SC - Adjustments, ethical or otherwise

[Catherine Deville]

I said:
> > again, by saying "if added in consideration of the people that have
made
> > known health issues, um, known" you're back to what I said
originally... it
> > is the responsibility of anyone with an allergy, dietary restriction or
> > food sensitivity to advise the feastcrat if it's an issue and it's the
> > responsibility of the feastcrat to make the populace aware of the
*final*
> > (*accurate*) ingredients if s/he has folks with concerns.  how you do
that
> > is up to you.  I think that posting the ingredients and making sure
that
> > folks know that they are posted and where is probably the

and Adamantius replied:
> The what? The best solution? I agree. Why, exactly, are we having this
discussion?

to the first question, yes... didn't I type that?  apologies if I dropped
someone, but I'm agreeing with you on this point.  can't we discuss when we
agree as well as when we disagree?  again, I'm confused.

i don't always disagree with a whole line of argument.  sometimes i just
disagree with points (sometimes nit-picky little points).  i'm just trying
to outline *where* i agree and disagree, and the difference is primarily
semantic.


Adamantius:
> > > 3. Wild cards. It needs a dash of peanut butter. Yeah, that would
> > > work... . Nobody mentioned a peanut allergy to me, so it's not my
fault.
> > > Except such a person may have read the posted ingredients and
determined
> > > there was no need to discuss this with the cooks. As the name
suggests,
> > > this could range in effect from saving the dish to the death of a
> > consumer.

me:
> > I still think that if you make sure that your final list is accurate
then
> > it shouldn't matter exactly *what* you add.... of course, I would be as
> > unlikely to commit to exact ingredients prior to a feast as I would be
to
> > make most of my foods with the same or similar ingredients so that
someone
> > who had a problem with x ingredient couldn't eat *anything*  (for a
*feast*
> > , that is... at home I might make a themed dinner with similar
ingredients,
> > but I'm fully informed of my family's tastes and dietary
considerations.)

Adamantius:
> Cool. One could argue as a possibility (the fact that it is also my
> opinion isn't what I'm on about just now) that it is _better_, when
> adding last-minute adjustments or seasonings, to add something that is
> vaguely related to the environment and cuisine of the dish you're trying
> to prepare, rather than simply saying you can add anything you want as
> long as it's posted.

hmmm... that sounds reasonable to me.  that's going to stay truer to the
original plan, which is always (IMO) a good thing.

>That may be so, but it's not an ideal solution. It
> may be that a dash of Worcestershire sauce is just what is needed to
> bring out the flavor of the cuminade de poissons. I won't add it; I'm
> trying to prepare something resembling medieval food. It ought to be
> perfectly possible to use a slightly different proportion of the
> specified ingredients to achieve the desired effect.

o.k... that also sounds reasonable...

> Failing that, if I
> do have to add something in an emergency, my preference is to use
> something that would have been found in a medieval kitchen, something
> that doesn't aggravate any known health or other dietary issues, or any
> anticipated ones. This is an informed risk, perhaps, but, I think, more
> conservative than simply adding anything and adding it to the list. This
> is a solution that, to me, is preferable over others, and that doesn't
> mean a cook is never forced to do otherwise.

and I would tend to agree with that as well.  perhaps I'm communicating
poorly, but I'm not advocating "country cupboard cooking" at a feast
(although I've had to resort to it... but even when I did I tried to work
with what was on hand, which was *supposed* to be what would have been
available in a medieval kitchen in the first place.)

what I was having problems with is the idea that you can't change anything
because there's no way to notify folks or the idea that you can't change
things because you've got to follow the redaction to the letter.  of
course, i'm sure that some people will always believe that is the only
right way to do it and will shake your head in disapproval anytime that a
cook strays, I'm just expressing a different POV.   (I'm sometimes bad
about playing Devil's Advocate as well.

I said:
> > All I'm really saying is that a good cook, and by extension a good
> > feastcrat, must always be prepared for such inevitablities... and must
> > handle them *responsibly*.  And, IMO, the responsible way to handle it
is
> > by using good communication, not by suppressing creativity.

and Adamantious replied:
> I don't know what to say to this, except that I have nothing against
> good communications, allegations of emotionally charged language
> notwithstanding, and that the suggestions I've outlined aren't
> indicative of any lack or suppression of creativity. I think most who
> know me and my work would say the opposite is the case. Easy solutions
> aren't always the best solutions.

o.k... now it's my turn... sheesh!  lighten up!  I wasn't making
allegations, just observations and the reply, while addressing your points,
was not intended to say that you *do* have anything against creativity.  I
was simply trying to point out, in a general way, using rebuttals to your
statements as examples leading to a conclusion, is that sometimes you don't
have much choice in your solutions, and you have to work with what you
have.

unfortunatly, mi'Lord... I think that in many ways we're coming from such
different directions that we're almost speaking a different language, and
as a result, I think we're actually having a different discussion on our
respective sides.  I really don't disagree that your ideas a good way to do
things... I'm simply pointing out that it's not the *only* good way to do
things.

and since I'm not sure how to clear it up without offering offense again...
I'm going to give up.  at least for now.

I remain, in service to Meridies,
Lady Celia des L'archier