On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:46:47 -0800, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:52:54 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> arranged random neurons, so they looked like
>this:
>
>>Do you go to parties for the food or for the fun and camaraderie? Some of
>>the best parties I ever went to were real low budget affairs, and some of
>>the dullest were gourmet extravaganzas.
>
>The best parties/dinners I've ever attended or hosted were ones
>wherein the food was almost secondary. A really good party/dinner,
>IMHO, is one wherein the company is so sublime and compatible that the
>food, although appreciated and enjoyed, took second place to the
>company. That is, after all, the point of a party/dinner, no?

Aww, don't go all squishy on this. :-) Oddly, the best food seems to
go along with the best people. I mean (and some of my posts will come
back to haunt me) a glass of water and some potato chips in good
company are fine, but I'm reasonably sure I could get a lot(!) out of
a "gourmet extravaganza" no matter the company. There's always another
foodie around to discuss/criticize with.

Seems to me most interesting people are at least moderately interested
in good food. One may *go* for the company, but usually at least a
*little* anticipation of food figures into pleasurable expectation.
No, food *doesn't* automatically produce an enjoyable social
gathering, while interesting people usually do. I just can't think of
personal experience where one has been present and the other absent.