[Sca-cooks] What would you advise?

[Ted Eisenstein]

>You said she insisted on eating on board. That's her
>choice- if she can't eat anything, too bad. As we've
>mentioned in the last couple of days, other folk with
>far more extensive allergies have accomodated
>themselves- she can too.
I wouldn't go quite that far. Why not have at least
one dish she can eat available? It's not as if you
_have_ to put X into every dish at a feast. . . You
have a customer who's willing to pay you good money;
why not give in a little yourself?

>This is not courtesy, this is neurotic behavior.
>Courtesy goes both ways, it isn't supposed to be
>something where one person gives, and the other takes,
>and this is what this person is doing.
Exactly. So have a variety of dishes available for those
who have one-food allergies. . .

>Sure, there's nothing wrong with making a couple of
>onion-free dishes- you shouldn't have any particular
>ingredient in everything anyway. But that doesn't mean
>you need to encourage and support discourteous
>behaviors of this nature. And, a little bit at a time
>is how most addicts develop their stable of enablers.
Right.

(Of course, I wouldn't have the allergic person stand there
crying her eyes out about how mean everyone's treating
her, either. . . . That's over the edge. Calm, cool requests
are much preferable.)

Alban