SC - Honey (& other) butters

[lilinah@earthlink.net]

- --- margali <margali at 99main.com> wrote:
> But the autocrat is technically the host. They
> arranged for the site,
> they arranged for there to be food by choosing a
> kitchener, and they are
> responsible if anything goes wrong at the event.

I understand Master Adamantius' desire to be the
quintessential host.  The concept is not lost on me,
to be sure.  However; I have to wonder where the
dividing line is between being a good host, and being
a good guest, and whether one should take precedence
or priority over the other.  Consider:  The host
(cook) is certainly responsible for informing his
guests of any potentially hazardous ingredients in his
food.  At this point, all other things being equal, it
seems that the responsibility or decision to eat (or
not) should then pass on to the guest.  The diners
have been informed of the ingredients, they know their
own allergies or psychological addictions.  Is it not
up to them to make the final call?  And, should a cook
truly concern himself with putting alcohol in his food
simply because there is a (comparitively) small
segment of the population who would have a problem
with it?  That is my question.  Should the cook be
"concerned"?  It is my belief that the cook is
responsible, above all else, for putting delicious,
well prepared meals in front of his audience.  If the
recipe calls for wine or rum, and the cook omits it
for fear of sending one guest on a three day bender...
well, you get my point.  That guest should know
better.  And certainly DOES know his allergies or
limitations better than the cook.

Every subjects duty is the Cooks, but every subjects
Soul is his own...or something like that.

Balthazar of Blackmoor

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/