Bacon and sausages to put in same bracket as cigarettes and alcohol

[QE Harold Flair]

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/diet/who-to-declare-that-bacon-and-other-processed-meat-cause-cancer-claims-report/ar-BBmlt6H?li=AAaeUIW


The World Health Organisation is reportedly planning to declare that bacon, sausages and other processed meat cause cancer.
Red meat is also expected to be listed as being “probably carcinogenic to humans”.
A source told The Daily Mail that the announcements were expected to be made on Monday with processed meat put in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol and asbestos.
The NHS Choices website says that “evidence shows that there is probably a link between eating red and processed meat and the risk of bowel cancer”.
“People who eat a lot of these meats are at higher risk of bowel cancer than those who eat small amounts,” it adds.
However it says beef, lamb and pork “can form part of a healthy diet” and that red meat is “a good source of protein and provides vitamins and minerals, such as iron and zinc”.
The World Cancer Research Fund says: “There is strong evidence that eating a lot of these foods [red and processed meat] increases your risk of bowel cancer.”
Farmers and the meat industry have expressed concern about the impact on sales if the WHO lists processed meat as a carcinogen.
Betsy Booren, of the North American Meat Institute, said recently: “If they determine that red and processed meat causes cancer – and I think they will – that moniker will stick … It could take decades and billions of dollars to change that."


So assuming this is the case, will you eat less? I don't eat that much bacon and sausages anyway, but red meat might be a deal-breaker. That's basically all the good stuff apart from chicken :face:

[phonics]

Effing. Retarded.

This entire research is based off eating an absolutely beast amount of meat. I remember when it came out, it told you to cut down your intake of red meat by 500g a week. I don't even eat 500g of red meat a week.

[Pepe]

Chicken is not 'good stuff.' I won't eat any less but I don't eat red meat that often either. Once a week probably. Bacon can fuck off and sausages I probably eat once a month or so.

[Magic]

Is this just pork sausages too? We can safely assume this is another #whitegenocide move by the liberal powers that be.

[Lewis]

Well this is surprising. I honestly thought they would stop at smokers.

[QE Harold Flair]

Chicken is not 'good stuff.' I won't eat any less but I don't eat red meat that often either. Once a week probably. Bacon can fuck off and sausages I probably eat once a month or so.

What kind of twat doesn't like chicken? Get out of my thread, this instant.

[QE Harold Flair]

Is this just pork sausages too? We can safely assume this is another #whitegenocide move by the liberal powers that be.

Well, yes. Processed meat can be any meat that's processed. Still, everyone already knew it wasn't healthy.

[Adamski]

Pepe bacon can fuck off? You monster.

[Disco]

I've never heard Bacon & Sausages, was that a b-side or something?

[Davgooner]

Bacon is shit. :nodd:

[Pepe]

What kind of twat doesn't like chicken? Get out of my thread, this instant.

Never said I didn't like it. It is not particularly good though. Beef is much better, as are lamb, duck, goat, and even pork. Fish too.


Pepe bacon can fuck off? You monster.

Not that I dislike it, it just seems to be vastly overrated. Wouldn't miss it if I never ate it again.

[phonics]

We have to factor in that Pepe is talking about American bacon which is the rancid streaky stuff that they do over here.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Made20bacon.png

It's not great.

[Pepe]

Yes, definitely referring to that. What passes as bacon in the UK? I do like the one they sell as Canadian bacon over here and I also like pancetta.

[SvN]

The bacon in the US is a disgrace.

The burger I had in Vegas (http://www.heartattackgrill.com/heart-attack-grill-menu.html) had twenty rashers of the stuff.

[QE Harold Flair]

Never said I didn't like it. It is not particularly good though. Beef is much better, as are lamb, duck, goat, and even pork. Fish too.

Beef I can forgive you, and perhaps lamb. But goats are solely for Arabs, for various purposes.

[Giggles]

http://kilkennyfreerangepigs.com/images/rashers.jpg

Rashers.

[Lewis]

Bacon isn't as good as sausage.

[phonics]

Yes, definitely referring to that. What passes as bacon in the UK? I do like the one they sell as Canadian bacon over here and I also like pancetta.

It's basically canadian bacon. It's taken from the back rather than wherever they cut the shite we eat.

[QE Harold Flair]

I find streaky rashers nice. The best part of bacon, after all, is the fat. Same with all meat, actually.

