Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Auburn Culinary Center => Topic started by: AUChizad on July 08, 2013, 04:11:51 PM
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis
Wine-tasting: it's junk science
Experiments have shown that people can't tell plonk from grand cru. Now one US winemaker claims that even experts can't judge wine accurately. What's the science behind the taste?
David Derbyshire
The Observer, Saturday 22 June 2013
Every year Robert Hodgson selects the finest wines from his small California winery and puts them into competitions around the state.
And in most years, the results are surprisingly inconsistent: some whites rated as gold medallists in one contest do badly in another. Reds adored by some panels are dismissed by others. Over the decades Hodgson, a softly spoken retired oceanographer, became curious. Judging wines is by its nature subjective, but the awards appeared to be handed out at random.
So drawing on his background in statistics, Hodgson approached the organisers of the California State Fair wine competition, the oldest contest of its kind in North America, and proposed an experiment for their annual June tasting sessions.
Each panel of four judges would be presented with their usual "flight" of samples to sniff, sip and slurp. But some wines would be presented to the panel three times, poured from the same bottle each time. The results would be compiled and analysed to see whether wine testing really is scientific.
The first experiment took place in 2005. The last was in Sacramento earlier this month. Hodgson's findings have stunned the wine industry. Over the years he has shown again and again that even trained, professional palates are terrible at judging wine.
"The results are disturbing," says Hodgson from the Fieldbrook Winery in Humboldt County, described by its owner as a rural paradise. "Only about 10% of judges are consistent and those judges who were consistent one year were ordinary the next year.
"Chance has a great deal to do with the awards that wines win."
These judges are not amateurs either. They read like a who's who of the American wine industry from winemakers, sommeliers, critics and buyers to wine consultants and academics. In Hodgson's tests, judges rated wines on a scale running from 50 to 100. In practice, most wines scored in the 70s, 80s and low 90s.
Results from the first four years of the experiment, published in the Journal of Wine Economics, showed a typical judge's scores varied by plus or minus four points over the three blind tastings. A wine deemed to be a good 90 would be rated as an acceptable 86 by the same judge minutes later and then an excellent 94.
Some of the judges were far worse, others better – with around one in 10 varying their scores by just plus or minus two. A few points may not sound much but it is enough to swing a contest – and gold medals are worth a significant amount in extra sales for wineries.
Hodgson went on to analyse the results of wine competitions across California, and found that their medals were distributed at random.
"I think there are individual expert tasters with exceptional abilities sitting alone who have a good sense, but when you sit 100 wines in front of them the task is beyond human ability," he says. "We have won our fair share of gold medals but now I have to say we were lucky."
Robert Parker, above is the world's leading wine critic and his score is key to determining the price of a new vintage. But Orley Ashenfelter, a Princeton economist, invented a simple mathematical formula based on weather data to predict the price of vintages, which mimicked the predictions of Parker’s system.
His studies have irritated many figures in the industry. "They say I'm full of bullshit but that's OK. I'm proud of what I do. It's part of my academic background to find the truth.''
Hodgson isn't alone in questioning the science of wine-tasting. French academic Frédéric Brochet tested the effect of labels in 2001. He presented the same Bordeaux superior wine to 57 volunteers a week apart and in two different bottles – one for a table wine, the other for a grand cru.
The tasters were fooled.
When tasting a supposedly superior wine, their language was more positive – describing it as complex, balanced, long and woody. When the same wine was presented as plonk, the critics were more likely to use negatives such as weak, light and flat.
In 2008 a study of 6,000 blind tastings by Robin Goldstein in the Journal of Wine Economics found a positive link between the price of wine and the amount people enjoyed it. But the link only existed for people trained to detect the elements of wine that make them expensive.
In 2011 Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist (and former professional magician) at Hertfordshire University invited 578 people to comment on a range of red and white wines, varying from £3.49 for a claret to £30 for champagne, and tasted blind.
People could tell the difference between wines under £5 and those above £10 only 53% of the time for whites and only 47% of the time for reds. Overall they would have been just as a successful flipping a coin to guess.
