SC - Adjustments, ethical or otherwise

[Catherine Deville]

niccolo difrancesco evaluted the previous conversation as follows:
<<It appears that there are two general viewpoint foci at odds in this
discussion as it has developed:  the needs/rights of the cooks and the
needs/rights of the diners.  This is the gae-old war waging in those who
cook for people and those people who eat what is cooked.

The latest discourse between Adamantius and Celia appears from my seat to
have the kernal of that conflict at root.  Adamantius seems to present the
idea that the cook is bound to attend the needs of his guests in any
decision made; there is a responsibility to those seated at atable.  Celia
appears to be taking the stance from closer to the cooks' primacy, that the
cook is the one making decisions, and is hindered by creative blocks such
as recipes and historical accuracy when trying to problem solve and improve
dishes.  These are generalities only, and the debate is far more complex
than all this.>>

Thank you for acknowledging the complexities of the discussion.  *Just* to
clarify my own position, this is not my stance at all.  My stance could
more clearly be stated as thus:  that the needs of the *whole* populace
superceed the needs of the individual *and* also that the culinary needs of
the populace, *for me*, supercede any desire to be letter perfect in my
recreation.  In analogy, I feel that the "spirit of the law" is more
important than the "letter of the law".  Therefore I feel that it is more
important to do what is necessary on site to have a *good feast* rather
than being slavishly bound to a planned process if circumstances require
adaption.  While the cook may benefit from this, both in ego and in
reputation, my motivation is more to please the populace as a whole than
for any self serving purpose.  I'm sorry that was unclear.

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