[Pepe]

It's basically canadian bacon. It's taken from the back rather than wherever they cut the shite we eat.

That one is good then. Still, don't think I would eat it on a regular basis.

[Magic]

We use back bacon in the UK, not shitty side bacon like the Yanks.

[bruhnaldo]

Bacon can fuck off

Sir...... Sir..... Please. Think about what you're saying.

[bruhnaldo]

oh my God i shouldn't have kept scrolling past Pepe's post

What in the fuck is wrong with you people?

[Sam]

Goat is sublime you heathen.

[phonics]

Goat is sublime you heathen.

Yeah but Muslims eat it so it's gross, disgusting, backwater stuff. But he's not a racist. Promise.

[Sam]

Yeah but Muslims eat it so it's gross, disgusting, backwater stuff. But he's not a racist. Promise.

Bet he avoid's Dixy's chicken as well on the same basis.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yeah but Muslims eat it so it's gross, disgusting, backwater stuff. But he's not a racist. Promise.

When Muslims become a race, you might have a point. Actually you wouldn't, but you'd be a bit closer.

The irony here is that it's you who's obviously conflating 'Muslims' with a specific racial make-up. Can you guess what that makes you? In fact, if you look even closer, I said 'Arabs' and didn't even mention Muslims.

[Magic]

Yeah but Muslims eat it so it's gross, disgusting, backwater stuff. But he's not a racist. Promise.

I thought they just fucked them?

:harold:

[simon]

Bacon isn't as good as sausage.

This is correct.

[phonics]

When Muslims become a race, you might have a point. Actually you wouldn't, but you'd be a bit closer.

The irony here is that it's you who's obviously conflating 'Muslims' with a specific racial make-up. Can you guess what that makes you? In fact, if you look even closer, I said 'Arabs' and didn't even mention Muslims.

Oh so you mentioned the Race then?

[QE Harold Flair]

Yes, I did. So you didn't read my post, then?

[QE Harold Flair]

I thought they just fucked them?

:harold:

I'm glad someone got the joke. I just hope nobody is deeply offended.

[Boydy]

The bacon in the US is a disgrace.

The burger I had in Vegas (http://www.heartattackgrill.com/heart-attack-grill-menu.html) had twenty rashers of the stuff.

Cash only = 8.1% tax? Don't they add the tax into the price or are you supposed to work that out for yourself and add it on?

[SvN]

Tax isn't included in prices over there. It's a shambles.

[Magic]

I'm glad someone got the joke. I just hope nobody is deeply offended.

#TeamRacist knows the score on this one.

[Boydy]

Tax isn't included in prices over there. It's a shambles.

What a fucking shambles of a country.

[phonics]

Cash only = 8.1% tax? Don't they add the tax into the price or are you supposed to work that out for yourself and add it on?

Sales tax is done by the State so it's not added in to the price. It might be the dumbest Americanism there is. You work it out yourself.

[Pepe]

It really is stupid. I do like that if you buy online you don't have to pay taxes. Did anyone already say shambles of a country?

[Lewis]

That website is amazing though. It's probably worth putting up with 'Vegas' just to visit.

[Pepe]

That website is amazing though.

It really is. :D

[Henry]

This sounds like another case of the media misreporting scientific findings. It's been around for a long time that eating loads of red and processed meat is bad for you. Eating it in moderation is okay, and the findings say so.

"In the same bracket as cigarretes" is bullshit invention.

[Magic]

Why? I'm sure cigarettes 'in moderation' aren't bad for you?

[phonics]

Why? I'm sure cigarettes 'in moderation' aren't bad for you?

Depends what you mean by moderation but yes, they're bad for you. Any cigarette is. The damage one cigarette causes can be repaired relatively quickly but it's still causing damage that needs to be repaired.

[Henry]

Why? I'm sure cigarettes 'in moderation' aren't bad for you?

Of course they are. :cab:

[Toby]

This sounds like another case of the media misreporting scientific findings. It's been around for a long time that eating loads of red and processed meat is bad for you. Eating it in moderation is okay, and the findings say so.

"In the same bracket as cigarretes" is bullshit invention.

It's not media spin though. The IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) - which is part of the World Health Organisation - has literally put processed meat "in the same bracket" as cigarettes, alcohol and asbestos as a "Group 1" carcinogen. If you have an issue it should be directing at them rather than the reporting for a change.