So why are ordinary drinkers and the experts so poor at tasting blind? Part of the answer lies in the sheer complexity of wine.
For a drink made by fermenting fruit juice, wine is a remarkably sophisticated chemical cocktail. Dr Bryce Rankine, an Australian wine scientist, identified 27 distinct organic acids in wine, 23 varieties of alcohol in addition to the common ethanol, more than 80 esters and aldehydes, 16 sugars, plus a long list of assorted vitamins and minerals that wouldn't look out of place on the ingredients list of a cereal pack. There are even harmless traces of lead and arsenic that come from the soil.
Three of wine's most basic qualities – sweetness, sourness and bitterness – are picked up by the tongue's taste buds. A good wine has the perfect balance of sweet from the sugar in grapes, sourness from the acids, particularly tartaric and malic acid, and bitterness from alcohol and polyphenols, including tannins.
Many wines are more acidic than lemon juice and are only palatable because that acidity is balanced by sweetness and bitterness. "It's the holy trinity of the palate – sugar, acid and alcohol," says Dr James Hutchinson, a wine expert at the Royal Society of Chemistry.
Professionals distinguish between the balance of these three basic elements and a wine's flavour. And here the chemistry gets more complicated.
The flavour of wine – its aroma or bouquet – is detected not by the taste buds, but by millions of receptors in the olfactory bulb, a blob of nervous tissue where the brain meets the nasal passage.
Chemists have identified at least 400 aroma compounds that work on their own and with others to create complex flavours – some appearing immediately on first sniffing, others emerging only as an aftertaste. Most of these are volatiles – aromatic compounds that tend to have a low boiling point and waft away from glasses and tongues towards the olfactory bulb.
Some of these, the primary volatiles, are present in the grape. Others, the secondaries, are generated by yeast activity during fermentation. The rest, the tertiary volatiles, are formed as wine matures in barrels or bottles.
More evidence that wine-tasting is influenced by context was provided by a 2008 study from Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh. The team found that different music could boost tasters’ wine scores by 60%. Researchers discovered that a blast of Jimi Hendrix enhanced cabernet sauvignon while Kylie Minogue went well with chardonnay.
Over the last few decades, wine scientists have begun to identify the compounds responsible for some of the distinctive aromas in wine.
The grassy, gooseberry quality of sauvignon blanc, for instance, comes from a class of chemicals called methoxypyrazines. These contain nitrogen and are byproducts of the metabolism of amino acids in the grape. Concentrations are higher in cooler climates, which is why New Zealand sauvignon blancs are often more herbaceous than Australian ones.
The flowery aroma of muscat and gewürztraminer comes from a class of alcohol compounds called monoterpenes. These include linalool – a substance also used in perfumes and insecticide – and geraniol, a pale yellow liquid that doubles up as an effective mosquito repellent and gives geranium its distinctive smell.
The spicy notes of chardonnay have been attributed to compounds called megastigmatrienones, also found in grapefruit juice.
"People underestimate how clever the olfactory system is at detecting aromas and our brain is at interpreting them," says Hutchinson.
"The olfactory system has the complexity in terms of its protein receptors to detect all the different aromas, but the brain response isn't always up to it. But I'm a believer that everyone has the same equipment and it comes down to learning how to interpret it." Within eight tastings, most people can learn to detect and name a reasonable range of aromas in wine, Hutchinson says.
Detecting and finding the right vocabulary may be within everyone's grasp. But when it comes to ranking wines, Hutchinson shares Robert Hodgson's concerns.
"There's a lot of nonsense and emperor's new clothes in the wine world," Hutchinson says. "I have had a number of wines costing hundreds of pounds that have disappointed me – and a number costing between £5 and £10 which have been absolutely surprising."
People struggle with assessing wine because the brain's interpretation of aroma and bouquet is based on far more than the chemicals found in the drink. Temperature plays a big part. Volatiles in wine are more active when wine is warmer. Serve a New World chardonnay too cold and you'll only taste the overpowering oak. Serve a red too warm and the heady boozy qualities will be overpowering.
