Is Drink Spiking an Urban Myth or big catch all excuse?

MadsL

MadsL wrote: »

I speculated. Years later I still have no real understanding of how enough alchohol got in my system to cause acute alcohol poisioning.

I'm supposed to know which parts of the story you're putting forward are meant to be factual and which are meant to be speculation on your part?

Again, I'd suggest you try a double blind taste test before assuming.

I'll cover my eyes next time I'm drinking.

Who's fault was the spiking? You appear to be an apologist for the spiker by claiming I should have tasted it.

I find the story unbelievable. Maybe there was something else to it that you don't know about but I don't believe the version that you seem to think is most likely.

I have to say I admire how you moved on so quickly from the rape apologist/denier implication though.

wonderfulname

I just realised I have date rape drugs in my bathroom cabinet, Zolpidem;

According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, zolpidem (Ambien, Stilnox) is quickly overtaking illegal sedatives as the most common date-rape drug. Perpetrators of sexual assault have used zolpidem on unsuspecting victims

It's for insomnia, as you might imagine, on prescription... I'm creeped out now!

Odysseus

Odysseus wrote: »

No, Rohypnol is a benzo and is not metabolised that quick.

I stand corrected.:)

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm supposed to know which parts of the story you're putting forward are meant to be factual and which are meant to be speculation on your part?

I have been quite clear about the facts and what others told me later.

I'll cover my eyes next time I'm drinking.

A little joke. How cute. Completely dodging the point that you have never tried a double blind taste test of a spiked drink.

I find the story unbelievable.

I'm a liar now. Charming.

Maybe there was something else to it that you don't know about but I don't believe the version that you seem to think is most likely.

What is your explanation and why is that one more likely?

I have to say I admire how you moved on so quickly from the rape apologist/denier implication though.

I haven't - I think victim-blaming is rather poor taste regardless of the nature of the crime. You think waking up strapped into the recovery position is not traumatic? In some jurastictions the spiker's action would be classed as attempted homicide, but I see you are keeping your sense of humour about it.

Yellowblackbird

Seachmall wrote: »

That was being addressed. It's obviously wrong, people do drug and rape people. Andrew Luster, serial rapist and heir to Max Factor , probably being the most famous case.

The op question wasn't 'has there ever been a single case of drug/date rape in the history of the world'. The question lies on whether it is a real and genuine risk for girls going out to pubs as according to the commonly held urban myth. In my opinion the myth holds little water and I don't believe there are statistics to contradict that opinion. I have no doubt there will always be a statistically tiny percentage of the human population who are psychotic killers and who will go to great lenghts to abduct/capture/ drug women or men and take them to a torture chamber or grisly death. But that's not what this thread is about.

jill_valentine

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

The genuine cases are a lot rarer than the hype would have you believe.
There are people out there with sinister intentions, but I dont believe there are Johnny appleseed type figures roaming the country depositing pills in drinks for the craic either.

I would agree with this assessment.

It's something I'm generally pretty cynical about - it tends to be the same people getting "spiked" every week - but being confronted with a real case of it was a bit of a shock to the system.

So yeah. Massively over-reported, but still, not a complete myth.

Odysseus

Candie wrote: »

I stand corrected.:)

The reason that it had the potential for such abuse was because it is a potent benzo and that years ago it did disolve quickly. I remember drug users use to suck them as they tasted alright too. It disolved for injection very easily too and again because of its strenght it became very popular with drug users.

