Meat Ice creams

[donnad.livejournal.com]

There has been a lot of discussion going on over at this post. I was going to respond over there but figured it would just get lost in the shuffle.

I would like to try to clarify what I believe is Anns's complaint about meat ice creams. Ann correct me if I am wrong here.

Disclaimer: I am an omnivore, I eat meat. I do not like chicken liver at all therefore the thought of a chicken liver ice cream is a major squick for me. I have allergies to many other foods, many of them were made into ice creams this year, I actually had a run-in (so to speak) with one of those foods this year(mango if anyone is curious.)
I do not keep kosher.

So here is my take on this.

Say you have a table with several buckets of ice cream and one scoop and a bucket of rinse water.
First person, takes a scoop of the chicken liver ice cream, puts the scoop in the water, the water is now contaminated with chicken liver ice cream melt. Next person takes the scoop and scoops into the mango ice cream and puts the scoop back in the water. Mango ice cream is now contaminated with chicken liver water. Water is now contaminated with chicken liver and mango. Next one comes along, scoops into the chocolate ice cream, scoop goes back in the water, chocolate ice cream is now contaminated with the chicken liver and the mango. Water is now contaminated with chicken liver, mango and chocolate.

I come along, and I want vanilla. I take the scoop and proceed to contaminate the vanilla with chicken liver, mango and chocolate. Well, I am personally allergic to mango. I actually can't have the vanilla I want without having to deal with the contamination from the water of chicken liver, chocolate and mango melt. Thus I can't even have vanilla unless I use my own personal scoop, which BTW would be contaminated by anything else I may have dipped into prior to coming to the vanilla, thus contaminating the vaniila for someone else.

I think this is the issue at hand. How do we deal with stopping the cross contamination of dairy to non-dairy and meat to dairy/non-dairy?

Personally I think the meat ice creams are an interesting experiment and I don't want to discourage experimentation but... The situation could be easily remedied by a separation of them to a small table by themselves with their own scoops.

I think a separation of flavors based on type is a really a good idea for future Baitcons. The sorbets get a table, non-dairy/soy or coconut based on one table, the *hot* ice creams (like habanero) on another, the regular ice creams on one, and the meat on yet another. It would help to avoid cross contamination of dairy into meat, dairy into soy and other non-dairy flavors.



Now as for the other issue she raised. I too think that the person walking around with the torn t-shirt barely covering his privates was out of place, especially with so many young kids around. Call me a prude, but IMO, in the house area one should be a bit more modest. If it had been a speedo swim suit, it would have been fine. Or down at the stream, I wouldn't have blinked twice. But in the main common areas, where anyone could have driven in off the street he should have had a bit more modesty. I can only imagine what the owners of the property would have said/done had they decided to visit our little gathering and seen him.

Comments

[tamidon.livejournal.com]

about the nekkid people. since so many people are invoking"for the children's sake", I thought I'ld speak up. Personally I've never had a problem with my kids seeing nekkid people around, and it's been pretty clear to me that Baitcon has always been pretty laid back about nudity. All of a sudden getting upset because we have more kids around isn't really fair. All I've ever asked in the 10 years I've been bringing kids to baitcon is that people not engage in sexual behavior around the kids.How did this crowd get so prudish lately?

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

well, to be more fair, a number of the kids have run around nude too. nobody really seems to mind.

invoking the "for the kids" is wrong. very wrong.

invoking other rules (or mombait) without a cite to the written rules may be historical, but if it's not listed, one assumes reasonable behavior or standards. the ultimate standard are our nice hosts, who apparently didn't shut down anyone there.

what was invoked was a snark about a hairy ass. also not fair to the person, or us, or the hosts.

it wasn't about the prudishness at all.

#

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

weeellll, yes and no. There were more elegant ways to say "Um, while we don't have any hard and fast rules about nudity, there does seem to be some sort of social more as to what is appropriate for the space in front of the house, and not everyone seemed to be within it."

As I said in the other thread I'd always interpreted "clothing optional at the stream" to mean "not optional though rather permissive up by the house"

Invoking unwritten rules can be confusing; making specific rules also has its own problem.

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

to steal a thought from elsewhere, if the rule wasn't written down/stated, and it was someone's first or second baitcon, they have no history or reference to work with.

having actual naked people strolling around (say from the creek), or going to/from the portajohns, or standing around nearby changing clothes and then the fun modes of dress people were wearing or almost not wearing might influence one to improvise and/or wear less.

and really, rain or no rain, nudity is either okay in front of the house, or it's not.

#

[kimberlogic.livejournal.com]

I thought about making this a post on its own but I'm hoping it doesn't come to that.

Thank you, Joe, for noting that really, no one should be invoking rules or standards about Baitcon except for JB or myself. We have a hard-working group of 10-12 folks who help make the event happen each year and you'll note that none of them really wade into the "officially speaking for Baitcon" territory. Yes, there are guidelines and even a rules section on the info.html page of the website. And if we have to, that's where we'll outline more detailed rules/guidelines for next year.