Colour affects our perceptions too. In 2001 Frédérick Brochet of the University of Bordeaux asked 54 wine experts to test two glasses of wine – one red, one white. Using the typical language of tasters, the panel described the red as "jammy' and commented on its crushed red fruit.
The critics failed to spot that both wines were from the same bottle. The only difference was that one had been coloured red with a flavourless dye.
Other environmental factors play a role. A judge's palate is affected by what she or he had earlier, the time of day, their tiredness, their health – even the weather.
For Hutchinson and Hodgson the unpredictability means that human scores of wines are of limited value.
"It's very subjective and there's a lot of politics marring it," says Hutchinson. "People should use it as one indicator and not as an end-all. It would be a great sadness if people were only driven by what critics say."
Is there a scientific basis for the belief that red wine does not go with seafood? Researchers from Japanese drinks firm Mercian tested 64 varieties of wine with scallops, and concluded that the iron content of red wine speeded up the decay of fish, resulting in an overly ‘fishy’ taste.
So if people cannot be relied on to judge wine, how about machines?
"In terms of replicating what a human can do we are a long way off," Hutchinson says. "The one thing we can do well, though, is a lot of amazing analytical chemistry that allows us to detect a huge range of different compounds in a glass of wine.
''We can start to have an indication of how the acidity balances with the sweetness and different levels of flavour compounds.
"But the step we haven't got to is how that raw chemical information can be crunched together and converted into something that reflects someone's emotional response. That might be something we can never achieve."
Meanwhile the blind tasting contests go on. Robert Hodgson is determined to improve the quality of judging. He has developed a test that will determine whether a judge's assessment of a blind-tasted glass in a medal competition is better than chance. The research will be presented at a conference in Cape Town this year. But the early findings are not promising.
"So far I've yet to find someone who passes," he says.
PUNGENT OVERTONES
In 2007, Richard E Quandt, a Princeton economics professor, published a paper entitled "On Wine Bullshit: Some New Software?" The study sought to describe the "unholy union" of "bullshit and bullshit artists who are impelled to comment on it", in this case wine and wine critics. Quandt compiled a "vocabulary of wine descriptors" containing 123 terms from "angular" to "violets" via other nonsense descriptions such as "fireplace" and "tannins, fine-grained".
Then, with the help of colleagues, he built an algorithm that generated wine reviews of hypothetical wines using his "vocabulary of bullshit". For instance: "Château L'Ordure Pomerol, 2004. Fine minerality, dried apricots and cedar characterise this sage-laden wine bursting with black fruit and toasty oak." He concluded that whether his reviews were "any more bullshit" than real ones was a "judgment call". Sadly, he didn't explore how long it would take a monkey to type a wine review.
-
i feel the same towards beer advocates too.
-
i feel the same towards beer advocates too.
I'll take that challenge. You provide the beer.
Now say something bad about scotch and bourbon drinkers so we can AUTiger1 and Chand involved and it'll be a real party.
-
i feel the same towards beer advocates too.
Is that you Alvin?
-
I've read a few of those articles. Some of them have to be bullshit.
Now, I'm not saying that people out there can really taste "spicy snosberry undertone with a peak of sesame which melds into a mid tone of wheatberry with a charcoal finish" in a glass of merlot.
But I'm fairly certain if you give me a blindfold test, I can tell the difference between a $50 bottle of red and a $10 bottle of red. In fact, I know I can because without knowing what I was drinking, I've remarked on how good a bottle of Cade was compared to the typical on sale shit I buy at Publix.
And worst off, a few of those "gotchya, wine drinkers!" articles have tried to say that most people can't tell the difference between red wine and white wine if they're colored the same. There's a distinct difference in texture and taste between the two kinds of wine.
-
I can tell the distinct bouquets between Thunderbird and wine in a box.
-
I'll take that challenge. You provide the beer.
Now say something bad about scotch and bourbon drinkers so we can AUTiger1 and Chand involved and it'll be a real party.
I can tell the difference in shitty bourbon and good bourbon. Scotch, not so much, it's all bad to me.
