[Sca-cooks] Some very modern-sounding warnings about some very old food

[Laura C. Minnick]

Sorry I'm a bit behind folks, I'm dealing with some serious health fu, 
and mail time is a bit... erratic. I'll try to keep up.

That said...

Jim Chevalier, I would like to remind you that you are a guest here. I 
have no idea how or where you found this list, but you should reacquaint 
yourself with the name of the list: *SCA Cooks*. The list is not 
exclusive, but was formed primarily for the benefit of cooks in the SCA. 
And something about arts and service in the SCA is that we *SHARE*. We 
share our knowledge and experience, the share our sources, we share our 
research. We do it unbidden. We share before people even ask. It's one 
of the reason why a group started by a bunch of college students has 
lasted nearly 50 years. It's almost self propelled- and it happens 
because our joy is in researching, teaching, sharing. I've been on this 
list for 15 years, and have learned more than I could have imagined 
about food, preparation, feasting, and enjoyment of it all.

You have at times quoted sources. That was nice. But not always. We 
should not have to ask you for them, as you have indicated that you 
wanted. Assuming that everyone has the time (or even ability) to go 
through the archives to find your sources is not how we operate here. 
Posting the other day without citation and then saying you already gave 
the information to us- *in June* is not adequate. It shows at best an 
attitude of impatience, and it looks as though you are too important to 
deal with our community.

I think that if you were an SCA participant, knew more about how we 
interact with each other, and for that matter gave a damn about this 
chosen family, you would understand the unwritten subtext of how the 
community works. However, you've shown no inclination to do so, which is 
a bit mystifying. Why are you here?

You do appear to have knowledge of some of the texts. But you've not 
turned them into a meal, at least that we have seen, and apparently not 
for 300 people, from a small church basement kitchen, as many on this 
list have done. I have not seen that you have translated and made 
available entire texts. You've not posted anything about working over an 
open fire, or with period pots. What we do is much more than textual. We 
DO IT. We learn not just from reading medieval recipes, but from cooking 
them.

As I said, I don't know why you are here. I looked around, and you've 
done a lot of self-publishing, but no actual journal articles and such 
on medieval subjects. I have not seen in the sort of interest in the 
medieval world that we generally see in people on this list. I would 
appear that you came in thinking that we were uneducated bumpkins (oh, 
so not true) and that you would rescue us with your knowledge. Well, you 
have some knowledge. But a great many people here do too, and they share 
it unreservedly, without hesitation. That is what we are about.

I would encourage you to think about why you are here, about why you are 
lecturing us when you apparently don't care about the organization or 
about our community. Personally, I feel like you hold us with a degree 
of contempt. I also know of a number of others who feel that way. I 
would encourage you to think about why you need to behave in a manner 
that provokes this response.

In Service to my Order, my Crown and Kingdom, and to the Society, and 
the community here that I hold so dear,

Liutgard of Luxeuil, OL

On 2/11/2014 9:40 AM, JIMCHEVAL at aol.com wrote:
> Do you think it's "common courtesy" to tell another adult "you need to" as
> opposed to saying, for instance, "Typically here, we",. "it would be
> helpful if" or "It's standard practice here"?
>   
> It would be one thing if I had a long practice of posting unsourced  quotes
> or if I had never cited Pearson before. But neither is true. This was one
> post and I was very aware that anyone who really cared, if they did not
> recall my earlier citation, could simply Google her name with the key  phrase
> and find the work, instantly:
>   
> _https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22early+medieval+food%22+pierson&o
> q=%22early+medieval+food%22+pierson&gs_l=serp.3...8532.8842.0.9064.2.2.0.0.0
> .0.102.191.1j1.2.0....0...1c.1.35.serp..2.0.0.OSallfUQ4UA_
> (https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q="early+medieval+food"+pierson&oq="early+medieval+foo
> d"+pierson&gs_l=serp.3...8532.8842.0.9064.2.2.0.0.0.0.102.191.1j1.2.0....0..
> .1c.1.35.serp..2.0.0.OSallfUQ4UA)
>   
> _https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22early+medieval+food%22+pearson&o
> q=%22early+medieval+food%22+pearson&gs_l=serp.12...187014.187117.0.188341.2.
> 2.0.0.0.0.97.107.2.2.0....0...1c.1.35.serp..2.0.0.jv_8OXtikXs_
> (https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q="early+medieval+food"+pearson&oq="early+medieval
> +food"+pearson&gs_l=serp.12...187014.187117.0.188341.2.2.0.0.0.0.97.107.2.2.
> 0....0...1c.1.35.serp..2.0.0.jv_8OXtikXs)
>   
> Nothing in this one instance justified the sharp tone of not only the
> "request" for a source, but the whole post.
>
> If there are "unwritten"  rules around here or customary approaches, it
> certainly doesn't hurt to call  them to people's attention. But again, phrasing
> such reminders as peremptory  commands does not seem to me either courteous
> or appropriate.
>   
>   
> Jim  Chevallier
>   (http://www.chezjim.com/) www.chezjim.com
>
> Les Leftovers: sort of a food history  blog
> leslefts.blogspot.com
>
>   
> In a message dated 2/11/2014 8:49:02 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> dmyers at medievalcookery.com writes:
>
> I didn't  see it as an attempt to direct her peers so much as pointedly
> noting to you  something that is considered common courtesy  here.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sca-cooks mailing list
> Sca-cooks at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/sca-cooks-ansteorra.org
>


-- 
"It is our choices Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our 
abilities." -Albus Dumbledore ~~~Follow my Queenly perambulations at: 
http://slugcrossings.blogspot.com/