Potatoeman

MadsL wrote: »

There have been repeated comments about how;

1. It could not have happened
2. I should have tasted it

I had it happen me when I was out drinking with a group of eight girls and two guys. I had one other drink and we were at a table where no one could get to our drinks. Might have been the barman. I have heard stories of them spiking random drinks and picking up girls at the end of the night that have been dumped by their friends.

lazygal

I'm nearly sure my drink was spiked one night. Me and a friend were in a local pub and we both drank the same drink, a gin and tonic, and we'd had a couple each. We weren't drunk. We got chatting to a group of lads but stuck together and we didn't get any drinks from them, we just bought our own. It was a stage where I could handle a fair bit of drink (more than I could now) and it wasn't a late night session, we left while it was early enough. I remember getting into a taxi with my friend but I don't remember going home, getting ready for bed and getting into bed. I was drunk before and know what that sort of 'forgetting' feels like, this was totally different. I was puking most of the next day, shivering and going hot and cold. It wasn't a fluey thing or anything, it felt different.
When I described how I felt to my friend who's a nurse she said it sounded like something had been put into my drink. I can't say for sure if something was or what happened but I felt off for several days and my friend said my symptoms were like someone coming down from a drug high of some sort. I've never taken drugs so I don't know what that feels like but it definitely wasn't a 'normal' illness.

I don't know how or why my drink was spiked, or even if it was, but I've never felt the same way before or since and I've been more careful with my drinks when out ever since.

Not a myth but it's greatly exaggerated.

MadsL

MadsL wrote: »

I have been quite clear about the facts and what others told me later.

So was it close to 2 pints of vodka or not? Could you maybe edit your previous posts to make it clear?

A little joke. How cute. Completely dodging the point that you have never tried a double blind taste test of a spiked drink.

Thank you. However I don't need to be kicked in the crotch after 6 o'clock to say that it would hurt to get kicked in the crotch after 6 o'clock.

I'm a liar now. Charming.

I'm really starting to think that your comprehension rather than my ability to articulate that's the issue here.

What is your explanation and why is that one more likely?

I don't have to have a more likely explanation to not believe yours.
Just out of interest, what's your source of information that you're basing you're explanation on.

I haven't - I think victim-blaming is rather poor taste regardless of the nature of the crime. You think waking up strapped into the recovery position is not traumatic? In some jurastictions the spiker's action would be classed as attempted homicide, but I see you are keeping your sense of humour about it.

If they did spike your drink and you went to the police something should be done. All of this is irrelevant to your ridiculous attempt to characterise someone with the temerity to question your gospel as a rape apologist/denier.

jaffacakesyum

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The Rape Crisis Centre came out and said there was not ONE confirmed case. Sedative drugs are relatively difficult to get. Did the girl you know test positive for drugs proving that she was spiked?

It isn't relatively rare in Ireland it has in fact never been proved to ever happen. That is beyond rare, it doesn't mean it is impossible to happen just it has never happened. You could say people didn't go to the guards but still statistically speaking there would be at least one case.

Would you mind providing the link to that report? I would be interested in reading it.

As I said, she wasn't drinking alcohol. Her drink was spiked with something, with what substance I don't know. I don't really want to ask her the details as I haven't talked to her in a few years now.

The substance could have been something like cocaine even, which may not be recorded as a date rape drug in the Rape Crisis Centre statistics, I don't know.

EDIT: Sorry, I realised I didn't really answer your question. Yes, she tested positive for drugs. I don't know which ones, I was 16 at the time. naïve and innocent enough not to be asking!

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The Rape Crisis Centre came out and said there was not ONE confirmed case. Sedative drugs are relatively difficult to get. Did the girl you know test positive for drugs proving that she was spiked?

It isn't relatively rare in Ireland it has in fact never been proved to ever happen. That is beyond rare, it doesn't mean it is impossible to happen just it has never happened. You could say people didn't go to the guards but still statistically speaking there would be at least one case.

No they're not

Quite the opposite infact.

Three Seasons

MadsL wrote: »

Who's fault was the spiking? You appear to be an apologist for the spiker by claiming I should have tasted it.

That is some seriously brain dead logic.

Because he thinks you should have tasted it you think the spiker wasn't at fault?

Obviously everyone thinks its the spikers fault.

Pace2008

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

She wasn't drinking alcohol at the time and she was sexually assaulted afterwards. So it does happen. It's not a 'myth', it's just relatively rare.

