SC - Fw: [Trimaris] In my Princesses defense

[david friedman]

The information on the web page at:

http://www.sitepowerup.com/mb/view.asp?BoardID=113434

is considerably short of a rejection of period food.

What started the thread, however, was a quote from the Trimaran 
newsletter, which was somewhat stronger:

"While I am on the subject of food, let me address feast in general.  More
than anything, his Highness and I want our populace to be able to eat the
food that their populace has paid for.  So when we step up, we request that
all Feastcrats endeavor to stay away from all period feasts.  We do not mind
if some removes are of a period nature, however, we wish other removes of a
more easily digested by the majority-of-the-populace nature!  We understand
the reason that totally period feasts are cooked, but in some cases our
populace is paying the price for historical accuracy: and their
twentieth-century palates (and sometimes tummies) are unable to appreciate
the research and effort that went into cooking that particular time period."

There is an ambiguity in "all period feasts." At first glances it 
means all (period feasts), hence there should be no period feasts. 
But the rest of the post makes it sound as though it means (all 
period) feasts--i.e. feasts that are entirely period.

In any case, the statement clearly implies the belief that period 
food is hard to digest and tastes bad. But it  does not say that 
their hignesses are absolutely opposed to their being any period food 
at feasts during their reign. The material on the web page does imply 
(in the stated preferences) that strikingly out of period food is a 
good thing if it happens to fit their highnesses tastes.

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