dinner.

I'm working on a multi-day hangover from our Member-Guest golf tournament.

Lightweight

How'd you do?

hedge wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:50 amHow'd you do?

Won our flight. Tied for lowest net in stroke play, parred the second shootout hole (8 teams) but didn’t advance to the third shootout hole (4 teams) because we lost by eight inches in the “chip off” amongst teams that tied.

The tournament cost me $600 and the Calcutta buy-in was $300. We won a little over $650 in the Calcutta and around $250 each in shop credit, and you can look at it as paying $250 for all of that. Three days of golf, booze, four meals for both of us, a decent party (in relative terms) and $250 in shop credit for a little under $250 wasn’t bad.

I’m still pissed we didn’t win overall though, but there’s always next year.

I also saw a 65 year old grandfather do a key bump in the locker room at 8:30 am Saturday.

Nothing wrong with that...

Something is fishy about Subway’s “tuna” sandwich.

Commercial lab tests again found no identifiable tuna DNA in the sandwich that purports to contain the fish.

The New York Times bought Subway tuna sandwiches from three different locations in Los Angeles, and then sent frozen samples to an unidentified commercial food testing lab after two California women filed a class-action lawsuit against the company in January alleging that Subway’s tuna sandwiches aren’t actually made of the fish.

The women ordered tuna from the sandwich giant at locations near their home, but “independent testing has repeatedly affirmed, the products are made from anything but

The New York Times bought Subway tuna sandwiches from three different locations in Los Angeles, and then sent frozen samples to an unidentified commercial food testing lab.


The lab the Times used to test the tuna most recently declined to be identified for fear of losing any opportunities to work directly with Subway, the country’s largest sandwich chain, the outlet reported.

The newspaper said it paid about $500 for the lab, which specializes in fish testing, to conduct a polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, test to see if the substance had any of five different tuna species. PCR tests rapidly replicate huge amounts of a specific DNA sample.


Two California women sued Subway in January alleging that the company’s tuna sandwiches aren’t actually made of the fish.

More than a month after the samples were submitted, the lab results read, “No amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification products from the DNA.”

“Therefore, we cannot identify the species,” the results said, according to the Times.

Subway spokeswoman Lorri Christou told The Post that the Times’ report “indicates that DNA testing is an unreliable methodology for identifying processed tuna.”

“DNA testing is simply not a reliable way to identify denatured proteins, like Subway’s tuna, which was cooked before it was tested,” the spokesperson added.

But a spokesman for the lab that the Times used said there are two possible conclusions from the results.

“One, it’s so heavily processed that whatever we could pull out, we couldn’t make an identification. Or we got some and there’s just nothing there that’s tuna,” he told the Times.

Why did you lie, Subway?

What about sardines? I like em, but they're not for everybody. I get the sense that people either love them or hate them. They are actually a superfood, better for you than salmon, and so low on the food chain that they contain no mercury...

only in mustard sauce

Gross gross gross

Love them.

Anchoves > Smoked Oysters > Sardines

Fuck Vienna sausages

10ac, have you tried brisling sardines? It's not a brand, but a type (there are several different brands). If you like sardines, do yourself a favor and try them. You can get Polar brand brisling sardines at the WalMark around here and, I suspect, nationwide. Check it out...

they also make great bait for raccoon traps

sardines - raccoon endorsed for over 100 years

Hedge, I will. Possum sardines and an onion made a great lunch back in the day.

Don’t start breaking in to Tennessee Ernie Ford, now...