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf

[Giggles]

Why does everything nice have to be bad for you?

[phonics]

Why does everything nice have to be bad for you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba-6niOoR_U

[Cord]

Is it not just the case that they've put it in the category to confirm that there definitely is a link between red meat and arse cancer, rather than it being a comment on how high the risk factor is in relation to something like smoking?

Though to be honest, if that isn't the case, I'm still going to pretend it is. Like hell am I cutting down on my industrial sausage consumption for a few more years of tedious, almost certainly dementia addled life.

[Giggles]

Kanye must be good for you.

[Baz]

I only eat Quorn sausages at home, but man I'd miss proper bacon. :(

[Toby]

Is it not just the case that they've put it in the category to confirm that there definitely is a link between red meat and arse cancer, rather than it being a comment on how high the risk factor is in relation to something like smoking?

Though to be honest, if that isn't the case, I'm still going to pretend it is. Like hell am I cutting down on my industrial sausage consumption for a few more years of tedious, almost certainly dementia addled life.

Red meat is a couple categories below, in a group of things that "probably cause cancer" but they've stuck processed meat in the group for which there is "sufficient evidence that it causes cancer in humans". That isn't to say it is as risky as smoking or asbestos, but it definitely is in the same category.

[Giggles]

Processed meat is the nicest meat too.

I'd like to know what's the equivalent to say smoking 10 a day for 10 years, and what's the equivalent to being a 30 a day smoker for 50 years. I hope its not 3 sausages or anything.

[Benny]

Blows my mind when I see kids smoking, you've got to be a complete spastic to start that habit knowing just how bad it is for you.

[Pepe]

Processed meat is the nicest meat too.

You serious? :nono:

[Giggles]

Benny

Twenty years ago it was known and people still started.

The main reason people are still smoking these days is that there's too much tax money to be made from it. There's a new generation of smokers needed to pay for the dying ones now and circle will just continue as to get to the end of it would have a crippling deficit to make up in the meantime.
Don't let any health minister tell you they actually want people to stop. They just have to be seen to be doing something toward that idea without really doing anything.

[Giggles]

You serious? :nono:

Yeah, the additions add more flavour. Give me a pork sausage over plain pork, or a beef burger over a steak any day.

[Pepe]

Benny

Twenty years ago it was known and people still started.

The main reason people are still smoking these days is that there's too much tax money to be made from it. There's a new generation of smokers needed to pay for the dying ones now and circle will just continue as to get to the end of it would have a crippling deficit to make up in the meantime.
Don't let any health minister tell you they actually want people to stop. They just have to be seen to be doing something toward that idea without really doing anything.

That is a cracking conspiracy theory.

[Giggles]

That is a cracking conspiracy theory.

It's pretty much on the money. The tax loss would be huge, and while it would help cut health costs down the road, the two would be too far out of sync to work.

If health was the issue and not money the all it needs to be is something like, from January 1st 2016:
No more 10 packs
€/£15 for a 20 pack
Identification to be presented for all tobacco purchases.
Purchase prohibited permanently for anyone born after January 1st 1998.
And let it roll from there.

Currently they fuck about with adding a few p or c onto a pack. Humming and hawing about ads and packaging and doing very little, and making alternatives like ecigarettes as outcasted as they don't bring in the tax ££€€££.

Cigarettes are huge business and huge tax income and there's a fine balancing act in place between presenting a concerned front and keeping the money rolling in.

[Benny]

Which is all fine and makes sense, but that doesn't really address why a 10-16 year old would want to pick up smoking knowing what we know is so clearly the case, which is my point.

Why would you start smoking, in this day and age? I saw what it did to my nan, so maybe that's a big reason why I'm so against it, but I don't think you need to see first hand what it does to realise this.

[Giggles]

All I'm saying in that respect is that it's no different to the stupidity of a 10-16 year old 25 years ago. It was known what they do to you then too.

10-16 year olds are generally stupid.

[QE Harold Flair]

Yeah, the additions add more flavour. Give me a pork sausage over plain pork, or a beef burger over a steak any day.

Nutcase.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's pretty much on the money. The tax loss would be huge, and while it would help cut health costs down the road, the two would be too far out of sync to work.

If health was the issue and not money the all it needs to be is something like, from January 1st 2016:
No more 10 packs
€/£15 for a 20 pack
Identification to be presented for all tobacco purchases.
Purchase prohibited permanently for anyone born after January 1st 1998.
And let it roll from there.

