No drinking under any circumstances?

whippet

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

How can you call my taste preference 'Utter BS', pff.
Cheap local store wine tastes like crap to me, have to spit it out.
When I went to a winebar in dublin, the wine was lovely.

right .. so if the same bottle of wine was being sold in your local spar for 7 quid and a dimly lit wine bar in and around baggot street was pimping it for 40 quid it would taste nicer?

If you really believe that all wine at a certian price tastes crap while all wine at a different price point tastes nicer .. you really don't know your wine and what makes a good wine.

Do when someone says your own admitted wine snobbery is BS I would tend to believe them over someone who thinks the numbers on a price tag affect the quality of the wine in a bottle.

Tar.Aldarion

Yeah it is wine snobbery. Rollyeyes. I am going by evidence of taste. I like buckfast and whtaever wine I drank that happened to be expensive. That's it. It doesn't mean that all expensive wine is nice. It does not mean expensive wine is nicer because of the price tag. Cheap wine tastes crap, and as most of my experience is with cheap wine, I have tasted most kinds around that I have seen.

rubadub

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I'm just going by what the word means in the dictionary, not being very pedantic really.

I mean pedantic in the sense that in saying "strict" I think most people know exactly what is inferred, I could have said "real" vegetarian. It infers that people are fully committed to it, and are vegetarians as in the dicitionary. The term is used very loosely, I know people who eat fish yet call themselves vegetarians.

I don't think anybody says they are not real catholics.

I know a person that would.

I know vegans who will not cook in a pan if it was ever used to cook meat, even though it is clean there might be minute trace amounts, just like there might be minute trace amounts of fish in some beers.

Tar.Aldarion

rubadub wrote:

I mean pedantic in the sense that in saying "strict" I think most people know exactly what is inferred, I could have said "real" vegetarian. It infers that people are fully committed to it, and are vegetarians as in the dicitionary.

Most people I have talked to it about inferred that it meant that only strict vegetarians don't eat products that use animal products and others don't and are just normal vegetarians. Annoyed some people.

The term is used very loosely, I know people who eat fish yet call themselves vegetarians.

I know of people that eat chicken that call themselves vegetarians, and people that are vegetarian that don't call themselves vegetarians, they are all wrong! *stamps feet*
Loads of people use terms incorrectly because they do not know their meaning fully, doesn't mean it should be accepted, but you can call me your majesty if you like.

I know a person that would.

With what argument?

I know vegans who will not cook in a pan if it was ever used to cook meat, even though it is clean there might be minute trace amounts, just like there might be minute trace amounts of fish in some beers.

The difference in those two things is that not doing one is taking a stance against the use of animal products.

microgirl

On the "strict" vs, um, less-strict vegetarian thing (which is so beyond off-topic for the thread, but how-and-ever ) - I recently started going out with a vegetarian lad, and it's been such a huge eye-opener for me. Took me quite a while to get my head round it, because my previous experience had clearly been with "non-strict" vegetarians. I have several friends that would consider themselves vegetarian, and who most other people would consider vegetarian too, but who, for instance, will happily eat a ham-and-cheese sandwich that had the ham taken out of it, or will eat parmesan cheese. What vegetarian means to them is purely not consuming the dead flesh of formerly-living creatures. They never think twice about the alcohol they're drinking or the cheese they're eating (and they certainly aren't going to worry about refined sugar - ground bone is one method used to refine sugar, for those not aware of this) and I've even known some who will eat around the chicken in a pasta salad, or finish off my noodles in Wagamama's once I've eaten the 6 big, battered prawns that were on the top. All of them (well, I know about 3 or 4) would define and identify themselves as vegetarian.

That was my experience of it, other that proper vegans, who are a whole different thing. So being presented with someone for whom removing the ham from a (dry) cheese and ham sandwich, or taking the (dry) pieces of chicken breast out of the lettuce and tomato and cucumber salad isn't acceptable, or not eating what is meant to be the vegetarian option in a restaurant because it doesn't actually have a V sign, so all it might be is a non-meat option, and they can't stand over the source of their ingredients was a massive re-adjustment.

I think that's what people have meant when talking about "strict" vegetarians. Of the 5+ veggies I know, only one could be called strict, when those criteria and facts come into the open

whippet

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Cheap wine tastes crap,

no it does not, bad wine tastes crap.

Take for instance the Nederburg wines that are now widely available in ireland .. you can pick up a bottle for a few quid in a maxol station but the Nederburg wines are some of South Africa's finest wines. They are cheap to buy as SA is a cheap country and their marketing strategy is to get saturation as opposed to exclusivity.

It costs about one or two euro a liter to produce wine so everything else is profit.

Tar.Aldarion

whippet wrote:

no it does not, bad wine tastes crap.

Take for instance the Nederburg wines that are now widely available in ireland .. you can pick up a bottle for a few quid in a maxol station but the Nederburg wines are some of South Africa's finest wines. They are cheap to buy as SA is a cheap country and their marketing strategy is to get saturation as opposed to exclusivity.

It costs about one or two euro a liter to produce wine so everything else is profit.

Well, I suppose I am using cheap to equate to bad.
If I don't like cheap chocolate, and it is only cheap because of the country it comes from, I still think cheap chocolate is crap. If i have tried most cheap chocolates and I don't like them, I can call cheap chocolate crap. I don't like it. Saying bad chocolate is crap is a bit pointless(duh), but from observation I can say that cheap chocolate is crap.

oleras

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

How can you call my taste preference 'Utter BS', pff.

Where did i do that ?

What i called utter BS was your sweeping statement that only very expensive wine is nice, from that statement it just shows an ignorance to wine. Then again, you state you like buckfast. Cheers !!

Tar.Aldarion

oleras wrote:

Where did i do that ?