I don't think anyone's claiming that in a world of, what, 7 billion people, no one's ever slipped a psychoactive substance into someone else's drink and had the target consume it unaware's. And if they are, then they're very silly boys and/or girls.

It's just the pervasive notion that it's a "thing," - that it's a commonplace occurance for people to go round clubs dishing out unsolicited ecstasy and roofies and any manner of exotic mind-altering curios to unsuspecting punters - that people are rightly contesting. A serious amount of people believe that this sort of thing goes on regularly, when the reality is that, in a binge drinking pub/club scene like Ireland has, it's pretty far down on the list of concerns for most of us.

When I started going out clubbing my mother would always warn me to keep my drink covered with my hand; that there were all sorts of weirdos going round waiting to drug those off their guard. Thanks a lot for getting my hopes up, Ma. It hasn't happen yet and after all these years I'm not exactly waiting with baited breath.

MadsL

Three Seasons wrote: »

That is some seriously brain dead logic.

Because he thinks you should have tasted it you think the spiker wasn't at fault?

Obviously everyone thinks its the spikers fault.

The phrase "should have" implies a little bit of judgement don't you think? Perhaps that is just me, believing that a victim's actions are irrelevant.

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

So was it close to 2 pints of vodka or not? Could you maybe edit your previous posts to make it clear?

Deep sixing a pint (which is what I was told had happened) would be a six count pour. Somewhere between 1.5 and 2 oz of spirits. That assumes that he did count to six - not eight or ten. I have no idea how much alcohol was in it, other than enough to put me in hospital.

Thank you. However I don't need to be kicked in the crotch after 6 o'clock to say that it would hurt to get kicked in the crotch after 6 o'clock.

So you admit that your judgement is based on assumptions rather than experience. Would you admit that your assumption might be mistaken?

I'm really starting to think that your comprehension rather than my ability to articulate that's the issue here.

It's pretty clear that if you do not believe my version of the events to be true you are calling my truthfulness to account, sugar coat that all you want it but it amounts to calling me a liar.

I don't have to have a more likely explanation to not believe yours.

What an absurd stance.

Just out of interest, what's your source of information that you're basing you're explanation on.

Medical doctors opinion that I could not have been that drunk just from drinking beer.

If they did spike your drink and you went to the police something should be done. All of this is irrelevant to your ridiculous attempt to characterise someone with the temerity to question your gospel as a rape apologist/denier.

You responded to an account of a deliberate poisoning with malicious intent (guy hated me) by questioning my ability to taste. Way to go.

blaze1

My sister doesnt drink alcholol and got her drink spiked last weekend. Collapsed and ended up in hospital.

MadsL

blaze1 wrote: »

My sister doesnt drink alcholol and got her drink spiked last weekend. Collapsed and ended up in hospital.

/waits for comments on her poor ability to taste things.

Three Seasons

MadsL wrote: »

The phrase "should have" implies a little bit of judgement don't you think? Perhaps that is just me, believing that a victim's actions are irrelevant.

A victims actions are irrelevant to the fact the perpetrator takes full blame, but those actions can help explain the situation and what happened. I think your story is being questioned, that's it IMO.

MadsL

Three Seasons wrote: »

A victims actions are irrelevant to the fact the perpetrator takes full blame, but those actions can help explain the situation and what happened. I think your story is being questioned, that's it IMO.

That it is being questioned, implies it is questionable. If someone has a better explanation, please do share. Otherwise, I fail to see why my account of events is questionable.

Seachmall

Yellowblackbird wrote: »

But that's not what this thread is about.

I'm not addressing the OP. I'm addressing a specific point you made.

Yellowblackbird wrote: »

If someone was that desperate for a ride they would use a brasser. Rape we are told is about power and control so the rapist won't sate his sick needs with in an inaminate piece of meat.

This is wrong. Rapists do.

wonderfulname

MadsL wrote: »

/waits for comments on her poor ability to taste things.