Currently they fuck about with adding a few p or c onto a pack. Humming and hawing about ads and packaging and doing very little, and making alternatives like ecigarettes as outcasted as they don't bring in the tax ££€€££.

Cigarettes are huge business and huge tax income and there's a fine balancing act in place between presenting a concerned front and keeping the money rolling in.

The money it would free up in healthcare would probably outstrip any tax gained.

[Giggles]

Nutcase.

I prefer it.

Explain how being a meat snob is different to being a whiskey snob.

[Giggles]

The money it would free up in healthcare would probably outstrip any tax gained.

Years later.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's not snobbery, I just find your stance weird - hence me calling you a nutcase.

[simon]

Which is all fine and makes sense, but that doesn't really address why a 10-16 year old would want to pick up smoking knowing what we know is so clearly the case, which is my point.

Why would you start smoking, in this day and age? I saw what it did to my nan, so maybe that's a big reason why I'm so against it, but I don't think you need to see first hand what it does to realise this.

Think it's the same reasons as always i.e. peer pressure, it looks cool and all that. Plus at that age, you think you're immortal anyway and nothing phases you, hence your 17 year old kids driving like idiots.

I've cut it right out over the last few months or so, as I keep shitting myself about the prospect of cancer anytime I feel the slightest bit ill or find something abnormal.

[Giggles]

It's not snobbery, I just find your stance weird - hence me calling you a nutcase.

But I prefer it. I don't go around forcing it to people who don't.

[QE Harold Flair]

Your bowel will never forgive you.

[Giggles]

Your bowel will never forgive you.

I smoked 20 a day for 18 years and spent 10 years of my life over 25 stone weight. My bowel is way down my list of worries of things I'm fucked for.

[phonics]

The money it would free up in healthcare would probably outstrip any tax gained.

Smokers are actually paying for fat people at this point. Almost double the highest estimate available and not factoring in what they would have cost the healthcare sector if they hadn't died prematurely or the tax income from people in the Tobacco industry.

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/does_smoking_cost_as_much_as_it_makes_for_the_trea sury-29288

I'd say you can thank us later but I'll be dead by then.

[QE Harold Flair]

I always found smokers very strange. Nearly everyone in my class was at it and I stood fast. I think I've always been a freethinker, free from the peer pressure that the malleable succumb to. Smokers usually say that it isn't even enjoyable - they just 'need' it.

[Disco]

The money it would free up in healthcare would probably outstrip any tax gained.

Another effect would be the disappearance of several juicy spots on the boards of large tobacco companies normally reserved for ex-politicians and civil servants but I'm sure that isn't a factor no sir not all.

[Giggles]

I always found smokers very strange. Nearly everyone in my class was at it and I stood fast. I think I've always been a freethinker, free from the peer pressure that the malleable succumb to. Smokers usually say that it isn't even enjoyable - they just 'need' it.

Around 10% of mine were greatly enjoyable and the other 90% were out of habit in the end.

[Toby]

Which is all fine and makes sense, but that doesn't really address why a 10-16 year old would want to pick up smoking knowing what we know is so clearly the case, which is my point.

Why would you start smoking, in this day and age? I saw what it did to my nan, so maybe that's a big reason why I'm so against it, but I don't think you need to see first hand what it does to realise this.

A lot of people, especially at that age, just think they're invincible and/or have a romanticised view of 'living fast'.

[Pen]

Surely anything that cuts down meat consumption is good for us, so I'm not very fussed about this. Besides, if there was a blindfold test where people would eat beef burgers and lettuce I doubt they'd be able to tell the difference. It all tastes the same anyway.

[Benny]

You think beef burgers taste the same as lettuce?

:ae:

[Giggles]

Surely anything that cuts down meat consumption is good for us, so I'm not very fussed about this. Besides, if there was a blindfold test where people would eat beef burgers and lettuce I doubt they'd be able to tell the difference. It all tastes the same anyway.

Lolwut?

[phonics]

You have to let the lettuce age in a barrel for 14 years.

[Pepe]

Lettuce eat whatever we want ffs.

[Kikó]

Pen's right. 94% of people in a blind fold test couldn't tell the difference between angus steak and spam.

[Pen]

You are all just victims of quality brand marketing. I've read the same report as Kiko, it was really eye-opening.