-
I'll take that challenge. You provide the beer.
Now say something bad about scotch and bourbon drinkers so we can AUTiger1 and Chand involved and it'll be a real party.
it all taste the same in coke...
-
it all taste the same in coke...
But what kind of dumb shit would do something like that?
-
But what kind of dumb shit would do something like that?
a lawyer that cares...
-
DCP :thumsup:
-
I've read a few of those articles. Some of them have to be bullshit.
Now, I'm not saying that people out there can really taste "spicy snosberry undertone with a peak of sesame which melds into a mid tone of wheatberry with a charcoal finish" in a glass of merlot.
But I'm fairly certain if you give me a blindfold test, I can tell the difference between a $50 bottle of red and a $10 bottle of red. In fact, I know I can because without knowing what I was drinking, I've remarked on how good a bottle of Cade was compared to the typical on sale shit I buy at Publix.
And worst off, a few of those "gotchya, wine drinkers!" articles have tried to say that most people can't tell the difference between red wine and white wine if they're colored the same. There's a distinct difference in texture and taste between the two kinds of wine.
After the 5th bottle they all taste the same.
-
Scotch, not so much, it's all bad to me.
:jaw:
Huge difference in shitty scotch and really, really, really good scotch.
I stick to average scotch. Glenlivet, Glenfiddich, Macallan, etc. for budgetary purposes, but if you've ever tasted from a $300 bottle of scotch, you'll notice a difference. It tastes like a BBQ smoker smells and is fantastic.
I can say the same about super nice wine. It's the oak-y taste that is noticeable if it has been aged the right way.
All that being said, it's 90% a mental thing, as that article implies. If you're got a good cheap wine, like a $12 2010 Cupcake Cabernet for example, and told the table that it was $200 bottle, there is no doubt that assholes at that table will comment on its "bouquet" and will rationalize the price. It's a weird psychological thing that we do as humans.
-
:jaw:
Huge difference in shitty scotch and really, really, really good scotch.
I stick to average scotch. Glenlivet, Glenfiddich, Macallan, etc. for budgetary purposes, but if you've ever tasted from a $300 bottle of scotch, you'll notice a difference. It tastes like a BBQ smoker smells and is fantastic.
I can say the same about super nice wine. It's the oak-y taste that is noticeable if it has been aged the right way.
All that being said, it's 90% a mental thing, as that article implies. If you're got a good cheap wine, like a $12 2010 Cupcake Cabernet for example, and told the table that it was $200 bottle, there is no doubt that assholes at that table will comment on its "bouquet" and will rationalize the price. It's a weird psychological thing that we do as humans.
This steak is from Wal Mart?
I'm a wine drinker. Mainly chardonnay. I don't profess to know squadoosh about them other than knowing what I like. I've been to tons of wine tastings and different wine festivals and I have it narrowed down to a particular taste I'm looking for...and a particular price range I'm looking for. I know that most of the chardonnays from Sonoma County or Russian River Valley are going to have the taste I want and I've found about 10 of them in my price range, which is around $12.00 - $25.00. (The $25.00 being on the real high end)
On the rare occasion will I splurge for a fairly expensive bottle, which to me is anything $35.00 and up. While I don't slam it from a Solo cup, I also don't sit and just nurse a glass of wine for an hour, holding out my pinky for effect. Two good glasses of wine and the bottle is about kaput, so why pay so damn much for one bottle? I think some people pay out the a$$ just to be able to say they did.
-
I know that most of the chardonnays from Sonoma County or Russian River Valley are going to have the taste I want and I've found about 10 of them in my price range, which is around $12.00 - $25.00. (The $25.00 being on the real high end)
I think you left out a few commas and zeroes.
-
I think you left out a few commas and zeroes.
Damn auto correct
-
I think you left out a few commas and zeroes.
He is just being modest. We all know that he pays way more than that for his wine. You know those Dothan lawyers are making the most money.
-
:jaw:
Huge difference in shitty scotch and really, really, really good scotch.
