Talk:Crustacean

"Catching crustaceans, especially crab, is very difficult" - I really don't think that is true. Yes, there is some danger anytime one is in a boat, but crabbing & lobstering is done in relatively shallow waters close to shore. Hell, some crabbing is done while wading. ħuman 20:31, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Catching crabs is easy; the hard part is getting rid of them again - those humiliating trips to the VD clinic. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:54, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Hehe... although, doesn't the cure mostly consist of "special" shampoo, and perhaps a little shaving to reduce the ecocosm? ħuman 21:27, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Presumably, yes. Fortunately I've never experienced it firsthand. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:34, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Likewise. Maybe crabs are hard to catch? ħuman 21:59, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Delete or move out of mainspace

I propose this article be either deleted or moved out of the mainspace. It fails categorically in fulfilling any of our mission goals. Heck, it doesn't even have the potential to fulfill any of our goals. It does nothing, and will never do anything, to analyze/combat pseudoscience or crank ideas, or explore authoritarianism or fundamentalism. Yes, Judaism and Islam forbid the eating of crustaceans, but that is not a reason to create an article about them, anymore than the Bible's call for stoning people means we should make an article about stones. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:12, 4 March 2009 (EST)

But it makes me smile. :D ^moral 01:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Re the banning of eating by Jews. Isn't this from the same source as the fundies, who I believe have no such ban, find against homosexuality? If it is doesn't it highlight their selective interpretation? 03:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Then we should make an article about their selective interpretation. The article, as it is, fails to do that. Half of it is just going on about crustaceans (which is pointless and furthermore has nothing to do with our site's mission), and the second half doesn't even try to highlight selective-interpretation issue you brought up. (The paragraph merely plainly states what some people believe; are we going to advocate for/against something or not? Our job isn't just to state trite facts—there's a bazillion websites that do that already, and better than we do, to boot.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh relax, the article says God hates shrimp. What more do you want? ħuman 04:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A lot more. A single line cannot redeem two paragraphs of pointlessness. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Food

I've never had giant isopod, but I have heard that it is kinda like crab. Tyrannis (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)