[Giggles]

You are all just victims of quality brand marketing. I've read the same report as Kiko, it was really eye-opening.

I still don't know what you actually said in your post. Did you compare beef burgers in taste to lettuce?

[Pen]

You couldn't tell them apart in a blindfold test. You just don't want to seem like a hippie eating salad, so you think you enjoy the more expensive beef burger more.

[Giggles]

You couldn't tell them apart in a blindfold test. You just don't want to seem like a hippie eating salad, so you think you enjoy the more expensive beef burger more.

Beef burgers taste like lettuce? Like plain regular leaves of lettuce?

Have you been on crack or something?

I don't give a fuck about hippie (hippy?) anything. I don't want to eat a salad because to my tastes all those leaves taste like the smell of lawn and I don't want them as the dominant thing in my meal. Even one leaf of lettuce would render a burger inedible for me as the taste would drown everything else.

[Giggles]

Actually, hold on a second. This is too nuts to be true. We must be crossing wires.

Are you saying lettuce leaves taste like a cooked patty of minced beef in a bun, or are you saying it tastes like a burger that's loaded with lettuce anyway?

Bad enough either way, but at least there's something maybe in the second one.

[Kikó]

:D .

[Benny]

I believe in Finland the lettuce is grown using mince beef as a fertiliser, so he's probably not used to the taste of non-Finnish lettuce.

[Pen]

This was my Harold impression from the 'Whisky business' thread. I apologise for not stopping after the first post, but what kind of impression would that have been.
Giggles

[Giggles]

:face:

My sincerest apologies at being such an utter tube.

I can normally let it run with Hazza as he's a knob, but I let myself get sucked into that one.

[phonics]

I didn't want to post and give the game away.

Thoroughly enjoyed that.

[Disco]

Oh my, I really wanted that to continue. :D

[Giggles]

It's easy know I used to be a blonde.

[QE Harold Flair]

There's a lot of people here incapable of reading. And hypocrites, too.

[Toby]

It is you incapable of writing, I fear.

[Giggles]

One thing about all this is that, while I get sausages, spam, hotdogs, etc, how is bacon processed? Are they counting the curing as processing, which would make the brisket corned beef roast in my fridge processed too.

[Lee]

Curing counts as processing according to what's on the BBC site.

[Magic]

Pen and Maz trolling recently really have been the highlight of the board.

[Giggles]

Curing counts as processing according to what's on the BBC site.

My poor corned beef :(

Seeing as all chicken fillets are injected with water, will my arsehole fall off if I eat them?

[QE Harold Flair]

It is you incapable of writing, I fear.

Well you assumed I meant something and, even when I clarified it, you still go on about it and argue against positions I do not take. What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Spoonsky]

Pen has done Giggles so badly there. :D

[Toby]

Well you assumed I meant something and, even when I clarified it, you still go on about it and argue against positions I do not take. What the fuck is wrong with you?

I didn't assume anything, I followed what you said down its logical path and you never managed to articulate anything to suggest you actually knew what you were talking about. The problem is clearly you, as much as you would like to pretend otherwise.

[QE Harold Flair]

I didn't assume anything, I followed what you said down its logical path and you never managed to articulate anything to suggest you actually knew what you were talking about. The problem is clearly you, as much as you would like to pretend otherwise.

Yes, you did. You assumed that the blindfold was there so people didn't know the whisky was of a different type. You assumed this was because I felt they tasted the same - something I never said or intimated. You were wrong, and this was made very clear.

[simon]

Pen has done Giggles so badly there. :D

Giggles did himself, let's be fair.

[Luca]

Pen. :D

[mugbull]

Shit, this is real. Cancer is my biggest fear, and probably the worst thing that could happen to a human. The reports seems pretty superficial but i'm gonna trust them on this.

[Toby]

Yes, you did. You assumed that the blindfold was there so people didn't know the whisky was of a different type. You assumed this was because I felt they tasted the same - something I never said or intimated. You were wrong, and this was made very clear.

You said people "wouldn't find them any more pleasant". The problem you have is that you simply cannot see the failure in logic.

If two things taste sufficiently different that somebody can tell them apart, a blindfold test makes no difference whatsoever. If your claim was that people lie about preferring malt whisky, they're still going to lie with a blindfold on since they can tell a malt isn't a bourbon (or a whisky-flavoured liqueur...). That is why I continued to ask whether you thought they tasted the same. Your scenario was an illogical mess.

