SC - questions/kinda long, sorry

[Phil Anderson]

Ras writes:

> << Someone had come online to ask about running a first feast or some
> such, and was immediately jumped for not using totally period recipes 
>   >>
> 
> This statement is totally without foundation.

While you are correct, my good sir, may I suggest that in such 
cases it's wise to cite your sources, which helps avoid an "Is to!" "Is 
not!" "Is!" "Isn't!" exchange.

Near the top of Digest 2355 (June 11), Mercedes asked a bunch of 
questions, including "What makes a 14th/15th century feast a feast? 
 Is it recipe's drawn specifically from that era?  Must it be from only 
one country or from several unless otherwise specified?"

Further down the same digest, Anne Marie answered this with 
"SOme groups tend towards "nothing blatently out of period" menus, 
with a running theme only as far as what folks dress in, etc. Some 
groups tends towrads every recipe coming out of a specific body of 
work and everything...food, service, entertainments, etc all 
matching. SOme groups couldnt care less and just provide tasty 
modern food to feed the masses so they can go do other things. 
Nothing is wrong with ANY of these, you need to decide what YOU 
want and what would make your branch
happy."

Ras took exception to the bit about "Nothing is wrong with ANY of 
these" (in Digest 2362, June 13) in mostly not particularly strong 
terms, and offered help, presumably to the original poster (since 
Anne-Marie would not need) it: "If you need suggestions on simple 
periodlike menu suggestions or need help in finding, redacting or 
interpreting period style food for your feasts don't hesitate to contact 
me."

So:
* the newcomer was never jumped on about anything, and was 
in fact offered help
* the issue was not "not using totally period recipes" but "not using 
blatantly modern recipes"

Always fascinating how history gets rewritten...

Edward Long-hair
Southron Gaard, Caid