What i called utter BS was your sweeping statement that only very expensive wine is nice, from that statement it just shows an ignorance to wine. Then again, you state you like buckfast. Cheers !!

Yes, only expensive wine is nice, to me. So yes, you did exactly that.
What do people always mean with ignorance to wine? So many people are snobby when it comes to wine, 'ingorance to wine', what makes a good wine is it's taste, nothing more! How can somebody be ignorant to wine?
As for buckfast, I think some sort of god made it.

oleras

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

So many people are snobby when it comes to wine, .

............ From the person who claimed only expensive wine tastes nice..... :rolleyes:

Tar.Aldarion

Yes, what I said makes sense, it is not snobby to like wine that happens t be expensive and not like wine that happens to be cheap. It's a taste preference.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snobby !

whippet

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Yes, what I said makes sense, it is not snobby to like wine that happens t be expensive and not like wine that happens to be cheap. It's a taste preference.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snobby !

From the dictionart reference I would say that this does apply to yourself:

"2. One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect. "

Your assertion that the price tag on a bottle of wine is what constitutes the quality or taste to me suggests that you have some sense of superiority in matters of taste over those who purely select wines based on actual taste rather than your percieved taste due to the retail pricing structure.



The fact is that you said that 'cheap' wine is horrible while 'expensive' wine is nice. That is wrong. Price has no bearing on the taste or quality of wine. The opposite may apply but not always.

Taste is an individual preference and what you are trying to imply that wine sold in a convenience store is inferior to that which is sold in a seemingly upmarket enviorment, while more than likely both estabilishments were selling some of the same produce.

You made a sweeping statement and now you are trying to justify it with not much luck. As for the analogy with the chocolates, that is just a smokescreen, Lindt 85% Cocoa chocolate is quality and very tasty but a mars bar is also quite tasty .. and a hell of a lot cheaper!!!

Tar.Aldarion

whippet wrote:

From the dictionart reference I would say that this does apply to yourself:

"2. One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect. "

Your assertion that the price tag on a bottle of wine is what constitutes the quality or taste to me suggests that you have some sense of superiority in matters of taste over those who purely select wines based on actual taste rather than your percieved taste due to the retail pricing structure.

Oh great, you are still ignoring that I said that is not what I meant, even after how many posts. ' the price tag on a bottle of wine is what constitutes the quality or taste' never said that, said the only thing that determins good wine is the taste, not the price and if expensive wine happens to be nice to me and cheap isn't, then that's taste preference, not No. 2 of the list of dictionary.com.
And oh, yes, as a student, I clearly want expensive wine to be nice and cheap horrible, yeah, fire away with your random accusations.


[/quote]
The fact is that you said that 'cheap' wine is horrible while 'expensive' wine is nice. That is wrong.[/quote]
No, that is subjective.

Price has no bearing on the taste or quality of wine. The opposite may apply but not always.

So you say that the taste or quality of wine can have a bearing on price but Price has no bearing on the taste or quality of wine, how does that make sense?
If I like a bottle of wine that costs 600e and not one for seven, I may be a snob you say. Oh and if I hate all cheap wines I have tried over the years, oh, definitely a snob, no two ways about it...

Taste is an individual preference and what you are trying to imply that wine sold in a convenience store is inferior to that which is sold in a seemingly upmarket enviorment, while more than likely both estabilishments were selling some of the same produce.

I see Chateau Lafite Rothschild in spar all the time!
Expensive wine certainly doesn't automatically taste more palatable, it just happens that all the wine I have had that is cheap, has been horrible.
I am not trying to imply what you say, you are inferring that for no reason, and are trying to say I implied it. If I taste a crap wine from spar and one from a fancy place, and they are the same. They are most likely both terrible.
I don't care about the price, and would prefer to have cheap wine taste nicer.

You made a sweeping statement and now you are trying to justify it with not much luck.

A sweeping statement is absolutely true. Why woiuld I care if it was true for your tastes?
Justify my taste without much luck, pull the other one.

As for the analogy with the chocolates, that is just a smokescreen, Lindt 85% Cocoa chocolate is quality and very tasty but a mars bar is also quite tasty .. and a hell of a lot cheaper!!!

This paragraph makes no sense from what I was talking about.
You like both, If I happen to like the more expensive chocolate and not the cheap(which is the case for my gf), you call me a snob. 'Oh, he must like it just because it is expensive!'
You also claim that if I don't like a mars bar in a spar, but it is served to me in a fancy restaurant or somewhere I would clearly like it due to the price. Nonsense, gotta love baseless assumptions.

http://www.slate.com/id/2093337/

whippet

Right ... yeah, but no but .... eehh ...

I am totally lost now !!

You did say that you didn't like the taste of cheap wine, fact .. which I have said is totally wrong. That is what I am challening you on. You now are saying that you didn't mean what you actually said !!!

Yawn .. I am starting to tire from your flip flopping !! :rolleyes:

Tar.Aldarion

No, it appears you just can't understand what i am saying, my point has never changed and has been expressed eloquesntly. Sometimes i think I just shouldn't bother.
I don't like the taste of cheap wine, I agree.
You said that is wrong(lol?), that is a stupid response, as you are saying something is objective, when it is subjective.
I am not saying that I did not mean what I actually said, I am saying that I did not mean what you are inferring,(and keep going on about) contrary to my posts. If you don't understand after this, I see no point replying of my own volition...

monkeyfudge

Eh.. back on topic.

They will actually give you a free soft drink of your choice in Guinness if you don't want the pint.

Personally I'd see it as a shocking waste of a decent pint of Guinness for a person to get it to only have one sip.

Oh... and pretty much no one likes their first pint of Guinness.. you have to have a pint or two before you become accustomed to it...