[ScousePig]

Good to see bacon take a bit of a bashing in this thread. I like it but have often found it a touch overrated.

*goes off to read whisky business*

[ItalAussie]

Once about every six months or so, I really feel like eating bacon. So I have a bacon sandwich or two for lunch, and then won't have it again for six months to a year.

[Magic]

What is 'bacon' in Aus?

[Giggles]

http://images1.musicfeeds.com.au/ee76c31aa464c76725bf7bd2ec095f66-640x360.jpg

[ItalAussie]

What is 'bacon' in Aus?

British bacon. :nodd:

[QE Harold Flair]

You said people "wouldn't find them any more pleasant". The problem you have is that you simply cannot see the failure in logic.

Yes, and that says nothing of them tasting the same. If I wanted to say that people who have tasted it before wouldn't be able to tell the difference then that's exactly what I would have said.


If two things taste sufficiently different that somebody can tell them apart, a blindfold test makes no difference whatsoever.

Yes, it does. If a layman took the test he would still be aware what the common, cheapo brand would be so it may influence his decision, as has been proven by what I displayed later in the thread. An expensive-looking wine was nearly always chosen as the best even when it had the cheaper wine in it. It may also be someone who has never tasted whisky before, and such a person would not be aware of the difference.


If your claim was that people lie about preferring malt whisky, they're still going to lie with a blindfold on since they can tell a malt isn't a bourbon

It's not about 'lieing', it's about pre-conceptions and human fallibility.

[QE Harold Flair]

Flamin' bacon.

[SvN]

I actually agree with Harold in terms of blind tasting. The visual appearance of food or drink definitely alters our perception and expectations.

[Pen]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.

[SvN]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.

Oh really?


There's no way that being blindfolded makes a difference to the taste. You don't taste with your eyes for fuck sake.

[Benny]

Just who the fuck are you to pull him up on that, SvN?

[Pen]

How embarrassing for me. My colourblindness has made my eye palate mediocre at best and now it's all out in the open.

[QE Harold Flair]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.

:roflol:

It's a good thing that young SVN is willing to look past the sheep mentality and seek the truth. Some people could learn a thing or two.

[Pen]

Reading and understanding it is just not as easy for all of us :console:

[QE Harold Flair]

Even when it's right there in front of everyone, still claims it never happened. I shouldn't be surprised.

[Pen]

It's the muslim takeover all over again!!

[leedsrevolution]

Whenever someone mentions sheep mentality or "sheeple" I cringe so hard.

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/nakedpastor/files/2008/05/herd_2.jpg

[leedsrevolution]

Although Pen has had a mare there.

[Pen]

I should've known someone would pull me up on that.

[Toby]

Yes, and that says nothing of them tasting the same. If I wanted to say that people who have tasted it before wouldn't be able to tell the difference then that's exactly what I would have said.



Yes, it does. If a layman took the test he would still be aware what the common, cheapo brand would be so it may influence his decision, as has been proven by what I displayed later in the thread. An expensive-looking wine was nearly always chosen as the best even when it had the cheaper wine in it. It may also be someone who has never tasted whisky before, and such a person would not be aware of the difference.



It's not about 'lieing', it's about pre-conceptions and human fallibility.

It wasn't clear you were talking about people who hadn't tasted them before (and you rather muddied the waters droning on about "undergraduate" sommeliers). You could have cleared everything up by just saying that. I still think its wrong and I still don't think it quite follows logically, but it's not so stupid as what it seemed you were saying.

[QE Harold Flair]

Still at it? You came in after I had clarified it even further with my article on wine testing. You can think it's wrong all you like - the evidence is clear.

[Toby]

Oh dear. Instantly back to it looking you're making it up as you go. You actively argued against any suggestion your article on wine testing involved inexperienced drinkers.

(I also commented long before you mentioned wine tasting, but then you getting details wrong is hardly a surprise)

[Magic]

If you have the right whisky in the right environment it can taste even better. :drool:

[QE Harold Flair]

Oh dear. Instantly back to it looking you're making it up as you go. You actively argued against any suggestion your article on wine testing involved inexperienced drinkers.

Yes, based on the fact there's no evidence they were inexperienced. Do you really think they would still be citing those experiments if they were using 18 year old drinking virgins?

