[Sca-cooks] non-sweet Elizabethan dishes

[Phil Troy/ G. Tacitus Adamantius]

Also sprach Siegfried Heydrich:
>     Oddly enough, I am filled with no small degree of comfort in the fact
>that members of this culture have the degree of freedom to be such utterly
>pretentious snobs.

Okay, nuthin' ta see here, move along.

Seriously, I did think the view (or at least the expression thereof)
that non-meat-eaters need to be provided with demonstrably "main"
dishes to make them feel they are getting their money's worth is
mostly about the attitude of the person in question, and no more
sensible or silly than the people who bitch about not getting several
pounds of meat for their feast money.

I agree, it's probably the best deal for everybody if meatless dishes
can be incorporated into the main menu, rather than working too hard
on elaborate vegetarian dishes only a few people will eat, and if
there are enough of such dishes, nobody should feel underappreciated
or ignored. I think part of the relegation of vegetables as "side"
dishes is simply feeding into the idea that a main dish must contain
meat, and if it's not, it's a "side", which is not only a relatively
modern concept, but not even in keeping with ideas outside of a
relatively small part of the world, even now, allowing for exceptions
like feasts at Buddhist monasteries.

All that said, I submit, with respect, that the argument quoted
partially above may be a little emotionally charged, and more
emphatic than it needs to be to make its point (even though I agree
with some of it...). I would further suggest that we might get
farther into reasoned discussion if we tried to avoid this kind of
thing.

_OR_ I could talk about the New York Yankees, if we really wanted some venom...

Adamantius
--
"No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own mistakes
deserves to be called a scholar."
	-DONALD FOSTER