"Frogleg" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>

In this bunch, food is key at a party. It doesn't have to be a gourmet
extravaganza, as you say. I've enjoyed some great parties where the menu
was pizza and beer, and not 'gor-may' pie either.

Jack Fiesta