More evidence for the deliberately obtuse Toby:


In the early '80s, Pepsi ran a marketing campaign where they touted the success of their product over Coca-Cola in blind taste tests. They called this the Pepsi Challenge. Psychologists had already determined you choose your favorite products often not by their inherent value, but because the marketing campaigns and logos and such have cast a spell over you called brand awareness. You start to identify yourself with one marketing campaign over another. That's what happened in the all the taste tests up until the Pepsi Challenge. People liked Coca-Cola's advertising more than Pepsi's, so even though they tasted pretty much the same, when they saw that bright red can with a white ribbon people chose Coke. So for the Pepsi Challenge, they removed the logos. At first, the researchers thought they should put some sort of label on the glasses. So, they went with M and Q. People said they liked Pepsi, labeled M, better than Coke, labeled Q. Irritated by this, Coca-Cola did their own study and put Coke in both glasses. Again, M won the contest. It turned out it wasn't the soda; people just liked the letter M better than the letter Q.

In blind taste tests, long-time smokers can't tell their brand from any of the competitors and wine connoisseurs have a hard time telling $200 bottles from $20 ones. When presented microwaved food from the frozen food section in the setting of a fine restaurant, most people never notice. Taste is subjective, which is another way of saying you are not so smart when it comes to choosing one product over another. All things equal, you refer back to the advertising or the packaging or conformity with your friends and family. Presentation is everything.


So, when tasting a wine, or watching a movie, or going on a date, or listening to a new stereo through $300 audio cables -- some of what you experience comes from within and some comes from without. Expensive wine is like anything else that is expensive, the expectation it will taste better actually makes it taste better.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/you-are-not-so-smart-why-we-cant-tell-good-wine-from-bad/247240/



In this blind tasting (http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/06/karl-storchmann-reports-from-the-front.html) conducted in 2012, French wines priced up to $650/bottle were put up against dirt-cheap New Jersey wines. The French wines won, but by such a tiny margin that, when analysing the results, Princeton professor Richard Quandt found the expensive and cheap wines to be “statistically undistinguishable” from each other.

No mention of undergraduates for you to moan about here, it seems.

[Toby]

Yes, based on the fact there's no evidence they were inexperienced.

Good god. How is anybody else supposed to follow your chain of thought if you can't even remember it yourself? :face:

[QE Harold Flair]

Undergraduate does not = teenage, spotty herbert, you know. I expect the average age for wine tasting degrees might be higher than the local media course and that those who go in for it are rather experienced in tasting wine. Regardless of that, I have just posted (again) another test with wine tasters who are not undergraduates, conducted by a Princeton University professor, so pretty unlikely to be some chancer. You're being deliberately obtuse and that's clear to see.

[Toby]

Great?

[Toby]

Another edit to further cement the fact you cannot remember what you were arguing about.

[QE Harold Flair]

Oh no, an edit! The truth is, I have to edit things just in case some pedantic twat who's been shown up picks up on a minor infraction, such as a spelling error. Now explain what your problem is, again?

You seem to have gone from not getting what was obvious (that I wasn't arguing about them tasting the same) to now saying that 'okay, but the tests you posted were not reliable!'. You're a fucking mess.

[Toby]

Let's summarise the established points, and hopefully you can at some point remember what you were actually trying to say. Stop me if you disagree at any point:

- Single malt whisky, Jack Daniels and Southern Comfort do not taste the same.
- People who have tasted single malt whisky, Jack Daniels and Souther Comfort before know that they do not taste the same.
- Experienced wine drinkers were found to be unable to distinguish between cheap and expensive wines in blindfold tests.

So, remind me of the blindfold test involving whisky, bourbon and Southern Comfort?


You seem to have gone from not getting what was obvious (that I wasn't arguing about them tasting the same) to now saying that 'okay, but the tests you posted were not reliable!'. You're a fucking mess.

I am not questioning the tests. You are a painfully bad reader.

[Boydy]

You're both dickheads. Shut up.

[Reg]

I agree with Boydy.

Do we have to have this in every thread?

[QE Harold Flair]

- Single malt whisky, Jack Daniels and Southern Comfort do not taste the same.

Agreed.


- People who have tasted single malt whisky, Jack Daniels and Souther Comfort before know that they do not taste the same.

Correct


- Experienced wine drinkers were found to be unable to distinguish between cheap and expensive wines in blindfold tests.