Have a bit of class, nobody blamed you they're just amazed the prick got it by you, it's unfortunate, but incredibly odd you wouldn't taste it, were it me, it would take a good few pints before I couldn't, the idea that you could hide 2oz of vodka in a pint and I wouldn't know is pretty damn slim, a shot went into my pint once whilst I wasn't looking, as a joke, and I demanded the lad replace it because it tasted vile and I was only out to have a few nice pints. I certainly don't think you're lying, but that doesn't make the story any less odd.

MadsL

wonderfulname wrote: »

Have a bit of class, nobody blamed you they're just amazed the prick got it by you, it's unfortunate, but incredibly odd you wouldn't taste it, were it me, it would take a good few pints before I couldn't, the idea that you could hide 2oz of vodka in a pint and I wouldn't know is pretty damn slim, a shot went into my pint once whilst I wasn't looking, as a joke, and I demanded the lad replace it because it tasted vile and I was only out to have a few nice pints. I certainly don't think you're lying, but that doesn't make the story any less odd.

And as I have said, it all depends on the pint. Nothing 'odd' about it. But I am concerned about this notion that people "should" spot it, and that somehow they are to blame because they don't.

Pug160

It's out there but it's probably overblown. Most girls have lots of friends around them and are going to notice a guy taking their paralytic friend over his shoulder into a taxi. They'd obviously know something wasn't quite right.

MadsL

MadsL wrote: »

Deep sixing a pint (which is what I was told had happened) would be a six count pour. Somewhere between 1.5 and 2 oz of spirits. That assumes that he did count to six - not eight or ten. I have no idea how much alcohol was in it, other than enough to put me in hospital.

Who told you this? EDIT: 1.5-2 oz of spirits would make it 1/10 alcohol, not 1/2 as you said earlier, and I sincerely doubt that a naggin in 90 minutes is going to cause alcohol poisoning, drunkeness yes. A naggin of vodka (which is now what you're estimating) and 4 pints isn't going to cause acute alcohol poisoning in a healthy individual who drinks on a regular basis with no other problems.

So you admit that your judgement is based on assumptions rather than experience. Would you admit that your assumption might be mistaken?

Everything ever is based on assumptions.

It's pretty clear that if you do not believe my version of the events to be true you are calling my truthfulness to account, sugar coat that all you want it but it amounts to calling me a liar.

Being incorrect doesn't necessarily make someone a liar.

What an absurd stance.

You're not a scientist I assume?

Medical doctors opinion that I could not have been that drunk just from drinking beer.

Were there any tests done? Medical doctors told you that it was likely vodka rather than another spirit?

You responded to an account of a deliberate poisoning with malicious intent (guy hated me) by questioning my ability to taste. Way to go.

When a story doesn't ring true I usually question it, unless it's an old person talking about religion, I usually let those slide. But thanks for the praise.

wonderfulname

MadsL wrote: »

And as I have said, it all depends on the pint. Nothing 'odd' about it. But I am concerned about this notion that people "should" spot it, and that somehow they are to blame because they don't.

What do you drink? After all this I would love if you said pints of whiskey...

MadsL

wonderfulname wrote: »

What do you drink? After all this I would love if you said pints of whiskey...

It was a Czech lager, quite 'hoppy' in flavour.

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

Who told you this?

Another bartender who was working that shift.

Everything ever is based on assumptions.

Are you smoking weed?

Being incorrect doesn't necessarily make someone a liar.

Now I am incorrect? Please do continue and show me how.

You're not a scientist I assume?

A famous doctor once said "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Were there any tests done? Medical doctors told you that it was likely vodka rather than another spirit?

There was a language barrier - but the jist was there was enough alcohol in my system to cause alcohol poisoning. How would any test distinguish vodka over say gin?

When a story doesn't ring true I usually question it, unless it's an old person talking about religion, I usually let those slide. But thanks for the praise.

Back to questioning my truthfulness.

wonderfulname

MadsL wrote: »

It was a Czech lager, quite 'hoppy' in flavour.

