Kikujiro

No, but I did bash them about (™ Jamie Oliver) in a pestle and mortar with the rest of the salad.

Well, a few went straight from the pack into the salad. If I never post again, you'll know what happened.

I have a packet of dried shrimp from Malaysia. I was intending to use them in a salad with the other half of my green papaya. As far as I can see this doesn't usually involve any cooking, but the pack says on the back 'to be cooked or fried before use'. Is this true? If so, are these a different kind of dried shrimp to the ones used in Thai cooking? Or is it a cover-your-ass addition? Also, how can I store them once the pack's opened, and how long will they last? (best before on the unopened is 12-2004)

When I was a kid the police found an IRA bomb factory in the house just on the other side of our back garden. They were alerted to the place when an alumnus of my school was breaking into a car and someone who was asleep inside woke up and shot him. Guns were more unusual then.

Which is about as far as you have so far moved the goalposts.

Walked past last night. Looked very open.

Wilfrid, let's do this your way. We'll compare the entire fucking cities. We'll take your figure of 28,000 acres for NYC. We'll even assume you've underestimated it. Hell, let's bump it up by 50%. So you get 42k acres, or 170 square kilometers. Now, the five boros are 785km2 (please don't make me find a source for that), which means that nearly 22 per cent of New York is green space (yeah, right). Now, let's check the London Biodiversity Action Plan. That's 1554 square kilometers, by the way. So despite being considerably bigger, London has not only more green space in terms of quantity (nearly 4 times as much) but in terms of proportion of the city too. Are we done?

I am bored with you attacking my phraseology, especially as you conceded in a PM that there's more green space in London.

Oh, cripes. I don't think an attempt to define the metro center is pointless, although it may be impossible. But once again, the comparison between Central Park and the Big Five central-London parks wasn't mine anyway. SA's historical account is quite valid. One of the very few benefits of living under this ridiculous monarchy is the parks. I happily fess up to using inaccurate terminology re. Manhattan. I don't accept that any definition of the metro center has to include the whole island. I am confused by how, in a thread beginning with my confession that I'd rather be living in NYC, we have ended up here.

Once more in case anyone missed it: the original comparison wasn't even mine, it was Mogsob's.

The day I count Hampstead as 'metripolitan central' London is the day I move to Sydney, or Leeds. I think the point, probably now irretrievable, is to do with how much of inner-city Manhattan is very sparse on green areas, compared to the centre of London.

I would like to formally ask you to amend the above post accordingly, so that we may retain an accurate record for posterity. Which part would you like me to amend?

Wilfrid, I was answering your question: "Could someone take a moment to explain to me why we are comparing one NYC park with eight London parks?" Which I only started doing in response to Mogsob's statement, "I would suspect that Central Park is larger than Hyde Park + St. James' Park + Green Park". I'm unaware where I have substituted 'NYC' for 'Manhattan' or vice versa. I may have said 'centre', which I have defined very tightly in both cities. I don't think the comparison is meaningless, although it is far from the only one possible.

Soba, the area I was comparing Manhattan to in London is a tiny fraction of the city.

Kiku, with all respect, you are demonstrating your ignorance of New York. That is simply and obviously untrue. Check my last link. Edit: Blimey, you need to look at a map of London too. Three big green areas? Wilfrid, I'm glad you haven't been away long enough to forget the correct use of the phrase 'with all respect'. With all due respect, I was comparing 'big' areas 'in the metropolitan centre'. For the sake of convenience I am defining that as essentially W1/SW1/NW1/WC1/2 in London (maybe 5/6 square miles), and lower Manhattan in NY (in fact we have to go all the way up to 110th St to include all of Central Park, so a considerably bigger area). In very-central London, there are three big green areas: Regents Park, Kensington Gardens/Hyde Park, and Green Park/St James's Park. There are lots and lots of smaller ones. I am not counting squares and not extending as far as the river south or Hampstead north. I'm staring at a map of Manhattan and apart from Riverside and East River Parks, which would mean defining 'the metropolitan centre' of NY far more extensively than we have done for London, I can only see little squares, and a much smaller number than London has in its centre. Thus it seems to me that we have established that London's park coverage is greater both in the tourist/metro centre and, per JJS's figures, for the cities overall. It's possible you may have a version of the city that lies between these two. Or I suppose you may have some investment in a more generous definition of 'metropolitan centre'. I can't believe I have wasted an hour on this puerile argument, but if you want to continue it, or if you're still confused, please go ahead

No, they have very good pasta and fish, and probably meat dishes but I've never tried. When I eat there as opposed to taking away I usually end up with pasta or fish, not pizza, although if you just go once you should have the pizza. Also a great selection of antipasti (you can look and choose).

Because if you want to compare big green areas in the metropolitan centre, NYC has one and London has basically three, all within a few minutes' walk of each other, which are further divided into five named parks. If you want to compare total parkland, JJS had the figures. Simon's right -- this is getting embarrassing. I'd concede now.

Well, as you say, I think they're both more successful atmosphere than food. In the same style (big square tables instead of long benches) is Busaba Eathai, a kind of Thai-ish Wagamama, on Wardour St, where I think the food has a considerable edge on Wagamama and the decor is more interesting (same team). [simon will probably shoot me for suggesting this place] I still go to Wagamama very occasionally when I need to eat quickly before a film; there is now one in Leicester Square. But not for the food, which seems insipid these days. Much better ramen to be had on Brewer St in Soho. Am with Simon on Claridges. There's no way you'll want icecream in Feb, but if you do, come out of Royal China on Queensway (Mogsob's dimsum rec is spot on for kids; also good value), turn right, right when you hit the park, and immediately on your right is an Italianate i/c shop that is rather good.

Yes, by about 9%. But if you want to compare the city centres, you should probably include Regent's Park, which brings the London group to 50% bigger than Central Park. JJS, thanks. where did you find those figures? I was still looking

Central Park: 843 acres. The eight Royal Parks in London alone: 5000 acres. Not including commons, heaths, squares, etc. etc.

Bushey, I'm not sure I'd do Hunan with kids; atmosphere seemed a bit subdued and Chelsea-ish to me. And I'd definitely add Pizza Metro in Battersea to the list. Giraffe (branches around London) would be good for affordable kid-friendly brunches, and Providores/Tapa Room does an adventurous brunch.

Without getting into my own opinions of Belgo and Wagamama, it's worth noting that the situation re. branches has nearly reversed: Belgo has collapsed back to one or two, whereas Wagamama is on every corner.

Oddbins (UK) has the abovementioned Buitenverwachting SB ('02) at £7.99 and the Southern Right Pinotage ('00) at £9.49. Also Southern Right SB, Buitenverwachting Chardonnay, Fairview 'Oom Pagal' Semillon, and many others.

Ah, airport code travelporn.

I don't recognise the validity of the question. But yes. Foodwise, the family dinner scene may be the greatest ever filmed.