SC - Previous Comment Posted Was: saffron Now: "period" foods/terms

[RichSCA@aol.com]

Some of the wording below that I have extracted I have a slight problem with. 
  

Number one: I dislike the term "period" but that is neither here not there.  
Also I have not been following most of this thread, because I thought 
"you'all" were still talking about Saffron (because of the subject line)

Number Two: I cooked dinner the other night and in a chili dish that I 
usually put peppers into I did not have any peppers, so I put in cinnamon.  
Came out OK.  Now it is not in my recipe book... I just DID IT.  (Shocking, 
uhhhh?)  When I serve it I am not going to claim that I followed the recipe 
exactly.  I will just serve it.

If you use foods in Feasts that were in use (as foods) within the basic SCA 
timeframe, I will be happy. (heck, if it's Pennsic corn I'll be happy - but 
that is another topic) Just serve it.  You do not have to make any apologies 
for your dish.  If you have redacted the recipe, followed a recipe that is 
documented from a historically source pre-SCA deadline date - let me know.  I 
will think that is "so cool of you to do so".  You do not have to explain 
anything.  

NOW if I ask you..where did you get that "great dish of olives, cabbage and 
beetles", you can tell me you made it up.  OR you can tell me you got it from 
your great-Aunt Ruben Or give me the book, title and page.  Whatever you 
like.  

And back to my chili the other night....I think I will call it Millennium 
Chili.  "Period" in this Century...documented or not.  :-)

Rayne  


In a message dated 4/4/00 10:27:33 AM Central Daylight Time, 
dhaven at rickardlist.com writes:

<< If you change the recipe, by substituting an ingredient, you are not
 >cooking a documnetably period recipe, you are cooking your own recipe.
 >this is OK. say it is your recipe cooked in a period style, and take credit
 for it.
 >it is not OK to call it a Period dish.
 >
 >brandu
  >>