[Sca-cooks] Honey-Roasted Beets

[Phil Troy / G. Tacitus Adamantius]

On Sep 4, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Tom Vincent wrote:

> As I said, I'm not interested in arguing with you nor am I  
> interested in
> having people write lies about me, so I will simply state my position.
>
> 1.  If I had found the recipe in a Med/Renn document, I certainly  
> would
> have provided it.  I very much enjoy researching and redacting period
> recipes.  I also enjoy recipes that are 'Medievalish':  Clearly filled
> with period ingredients openly available and even with aspects easily
> found in period recipes but without direct documentation.  If a person
> is in a SCA region that requires period documentation for all feast
> dishes, the recipe I shared clearly would not do.  Not all regions
> require that.  Some people may feel comfortable with the recipe, some
> may not.  Your Mileage May Vary applies.

And as I said, at least twice now, there's nothing at all wrong with  
the recipe, and I don't recall suggesting there was. Implying, or  
creating a situation where it could be inferred, that the recipe was  
somehow more appropriate for feasts than some of the period recipes,  
was perhaps not the best move.

> 2.  I'm *demanding* that you NOT attribute words to me that I did not
> say.  I have said NOTHING like what you claimed nor have I been
> 'testing' or 'tricking' anyone.  I'm quite comfortable with my  
> knowledge
> of Medieval, Renaissance, Colonial & Early Republic cooking, music &
> dance and have no interest in trying to fool anyone.  I specifically
> asked you NOT to take a phrase out of context and you pretty much did
> -precisely- that.

Go back and read the thread about reducing fat and sodium in period  
recipes, please. You asked for opinions on the subject, and almost  
everyone who responded gave you a polite and reasoned response. A  
very few were going for a tone of humorous vehemence. It sure looked  
to me like the discussion very soon thereafter changed to Why All  
Those People Were Wrong, and how you were only trying to defend your  
positions, even though nobody was attacking them.

Here -- Let's go to the videotape:

> On the other hand, it does seem like you've frequently posted
> statements or questions inviting comment, and immediately responded
> to those comments with the equivalent of, "Well, that's where you're
> wrong, me bucko..." Like it's some sort of test and we all flubbed
> the trick question.

Note that most of the above are qualified statements -- "seem like",  
"equivalent of", "like it's some sort of test". I'm sorry, but this  
my opinion based on the available evidence. I don't pretend to know  
your inner thought processes, but it looks to me as I've described  
it, and I suspect it looks that way to some others, too. I won't ask  
for a show of hands. If you want one, feel free to ask people.

> 3.  I am not in any way calling for the elimination of
> non-period/non-SCA food-talk.

Nobody said you were; I was merely explaining the marshmallow thread,  
and pointing out that when you've been on this list a while, this  
type of thing does occasionally crop up.

> It isn't my right, my place, my intent,
> my interest.  I respect the right of people to discuss whatever they
> feel interested in or motivated by.  I simply suggested that if the
> recipe I shared isn't your cup of tea, simply ignore it or delete it.

Maybe if I try it in capitals? Underlined? For what seems like the  
fifty-third time, I have no complaint whatsoever about the roasted  
beet recipe itself, only a suggestion that the introductory clause --  
since it seems like* there aren't very many beet recipes that would  
be suitable for a feast [paraphrased from memory] -- was perhaps not  
the best or the most academically responsible. I even suggested a  
somewhat different method of bringing up the recipe.

		(*Another qualified statement. See? You understand them just fine.  
I won't even call you a liar.)

> 4.  I have absolutely no way of knowing what people are interested in,
> let alone what they are *more* interested in, but I strongly suspect
> that period recipes are of more interest than Medievalish ones.

Yes.

> 5.  I enjoy putting related Med/Renn recipes today.  I know that the
> surviving recipes only represent the tip of the iceberg in terms of
> actual Med/Renn recipes.  A period veal custard pie with currants &
> raisins and a period chicken & fruit pie strongly implies, to me, the
> existence of a fruit & chicken custard pie.  Maybe that's just me.   
> Your
> Mileage May Vary.

It doesn't vary. There's a very good chance of it, and a quick look  
through some books will turn one up pretty quickly, in fact. But this  
is not about what's good and what's bad, it's about what's good and  
what could be even better, and taking a close look at what we know,  
and can prove, was done, is a really good tool in figuring out what  
people might have done.

> Now, combining English, German, Italian & Arab recipes should count  
> for
> *something*. :)  Anyway, the beet recipe wasn't exactly earth- 
> shattering
> in its ingredients or combination.  Not even close.  It wasn't like I
> was suggesting Medieval burgers & fries.

No, I agree, it wasn't. What it was like was you suggesting that a  
particular modern recipe was somehow more appropriate than a period  
one, with no real explanation. I don't know if that was your  
intention, but I believe it came across that way to more than one  
person who mentioned having that impression, and you still don't seem  
to feel sufficiently concerned about that to address the point or  
disabuse anyone of the notion.

> So, since others can go on for days about marshmallows,
> angioplasty-requiring fried monstrosities or whatever with no
> complaints, I posted a healthy recipe with very clear Medieval  
> roots and
> get challenged.

Maybe if I sing it? You didn't get challenged on the recipe. It was  
suggested, for the most part quite respectfully, that there are, in  
fact, plenty of beet recipes that work well at feasts. You had pretty  
much stated there weren't, and gave no explanation. That is what was  
challenged. Maybe this little introductory statement was just  
something you came up with that you didn't expect people to take  
seriously, until the actual recipe came up on the git-tar? Maybe this  
little snippet is being blown out of proportion, but nobody had any  
way of knowing that at the time, except you.

Incidentally, I had wondered about this but didn't think it was a big  
deal at the time -- what are the clear medieval roots?

> 'WTF' gets a screechy reaction, but the actual F word
> posted a day later is met with crickets.  Go figure.

What can I say? Netspeak is based on a certain amount of vulgarity,  
and some people are bothered by it more than others.

> I saw enough 'Medievalism' in the beet recipe that I felt comfortable
> sharing it and see enough Medievalism in it that I would feel
> comfortable preparing it for a feast.  It had been sent to me and I
> found it interesting, appealing & applicable, so I shared it.  Again,
> Your Mileage May Vary.

And if that's all you had done, as I said before, I don't think  
anyone would have had a problem with it.

Adamantius