However, as to the nudity issue at, er, hand, the general rule of thumb has *nothing* to do with MomBait. No nudity in view of the road was a requirement by the landlords and seems more than reasonable. The general rule of thumb beyond that is no naked making out in the house around others/kids and no sexually-driven activity while nude in the "common areas" of Baitcon such as the inside of the house and the gathering area in front of the house. These have been the guidelines for as long as I've been attending/helping run the show (Baitcon 5 or 6).

On a personal level, the one time I saw the t-shirt covering thing, I thought pure nudity would have been better.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Apologies...
Thanks for the further explanation.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

I replied below to perspecuity, but really I don't know where the "for the kids" comes from. I kinda repeated the "family space" mantra when conversation and suggested activities got a bit further afield. But it was my conversation.

I think people are struggling with explaining why a particular outfit seemed off to them at the house but wouldn't have felt that way at the stream.

The fellow wearing it has responded anonymously that he got the hint; I hope he's not come to the conclusion that his body shape has anything to do with it - I think even a g-string with attached fabric like he had would have been fine; the vague haphazardness of the outfit seems to have contributed to the discomfort some had with it.

[larksdream]

I think people are struggling with explaining why a particular outfit seemed off to them

Also, for the record, now that it IS clear that it was the white loincloth thing that people are referring to-- I remember it, but honestly didn't really look twice at it. My opinion is just my opinion, but I did want to offer the datapoint that not everyone found it "off", or even particularly noticeable.

But then, I'm not up on my fashion trends-- I just figured it was meant to be tribal or something. *g*

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

My response to the loincloth was "oh. A loincloth," and then I went back to whatever I as doing. A little out of place given what everyone else was wearing but my life experience is such that you'd have to be bouncing your bits in my face before you upset me.

Though non bouncing bits would still seem a little out of the general dress level in front of the house. *shrug*

I guess what I meant above was that some complaint was that the loincloth wasn't really doing its loinclothy job of clothing loins, and that a loincloth that did would probably not be so bothersome to those who were bothered.

[larksdream]

That last sentence made me grin. *G*

[donnad.livejournal.com]

The point is is that it wasn't a loin cloth, it was a dirty, torn, t-shirt wrapped around his waist that was doing little of what it was intended to do. If he had a proper loin cloth or a sarong like many of the other men were wearing, no one would have had a problem with it. A bath towel wrapped around his waist and covering his privates would have done a better job.

[quietann.livejournal.com]

The same fellow was wearing a thong around the house area the day before, and I didn't even notice.

[larksdream]

How did this crowd get so prudish lately?

IMVHO,

1. I don't think the crowd in general did / is.

2. My personal belief is that what is and is not acceptable is totally up to concom. They should pick a guideline and announce it loudly. Then people who had, uh, feedback, could approach a concom member about it at the time it was happening and let someone speaking ex cathedra handle it from there.

[dragonsea]

" Then people who had, uh, feedback, could approach a concom member about it at the time it was happening and let someone speaking ex cathedra handle it from there. "

Can I get an AMEN!?

Having a problem, doing nothing, and then bitchin' about it afterwards does not solve the problem. The fact that none of the people who are now complaining did anything at the time bugs me more than the outfit involved.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Hm. My assumption was that the thought process was "It bothers me, but not enough to make a todo over it, but there should be more clarity next year."

And you can tell by how much I've been participating in these threads that I've not been so good at getting useful stuff done at work today -- one wonders how much more I'd be posting if I actually really cared :)

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

more to the point, this comment (http://www.livejournal.com/community/baitcon/16365.html?thread=89069#t89069)

[dragonsea]

Maybe he wasn't aware that it wasn't doing its job? If no one told him it was a problem, how was he to know? My point remains that all these people are complaining too late (and to the wrong people) for anything to have been done at the time.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

That's true. "hey, dude, that shirt's no longer covering your bits" might have been a good thing.

I seem to be in a minority that I'll tell people their fly is open. It's all very odd.

[larksdream]

That's a minority?? Um... I'd MUCH rather hear something like that privately and subtly from a friend than find out upon finally going to the bathroom (or seeing a mirror) that my witty and charming conversation has for hours been accompanied by a gaping fly or a 4" stalk of broccoli in my teeth or a leech dangling off my nose and swaying gently in the breeze, or something... ;)

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

:laugh: Hell, I'll tell strangers in shopping malls.

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

"flag's at half mast dude"

"hey, cthuthlu, mirror check"

#

[larksdream]

"hey, cthuthlu, mirror check"

*SNERK* :D

[underwatercolor.livejournal.com]

Well said. :)

[candle-light.livejournal.com]

Indeed. My kid went naked at the stream and he's certainly used to seeing naked people.

I haven't seen that many people claiming no nudity at the main house "for the children's sake". I hope "the children" don't become an excuse for grown up peoples prudery.

[bridgetminerva.livejournal.com]

my biggest concern it that Aileen likes to piont at dangley things and pull on.. um.. things she aught not to. She doesn't seem to care about nekkid so much as look at the thing in the middle of all the dark hair.