SC - How do you know a dish was well liked or hated?

[Gaylin Walli]

> I don't believe you should say either.  The first response is rather
> um...for lack of a better word...laid back.  The second IMHO is simply rude.
> I approach things a bit differently.  I ask the participant if they are in
> the SCA for "fun" or for research.  I play it by ear based on their answer.

How can you not say "you know, you could do better", and not say "do 
whatever you want"? I don't see a middle ground? perhaps you are reading 
this differently? One course is to ignore the other to help direct and instruct.
The only other course I can see is to snark and insult. (if not zero, and not 
positive, then it must be negative) 

I have fun researching. It s a continual joy.
I am not some bookwormey genius with no life and no fun at events.
I have a lot of fun, and am involved in a heavily partying household.

> Forgive me, but I feel that your view a bit stuffy.  There is room for those
> who are interested in being period 'snarks', and room for those who want to
> be in the medievalish organization and have fun - not be forced to :::gasp
> of horror::: do research.

Why is this stuffy? 

I simply said that it is possible to try to be accurate and have fun. 
I think there are those here who would agree with that statement. (I believe Iam 
correct in including HG Cariadoc in this group, BTW)


> I get my attitudes from her.  She told me on my first meeting with her that
> this should be *FUN*.  If at any time it ceased to be fun, then I should get
> out ASAP.
> 
> I tend to agree with her.

So do I.
guess what....

The SCA is still as fun for me now as it was when I joined in 1977.
part of what makes it fun for me is finding out new things about who my persona 
was, what his tastes, his clothes, his world was like. Some of it I use in my
persona play, some of it I do not. 
This is not done by haunting college libraries and reading dry papers or spending
a fortune on books.
A lot of my research is done by doing, and talking with people who are better at
authenticity related pursuits than me. 
The information base just in the SCA is STAGGERING!
Reference this very list. 

> Please note what you have just written the the next to last line.
> "ATMOSPHERE"
> That is what I come for.  The ambience and the comraderie.  I love the
> honor, chilvalry and intellectual conversations.  I don't like
> garb/food/periodocity snobs/snarks.  There *is* room for those who don't
> want to do heavy research.
agreed on all counts. (I'll posit that part of the ambiance you loved, is the 
attempt at construction a medieval atmosphere. If nobody was doing any 
research, and everybody did whatever the hell they wanted, then I think 
that that ambiance would be diluted somewhat. don't you?) 

As far as my posts go I am not talking about the person who does not 
live at the library ( I do not ), are graduate students in Mediaval literature or 
languages ( I am definitely not ), or have tons of time or money to waste 
(I sure as HELL do not!). I am talking about the kind of person who treats 
the SCA and all the hard work that others doing researching and trying
to do the best they can as some kind of big nerdy joke.
 
> I don't completely agree with you.  Perhaps in part, but that part is small.
> Creative is important.  Since we did not live in that time, did not have
> anyone SHOW us how to do any of the things we do, and are simply following
> our best assumptions on how things were done - I say we are being creative
> at our best.  We are making assumptions and best guesses at worst.

Of course you are correct. I was talking about the unfortunate tendancy 
that some have to excuse bad or nonexistant work with the lable Creative


> I believe that one who makes an *attempt* at period whatever has made the
> attempt to play at our game.  
And I agree. Totally. I disagree with the people who make no attempt 
whatsoever. 
I think we are saying the same thing from both sides.

> Here again - um, is electric pink camoflage an attempt? I know you can get
> some amazingly bright colours when you try, but electric pink is an acid set
> colour.
Well, in period "camo" has never been anything other than a hideous Dye 
vat accident.  Certainly it was not intentionally worn by a European noble.

> Again, why does everyone have to play the game according to your rules?
> People have to have their own version of the "Dream" because after you get
> two people together, you can no longer have a generic "Dream".

Not my rules. Read the governing documents. that is what THEY say.

> But, GEE!!!  It would have been if there were acid set colours and better
> methods of distribution....

But there werent. and electric pink is not mandated by the Social Mores 
and Laws of the greater Society of which the SCA is a non-independant 
subset.
So adding them is trying to change things that dont HAVE to be changed
to participate. now if someone had some medical condition that only 
electric pink chemical dye can be tolerated by the skin, then I would forgive 
the anachronism. 
We all need flush toilets, showers, clean kitchens, HACCP compatible 
kitchen protocols, etc, so these change from history are justifyiable and 
necessary. Making outrageous changes to history which are not justifyable, 
just as a big joke is just plain disrespectful. Some intentional anachronisms 
are harmless jokes. Some are not. The ones that perpetuate themselves are
more offensive to me.  

> Here you are trying to use the flip side of the same coin.  We change the
> way things were to fit how we would like them to have been.  Reread those
> last 8 words.  They are the key here : "how we would like them to have
> been".  I am not saying that you are wrong - but your vision is wrong for
> *me*.

How? 
You seem to argue that it is a good thing to be more authentic in one breath, 
and then decry it as unfriendly, snobbish, and snarky then next.

Where do you really stand?

brandu