[Sca-cooks] You know you're in the SCA when... (was Hard liquor in period recipes, was Adamantius pants)

[Bill Fisher]

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 15:48:34 GMT, rtanhil <rtanhil at fast.net> wrote:
> The following quoted reference is included only to
> illustrate a point I find amusing. I don't find it offensive
> in any way (and hope others don't either). I notice it most
> in the SCA, although I suppose that if I hung out in more
> academic circles I might notice it there, too.
> 
> As a group, we expect footnoted discussions.
> 
> "I read it in a book" is a common supporting argument, but
> lots of things are written in books, and not all of them are
> true. When reading a book for factual information, the first
> thing I turn to is the bibliography. If there isn't any, or
> if seems inadequate, I tend to regard the contents of a book
> with scepticism and tend to read mostly for broad ideas, if
> I read it at all. If the bibliography is extensive and
> includes a number of primary sources, I tend to read with
> more of an eye for details and try to remember the title and
> author, if nothing else, to be able to point to it later and
> say "I read it here."
> 
> I'm not trying to discourage this. We're all trying to make
> our game more real. We just need to remember not to take it
> personally.
> 
> Berelinde

Usually when I say I read it somewhere, it means I have.  Which
of the unknown number of books  I have read in 36 years (I haven't
been counting, really).   If someone produces documentation to the
contrary (lack of documentation isn't necessarily proof something 
didn't happen when you are dealing with a legend/lore situation)
then the onus is on my anus to produce my documentation.

Also, "I read it somewhere" is a call out to anyone else on the list
who may have read the same book within recent memory and has
it at hand, and can maybe cite it.

If I don't post a book title, I am speculating, but even if I have a 
book title, it just means I have a book.  It doesn't mean I was right.

Books can echo a commonly held belief in a time.  Take for instance
the modern diet.  How many books out there claim there are the
correct diet?  All of them.  Contradiction happens. 

A case for instance, how many period recipes document the addition
of salt to the recipe?  But in the same period we may find another book
documenting the addition of salt.   But both books are right.

Books are meant to insipre thought, not bludgeon it to death.

Yeah, I know I have deviated from the topic slightly, but I had some
thoughts I needed to get out.

Cadoc
(the low carb gingerbread man that should be soaked in whiskey before eating)
-- 

"The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it" -
                                    - William Gibson