SC - Lady Seaton's Project

[david friedman]

At 11:16 AM +1100 3/16/00, Lady Gwynydd of Culloden wrote:
>Unto the gathered Cooks does Gwynydd send the following:
>
>I have been following this debate with fascination and actually find 
>myself wondering how to put my 2 cents worth in without offending 
>the purists.  Giving offense is not my intention, so I apologise 
>unreservedly should I do so.  That said, I feel that some of "us" 
>(particularly those with no alergies) are being a little arrogant on 
>this subject.
>
>At 2000-03-15 17:54:49.359001,
>david friedman (ddfr at best.com) wrote:
>  > it isn't very reasonable to restrict not only what you eat but 
>what > everyone else at the event eats as well, just so you can be 
>there.
>
>Ovbviously, this sort of situation is going to cause problems for 
>the Stewards of the event, but I do not feel that it is reasonable 
>to say to a person with _honest_ food complaints "you really 
>shouldn't come to an event because your presence will in some way 
>detract from the "periodisity" (and if it gets back to my Baron that 
>I used that word, heads will roll!) of the event."  For crying out 
>loud, we can only _try_ to be period at the best of times and, for 
>me at least, the Society is about inclusion not exclusion.

The issue has nothing to do with periodicity--which makes me suspect 
that you misread the thread. Perhaps you are confusing the part you 
quote with the earlier discussion of whether someone who is allergic 
to things should try to modify period recipes, or try to find period 
recipes that don't have the things he or she is allergic to.

The question I was discussing in the passage you quote above was 
whether, if someone is so allergic to fish that the small of fish 
makes her deathly ill, it is proper for her to come to an event and 
inform the cooks that they may not include fish in the feast--for 
anyone--because doing so would make her sick. (Of course, it doesn't 
have to be fish--but that happens to be the real world case). In my 
view, such behavior is inconsiderate in the extreme--dictating the 
menu for hundreds of people in order to make it tolerable for 
one--and the appropriate behavior would be for such a person (if any 
such exist) to stay out of the hall during the time the feast is 
being eaten.

>Again, I apologise if this posting offends anyone out there - I am 
>certainly not accusing any one person of arrogance!  I just feel 
>that we lose the FUN of the Society in the nit picking.

Are you arguing that it is proper for one person to dictate what 
everyone else can eat on the basis of her allergies--as in the 
example discussed? I would have said that that level of 
inconsiderateness--or attempted display of power, since the lady in 
question held a high office at the time--makes the Society less fun 
for everyone else.

David/Cariadoc
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/