Staropramen? That's less odd than had you said something diagio... Ooh that's an expensive experiment I now want to try...

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

EDIT: 1.5-2 oz of spirits would make it 1/10 alcohol, not 1/2 as you said earlier, and I sincerely doubt that a naggin in 90 minutes is going to cause alcohol poisoning, drunkeness yes. A naggin of vodka (which is now what you're estimating) and 4 pints isn't going to cause acute alcohol poisoning in a healthy individual who drinks on a regular basis with no other problems.

Read what I said will ya. Deep six is slang for spiking. I have no idea how much alcohol was in my pints. It could have been 2oz of 80% slivovice, it could have been 6oz of vodka. No idea.

MadsL

wonderfulname wrote: »

Staropramen? That's less odd than had you said something diagio... Ooh that's an expensive experiment I now want to try...

Similar to Staro yes. I had just finished a hot and thirsty kitchen shift and necked the first one, probably whilst smoking.

desertcircus

People have an extraordinary faith in their sense of smell and taste, usually without basis. In certain circumstances it'd be near-impossible to tell whether a drink had been spiked with spirits, and if you really honestly think you could, then pour out two beers and get a friend to drop a shot in one when you're not looking. Then bring the two beers to a loud room filled with strangers who want to dance, or talk, or fight, and hand them to a person behind a bar. Tell the person behind the bar to serve you the spiked one at some stage during the evening without telling you. Then start drinking. See if you can correctly identify the spiked drink. Ideally, do this a couple of dozen times and see how often you correctly pick compared to chance.

Then look at your result and wonder if you'd have gotten the same if you'd never realised there was a test at all.

Newsflash: your taste buds are really not especially sensitive. Ditto for your olfactory senses. If someone wanted to spike your drink with spirits and not have you notice by taste, they probably could. I've seen beer-snob friends served Budweiser with Mi Wadi blind and swear it was high-quality Belgian fruit beer. I've seen smokers utterly unable to identify their cigarette tobacco. The wine industry has been derailed at least twice by exposing the fickleness of our tastebuds. Is it really so hard to believe that with a second or third pint of strong beer, when your tastebuds are saturated and you're slightly tipsy, that you'd fail to notice a heavy shot of something? Hell, I've drunk beers I couldn't tell a shot in stone cold sober.

MadsL

MadsL wrote: »

Another bartender who was working that shift.

How did he know?

Are you smoking weed?

I wish.

Now I am incorrect? Please do continue and show me how.

I think you likely are.

A famous doctor once said "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

I find it close to impossible to believe that a healthy individual who usually drinks without issue is going to be struck down by acute alcohol poisoning by a naggin of vodka and 4 pints.

There was a language barrier - but the jist was there was enough alcohol in my system to cause alcohol poisoning. How would any test distinguish vodka over say gin?

That's what I'm getting at, the reliability of your source.

Back to questioning my truthfulness.

Is English your first language? I mean honestly, you're not even replying to what I'm saying. If you were watching a quiz on TV and someone got a question wrong would you call them a liar?

Pug160

desertcircus wrote: »

People have an extraordinary faith in their sense of smell and taste, usually without basis. In certain circumstances it'd be near-impossible to tell whether a drink had been spiked with spirits, and if you really honestly think you could, then pour out two beers and get a friend to drop a shot in one when you're not looking. Then bring the two beers to a loud room filled with strangers who want to dance, or talk, or fight, and hand them to a person behind a bar. Tell the person behind the bar to serve you the spiked one at some stage during the evening without telling you. Then start drinking. See if you can correctly identify the spiked drink. Ideally, do this a couple of dozen times and see how often you correctly pick compared to chance.

Then look at your result and wonder if you'd have gotten the same if you'd never realised there was a test at all.