Correct. Not just that though. I'm not sure if you're just ignorant or deliberately obtuse, but I've made it clear several times now that labeling on the bottles and knowing what you're drinking by sight has a definite influence on your verdict. This is the whole point of the blindfold.


So, remind me of the blindfold test involving whisky, bourbon and Southern Comfort?

In my test, the blindfold would be for the reasons stated above, which you are still ignoring.

[Toby]

That doesn't make sense. Either they taste differently blind or otherwise, or they do not, and if they taste differently people are going to recognise them as different drinks (again, blind or not). The labels may make a difference but not so much that somebody who has tasted both before cannot tell a malt whisky from a whisky-flavoured liqueur.

As I accepted above, if you're talking about people who have never tasted malt whisky or Southern Comfort before then yes, maybe they would choose the Southern Comfort as their preference of the two. The reason we're still doing circles on this is that after I posted about that you chose to drone on about experienced wine drinkers mistaking cheap and expensive wines - an irrelevance to whether inexperienced drinkers might prefer one of two noticeably different tasting drinks.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's. Not. About. Tasting. Differently.

Those wine tasters also actively preferred the cheap wines when they were in the expensive looking bottles to the expensive wine in cheap looking bottles. This is the key point, and what I've been trying to get through your head for a long time. Perception is key.

[Toby]

Yeah, great, so read the second part.

Maybe we should do a taste test between single malts and strawberry milkshakes while we're at it too? They obviously taste differently, but people might be confused by the labels, and... well they might be confused by the labels. Wines don't taste that different you know.

EDIT: To your edit, so it's now a swapped bottles test rather than a blindfold test. Cool. I'm sure the goalposts were over thataway when this all began.

[QE Harold Flair]

If you had read the examples I gave, the swapped bottles was one of them, yes. It's not my problem you come wading in being a cock and not reading what I write.

[Toby]

My contention came long before any wine studies were posted, but as I said above, it seems you're just making it up as you go along.

[Boydy]

I hope you both get banned.

[QE Harold Flair]

And you've continued it on after I made it clear and backed up what I said. You're a clown.

[Toby]

And you've continued it on after I made it clear and backed up what I said. You're a clown.

Well it doesn't back it up, since "blindfold test" and "swapped bottles test" are evidently different things, so I'll take it that you accept your original argument was nonsense and moved on to this one. I still don't agree with the new argument but it doesn't seem worth going any further with it.

[Magic]

Or go and screw each other.

[Toby]

I hope you both get banned.

Nobody's making you read it, and it's not like there were other discussions going on in the thread that are now being drowned out.

[Boydy]

https://media3.giphy.com/media/9muUXOtrd5gpG/200w.gif

[Toby]

http://i.imgur.com/lkaF9vq.gif

[ItalAussie]

This is eye-bleeding stuff. I'm calling time on this particular argument, and I'm just going to delete posts that try and drag it out anymore.

On the topic of whisky though: we had a whisky tasting at Oxford once, and the guy they got in to do it also ran them for a number of high-profile clients. We were chatting to him after and he was telling us about the time he did a tasting for David Beckham. For that sort of thing, they brought out the toppest of top-shelf stuff - we weren't getting anywhere near those ones at our low-key tasting - and he told us that Beckham took a sip of the highest quality whisky they had, and then promptly cut it with lemonade. :D

[mugbull]

Why do we still let Harold derail every potentially interesting thread? He takes everything and makes it about him, its impossible to have a discussion on this fucking forum without him spamming messages and trying to get attention

[Reg]

I agree that it's bloody tiresome, but people do reply to him. It's not just him dragging out shite.

[QE Harold Flair]

This is eye-bleeding stuff. I'm calling time on this particular argument, and I'm just going to delete posts that try and drag it out anymore.

On the topic of whisky though: we had a whisky tasting at Oxford once, and the guy they got in to do it also ran them for a number of high-profile clients. We were chatting to him after and he was telling us about the time he did a tasting for David Beckham. For that sort of thing, they brought out the toppest of top-shelf stuff - we weren't getting anywhere near those ones at our low-key tasting - and he told us that Beckham took a sip of the highest quality whisky they had, and then promptly cut it with lemonade. :D

As I said before, this is not 'on topic'. Take it to the whisky thread.

And why are you other twats in my thread telling me I'm ruining my own thread?