4 ms·

> If feeding a group, particularly vegetarians, DON'T go for a "use everything" strategy. Mind fleshing out that idea a bit more? I don't entirely understand w

> If feeding a group, particularly vegetarians, DON'T go for a "use everything" strategy. Mind fleshing out that idea a bit more? I don't entirely understand what you're getting at, given that most people don't try to include as many ingredients in a dish as possible just for the sake thereof.

ergothus 11y ago
> given that most people don't try to include as many ingredients in a dish as possible just for the sake thereof You would think so, but my experience says differently when it comes to being a vegetarian. Take an random "average" (i.e. off the top of my head) US meal: some sort of noodles with a beef-based sauce, green beans, and biscuits. But the green beans have ham in them, and the biscuits are made with lard (I spent some time in the South, where ham is a seasoning and not a meat, it shows). You'd think "well, gee, if we just make the green beans w/o ham, and the biscuits without lard, we can serve portobello mushrooms or a second vegetable or a vegetarian sauce on the noodles and the vegetarians will be happy!". And for me, at least, you'd be right, and I suspect in general. But instead, what happens is that they make a second, distinct meal, into which they throw as many vegetarian things as they can find. Say, green peppers stuffed with quinoa, tomatoes, and artichoke bits. Or a kale salad with cooked eggplant and red peppers. etc. When they order pizza, they get pepperoni for the meat eaters, but they get the olive/green pepper/onion/spinach/tomato chunks/mushroom for the vegetarians. Why not just cheese? The cheese pizza almost always runs out at gatherings I've been at that were lucky enough to have it as an option. (Note: I'm not addressing the vegans here, because I'm not a vegan so I have no real experience, and it's much harder to do "like the meat eater version, but vegan") Okay, "as many vegetarian things as they can find" is hyperbole. But I'm faced with, instead of getting the same thing the meat eaters get, minus meat, is a conglomeration of things, at least one of which I'm likely not to like. I think it's because people think simple vegetable options are "boring", and they need to spice it up. (and rather than use actual spices to do so, they try for variety in the same dish) That's my theory, anyway. Hope that addressed your question...I sort of rant-vented a bit. I'll also add that I don't generally expect people to accommodate my desires, I just find it sad when they try and mess it up.
- always_good 11y ago
  Yikes. If it's so hard for hosts to please you despite their efforts, then maybe you should start bringing your own dish to the dinner.
  - ergothus 11y ago
    as I said, I don't expect people to accommodate my needs - but I feel bad when they try and fail. And I'm talking about needs in generals, not just mine. If you serve a dish with 10 things in it, it's much more likely than more people will dislike it than if you serve a dish with 1 thing in it (thus why pepperoni pizza is popular as a party item, vs a Supreme pizza). I only mentioned it because it seems to be a poorly understood truth when it comes to vegetarians. (as in, people know not to get overly complex meat dishes, but somehow think the opposite when it comes to non-meat dishes)
    - sithadmin 11y ago
      Thanks for explaining your feelings on the matter. I think I understand your point of view now. I think you might just happen to be a more 'picky' eater than the friends and associates I cook for and with, excepting the vegans, perhaps.
    - Drdrdrq 11y ago
      I agree with you. I think most people think that more ingredients the dish has, the better it must be - while it is usually the opposite. Maybe it gets down to how sensitive one's taste is?
      - jacobolus 11y ago
        Different food cultures have different preferences. For instance, in some parts of China, the dishes are mainly 1–2 ingredients each, and a meal has many dishes. Other places prefer big stews with everything mixed together. Neither is inherently “better” than the other.
    - jacobolus 11y ago

ergothus 11y ago

> given that most people don't try to include as many ingredients in a dish as possible just for the sake thereof You would think so, but my experience says differently when it comes to being a vegetarian. Take an random "average" (i.e. off the top of my head) US meal: some sort of noodles with a beef-based sauce, green beans, and biscuits. But the green beans have ham in them, and the biscuits are made with lard (I spent some time in the South, where ham is a seasoning and not a meat, it shows). You'd think "well, gee, if we just make the green beans w/o ham, and the biscuits without lard, we can serve portobello mushrooms or a second vegetable or a vegetarian sauce on the noodles and the vegetarians will be happy!". And for me, at least, you'd be right, and I suspect in general. But instead, what happens is that they make a second, distinct meal, into which they throw as many vegetarian things as they can find. Say, green peppers stuffed with quinoa, tomatoes, and artichoke bits. Or a kale salad with cooked eggplant and red peppers. etc. When they order pizza, they get pepperoni for the meat eaters, but they get the olive/green pepper/onion/spinach/tomato chunks/mushroom for the vegetarians. Why not just cheese? The cheese pizza almost always runs out at gatherings I've been at that were lucky enough to have it as an option. (Note: I'm not addressing the vegans here, because I'm not a vegan so I have no real experience, and it's much harder to do "like the meat eater version, but vegan") Okay, "as many vegetarian things as they can find" is hyperbole. But I'm faced with, instead of getting the same thing the meat eaters get, minus meat, is a conglomeration of things, at least one of which I'm likely not to like. I think it's because people think simple vegetable options are "boring", and they need to spice it up. (and rather than use actual spices to do so, they try for variety in the same dish) That's my theory, anyway. Hope that addressed your question...I sort of rant-vented a bit. I'll also add that I don't generally expect people to accommodate my desires, I just find it sad when they try and mess it up.

always_good 11y ago
Yikes. If it's so hard for hosts to please you despite their efforts, then maybe you should start bringing your own dish to the dinner.
- ergothus 11y ago
  as I said, I don't expect people to accommodate my needs - but I feel bad when they try and fail. And I'm talking about needs in generals, not just mine. If you serve a dish with 10 things in it, it's much more likely than more people will dislike it than if you serve a dish with 1 thing in it (thus why pepperoni pizza is popular as a party item, vs a Supreme pizza). I only mentioned it because it seems to be a poorly understood truth when it comes to vegetarians. (as in, people know not to get overly complex meat dishes, but somehow think the opposite when it comes to non-meat dishes)
  - sithadmin 11y ago
    Thanks for explaining your feelings on the matter. I think I understand your point of view now. I think you might just happen to be a more 'picky' eater than the friends and associates I cook for and with, excepting the vegans, perhaps.
  - Drdrdrq 11y ago
    I agree with you. I think most people think that more ingredients the dish has, the better it must be - while it is usually the opposite. Maybe it gets down to how sensitive one's taste is?
    - jacobolus 11y ago
      Different food cultures have different preferences. For instance, in some parts of China, the dishes are mainly 1–2 ingredients each, and a meal has many dishes. Other places prefer big stews with everything mixed together. Neither is inherently “better” than the other.
  - jacobolus 11y ago