Newsflash: your taste buds are really not especially sensitive. Ditto for your olfactory senses. If someone wanted to spike your drink with spirits and not have you notice by taste, they probably could. I've seen beer-snob friends served Budweiser with Mi Wadi blind and swear it was high-quality Belgian fruit beer. I've seen smokers utterly unable to identify their cigarette tobacco. The wine industry has been derailed at least twice by exposing the fickleness of our tastebuds. Is it really so hard to believe that with a second or third pint of strong beer, when your tastebuds are saturated and you're slightly tipsy, that you'd fail to notice a heavy shot of something? Hell, I've drunk beers I couldn't tell a shot in stone cold sober.

I find that hard to believe, with all due respect. There is a massive difference between Budweiser and decent Belgian beers. Budweiser is mass produced, chemical rubbish that tastes like battery acid compared to how a decent beer tastes.

ToddyDoody

Its an urban myth if you're ugly

wonderfulname

Pug160 wrote: »

I find that hard to believe, with all due respect. There is a massive difference between Budweiser and decent Belgian beers. Budweiser is mass produced, chemical rubbish that tastes like battery acid compared to how a decent beer tastes.

There's big differences in everything they've said, especially tobacco, but some people don't seem to notice them. I've had fruit beers that were easily comparable to bud and miwadi, so I'd well believe that, vile stuff.

MadsL

@Buttonftw

You have gotten to the point where you are now questioning that validity of someone who worked the same bar shift with the spiker and the medical doctor who examined me in hospital.

Off you go and believe what ever you want. I don't think you are interested in having a conversation about it, you just want to say "I don't believe it" often enough to make you sound like Victor Meldrew.

Maybe ask one of your friends to try it on you one night. Then come back to me.

MadsL

desertcircus wrote: »

Newsflash: your taste buds are really not especially sensitive. Ditto for your olfactory senses..

Most people cannot consistently tell white wine and red wine apart when blindfolded.

Carlos Orange

MadsL wrote: »

Who's fault was the spiking? You appear to be an apologist for the spiker by claiming I should have tasted it.

There is no obligation to believe something because it would be horrible if it was true.

Yellowblackbird

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm not addressing the OP. I'm addressing a specific point you made.



This is wrong. Rapists do.

You've failed completely to understand the point I was making in your enthuasiasm to be a smart arse prick.

Pug160

wonderfulname wrote: »

There's big differences in everything they've said, especially tobacco, but some people don't seem to notice them. I've had fruit beers that were easily comparable to bud and miwadi, so I'd well believe that, vile stuff.

I'd bet a considerable amount of money on being able to tell the difference between a Budweiser and a decent Belgian or German beer. I'm not saying everything is the same - wine may be different - I'm not sure. But there are certain drinks I could definitely tell apart. Maybe some people just have terrible taste buds due to smoking and whatever else that's passing their lips.

MadsL

Pug160 wrote: »

I'd bet a considerable amount of money on being able to tell the difference between a Budweiser and a decent Belgian or German beer. I'm not saying everything is the same - wine may be different - I'm not sure. But there are certain drinks I could definitely tell apart. Maybe some people just have terrible taste buds due to smoking and whatever else that's passing their lips.

I bet you couldn't blindfold with the beer served at close to zero degrees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW1OTOxGvz4

Frank Black

MadsL wrote: »

A famous doctor once said "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Wasn't that Sherlock Holmes?

Seachmall

Yellowblackbird wrote: »

You've failed completely to understand the point I was making in your enthuasiasm to be a smart arse prick.

Your post is fairly clear-cut and specific about the point it's making.

It's also 100% wrong.

If you're going to get tetchy about being called out when you're wrong then maybe you should check to see if your points have any basis in reality.

MadsL

MadsL wrote: »

@Buttonftw

You have gotten to the point where you are now questioning that validity of someone who worked the same bar shift with the spiker and the medical doctor who examined me in hospital.

You're correct on both counts. Did that bar worker see the other guy adding the vodka/whatever it was? If so did he not question it (and if he did see it then you would have mentioned earlier that that's how you knew it was vodka, if not then how did he find out?

