Salut/Hi Dale Williams,

You put your finger here on quite a knotty problem of etiquette, it seems
to me.

le/on 06 Oct 2003 13:25:24 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>My one experience with the '86 G-L was a disaster, but it wasn't the wine's
>fault. As someone coming to a dinner party was a pesce-vegetarian, the host
>served sole.

I wonder how many at the dinner don't normally refuse meat.

Imagine a community where the only diet was fish and vegetables. If you had
someone to dinner who didn't eat fish, would everyone else be expected to
do without too?

When is it right for the dietary preferences (I'm not talking about medical
needs, or allergies for the moment) of one person to limit the diets of 3
others? 7 others? 11 others?

I know that political correctness would have us (the meat eating majority)
do without meat for the sake of the person who doesn't! However as someone
who is politically _incorrect_ out of a matter of principle, but
nevertheless seeks to be a good host, I find this a genuine dilemma! For
example, I cannot abide swedes (rutabaga) and yoghurt. But if I were
invited I'd _really_ not expect a host not to serve them on my account (ok,
the analogy is bad, as I (can eat cooked yog and swede is rarely _central_
to a dish so I can push it to one side, or ask to be excused it).

Not eating meat is often a matter of principle. But if you think about it,
so what? Are they right? In which case why are WE continuing to live a
lifestyle we know to be wrong? If they aren't right, why should we expect
the erroneous whims (fighting talk, I know) of ONE person, to impose on the
majority. Is this not a logically fallacious way of behaving?

This is probably all off topic anyway.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare

Sometimes oi just sits and thinks
Sometimes oi just sits.