SC - cuskynoles, continued...

[david friedman]

At 10:02 AM -0400 10/29/97, Philip & Susan Troy wrote:
>david friedman wrote:
>
>> My point is that it is more reasonable to use the dot to represent the high
>> point of a hill--in this case the hill in the top layer of pasta due to the
>> blob of filling underneath--
>
>Okay. So far so good.
>
>> then to represent a blob whose size is
>> significant in the scale of the figure.
>
>Boom. You lost me. I see no difference between using a dot to represent
>a 1/2 inch object or a two-inch object, given that the overall scale is
>in some question.

But the top of a hill is not a 1/2 inch object. It is a point.

...
>The point is that the dot represents a
>high point, wherein lies the filling, and it isn't clear to me the size
>or scale of the overall illustration.

My point is that before covering you have a blob, after a hill with a high
point. I concede that the blob could be hill shaped, so the argument is not
conclusive. But if you think about looking down at either a rectangle of
dough with blobs of filling or the same thing after covering and pressing
down the lines between, it seems to me much more natural to represent the
former picture by circles or something similar (after all, what is striking
about the blob is that it is a different color from the dough--which
applies to all of it, not just the high point) and the latter by a dot. The
alternative would be a contour map, which seems a bit elaborate for the
purpose.

>> If it follows, not that the blob is
>> small rather than large, but that the picture represents the object after
>> folding. That interpretation is also consistent with the language of the
>> recipe--but not with your interpretation as I understand it, since after
>> folding in your version what you have no longer resembles the figure. In my
>> interpretation it does.
>
>True. But then the simplest solution to adhere to the details of the
>picture is still to top the individual rectangles with other rectangles,
>rather than folding them.

That's fine with me.  I am agnostic as between interpreting "fold"
literally and assuming it means sandwiching filling between two rectangles.
But I don't see why the latter is simpler or closer to the details--the
only difference is that one approach makes the pieces half as big as the
other, and perhaps a differently shaped rectangle (depending on exactly how
you interpret the description of dimensions).

>If one wants to argue that the instruction to
>smear the filling all of one dole negates the existence of any clean,
>unfilled pasta rectangles, then your interpretation has the same problem
>as mine.

No. I interpret that as meaning that you smear it all over one
portion--i.e. one rectangle. You then either cover that with another
rectangle, or fold it. I'm not saying there are no other doles that you
haven't, at least yet, smeared the filling all over.

>If, on the other hand, one wants to argue that a dot of filling, as
>illustrated, negates the possibility of an oblong mass of filling, as
>would be appropriate for filled pastries 3 x 6 inches, then I can only
>say that it would have been better to illustrate the individual cells of
>the pictured grid as squares. I'm working on an assumption that
>(relatively) huge tracts of unfilled pasta, trailing from either end of
>each portion, would be regarded by most people as a shame and a waste.

But once you have covered the filling, you can't see it. All you see is the
bulge--which is conveniently represented by its high point.

>> Returning to your point, my argument is that the only lacuna in the text
>> instructions is filled in by the figure--which is why it is there. Consider
>> how hard it would be to explain my version in words without a picture.
>
>I dunno. I don't remember if there is an illustration in the Miscellany.
>Is there?

Yes.

>If so, I apologize, but I thought you made it pretty clear.  I
>just didn't really agree with it, but... ;>)

>Now, as an aside for you folks out there in Cyberland: I assure you that
>I feel I speak for both His Grace and myself that this discussion is
>pretty much our idea of a good time.

Correct.


>On the 3rd, The Crown Province of Ostgardr will be holding the East
>Kingdom's Twelfth Night. The kitchen is to be run by some newbie upstart
>(sorry, I couldn't  even type it with a straight face) of the name of
>Brekke Franksdottir. Seems she's a Countess from way back in the mists
>of time...actually Brekke is a dear friend, whom I wouldn't even dream
>of calling an upstart, except that it was her idea I should do so.

What odds that I have known Brekke longer than you have? Lots longer?
Hint--whose queen was she? What is his relation to me? Who preceded them on
the throne?

Unfortunately, I expect to be in NY on the 8th, not the 3d. I expect it
will be a good dinner--even if you do have some newbies such as Geoffrey
and Aiden associated with it.

David Friedman
Professor of Law
Santa Clara University
ddfr at best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/


============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================