Off you go and believe what ever you want. I don't think you are interested in having a conversation about it, you just want to say "I don't believe it" often enough to make you sound like Victor Meldrew.

You're the one who won't address points and who is throwing a tantrum when someone questions what you're saying and accuses them of being a rape apologist/denier for it.
Why not just answer some straightforward queries in the same amount of time it takes for you to get jibes in?

MadsL

Frank Black wrote: »

Wasn't that Sherlock Holmes?

Arthur Conan Doyle was the doctor I was referring to, but well done.

desertcircus

Everyone's utterly convinced that the usual limitations of the human body simply don't apply to them. A few friends of mine had a beer tasting night - most brought unusual IPAs, Belgian ales, German weiss. At the end of the night, one of them brought out glasses of what he said was a light Belgian fruit beer; they all agreed it was excellent. It was at this point that he revealed the Bud and Mi Wadi. These were guys in their thirties who'd drunk hundreds of different beers and had strong opinions on them, and they failed to identify Bud with Mi Wadi.

Seriously: you are not nearly as good at telling tastes apart as you like to think you are. That's not a specific insult: that's a blanket statement to the entire population of the world. What we taste is massively influenced by external factors independent of the food or drink itself. I'm absolutely convinced that I adore the taste of Laphroaig scotch and can't abide Jack Daniel's, but if I'd had a couple of drinks and a meal, and a bartender accidentally gave me a Jack, I can't say for sure I'd notice. In a blind taste test? I'd nail the Laphroaig without even tasting it. But people don't get their drinks spiked with spirits in lab settings; it happens in busy pubs that smell of human sweat and spilled booze, that rattle with the sound of dozens of simultaneous conversations (and frequently overly loud music), and it's presumably done with a spirit that doesn't clash with the drink. Hell, I buy stuff in the pub when I honestly have no idea what it tastes like. People get cocktails that change in intensity the further down you go if the bartender's not a good mixer. There are so many confounding factors on top of an already limited sensory capacity that it's really not hard to imagine someone failing to notice. A shot of scotch in a rauchbier? An extra measure of vodka in a cosmopolitan? Come on, if you can't conceive of that passing notice then you're not trying.

wonderfulname

Pug160 wrote: »

I'd bet a considerable amount of money on being able to tell the difference between a Budweiser and a decent Belgian or German beer. I'm not saying everything is the same - wine may be different - I'm not sure. But there are certain drinks I could definitely tell apart. Maybe some people just have terrible taste buds due to smoking and whatever else that's passing their lips.

So could I, or at least I know what I like to drink and what I don't, but the only "fancy Belgian fruit beers" I've come across here taste like someone poured fruit syrup into a flat beer, I don't care how fancy, Belgian or expensive it is, it doesn't suprise me that someone fell for that, a lot of people don't drink for taste, they drink for image or alcohol content.

There is definitely a difference in wines, certian grapes you'd know a mile away and there are some particularly nasty value options lurking about but once you've hit something you enjoy drinking i don't think you'll get any further regardless of how much money you throw at it, I may be wrong but I've tried some expensive wines and with the exception of one they all just tasted like good table wine. The 'one' was middle eastern so that's probably just climate or grape.

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

You're correct on both counts. Did that bar worker see the other guy adding the vodka/whatever it was? If so did he not question it (and if he did see it then you would have mentioned earlier that that's how you knew it was vodka, if not then how did he find out?

I have no idea. Does it mean that my experience is therefore a fiction? No.

You're the one who won't address points

Perhaps if you could make a point i could address it. You haven't said anything other than I don't believe it yet.

and who is throwing a tantrum

:rolleyes:

when someone questions what you're saying and accuses them of being a rape apologist/denier for it.

I said you were victim-blaming, you still appear to be attacking the victim.

Why not just answer some straightforward queries in the same amount of time it takes for you to get jibes in?

Because any questions you have asked I have answered, the rest of your posts is you poo-pooing any idea that this could have happened.