I stick to average scotch. Glenlivet, Glenfiddich, Macallan, etc. for budgetary purposes, but if you've ever tasted from a $300 bottle of scotch, you'll notice a difference. It tastes like a BBQ smoker smells and is fantastic.
I can say the same about super nice wine. It's the oak-y taste that is noticeable if it has been aged the right way.
All that being said, it's 90% a mental thing, as that article implies. If you're got a good cheap wine, like a $12 2010 Cupcake Cabernet for example, and told the table that it was $200 bottle, there is no doubt that assholes at that table will comment on its "bouquet" and will rationalize the price. It's a weird psychological thing that we do as humans.
That was actually me taking a shot at GH and PCT. I like certain Scotchs.
-
He is just being modest. We all know that he pays way more than that for his wine. You know those Dothan lawyers are making the most money.
I will never pay more than $25.00 for a bottle of wine.....uunnnnless they're completely out of the wine I like and all they have is a $40.00 bottle. But I will NOT pay more than $40.00 for any bottle of wine....uunnless it's my birthday and I want to celebrate and then I might go with the $70.00 bottle. But $70.00 is the absolute most I'll ever pay for a bottle of wine......uh....um....unnnless it's a Tuesday. Then I might break out the debit card and pay for that $125.00 bottle.
-
I will never pay more than $25.00 for a bottle of wine.....uunnnnless they're completely out of the wine I like and all they have is a $40.00 bottle. But I will NOT pay more than $40.00 for any bottle of wine....uunnless it's my birthday and I want to celebrate and then I might go with the $70.00 bottle. But $70.00 is the absolute most I'll ever pay for a bottle of wine......uh....um....unnnless it's a Tuesday. Then I might break out the debit card and pay for that $125.00 bottle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeE9_WLOFvI&list=PLE2BDEDF8E9E61374
-
That was actually me taking a shot at GH and PCT. I like certain Scotchs.
Jameson 18 yr ain't scotch my good man. Personally, I like some scotch. But in general don't care for it.
-
I have a cask sitting on my bar that I regularly fill with Famous Grouse. A fine culinary delight it ain't, but it gets the job done, and I was able to get 2-for-1 on a couple handles, so I'm stocked up for a...week...at least.
-
I have a cask sitting on my bar that I regularly fill with Famous Grouse. A fine culinary delight it ain't, but it gets the job done, and I was able to get 2-for-1 on a couple handles, so I'm stocked up for a...week...at least.
Not what you want to be drinking neat.
-
Jameson 18 yr ain't scotch my good man. Personally, I like some scotch. But in general don't care for it.
Oh I know, I thought y'all were the Scotch connoisseurs of the board, no?
Love me some Jameson too. The only whiskey other than Kentucky Bourbon is Irish Whiskey. The rest are horrible.
-
Not what you want to be drinking neat.
I don't know what this means, but now that Google is back I learned these facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Famous_Grouse
It has been the highest selling whisky in Scotland since 1980.
In the movie, The Iron Lady, The Famous Grouse is Margaret Thatcher's (played by Meryl Streep) choice of drink.
It also sponsored the Scotland national rugby union team from 1990 until 2007, and is now 'The Official Spirit of Scottish Rugby', making this one of the longest running sports sponsorships in the UK.
-
I don't know what this means, but now that Google is back I learned these facts.
When you order a drink "neat" it means bring it with nothing else in it including ice.
Not claiming it has not been a popular scotch just saying it's not a very good scotch.
-
When you order a drink "neat" it means bring it with nothing else in it including ice.
Not claiming it has not been a popular scotch just saying it's not a very good scotch.
Ah, gotcha, I agree. Like I said, I got it dirt cheap, and it'll do. I've certainly had worse, but sure as shit have had better.
I drink it on the rocks, usually with a tiny splash of water on top to lube it up.
-
Ah, gotcha, I agree. Like I said, I got it dirt cheap, and it'll do. I've certainly had worse, but sure as shit have had better.
I drink it on the rocks, usually with a tiny splash of water on top to lube it up.
It'll damn sure do to give to guests that care. Those fuckers will probably put coke in it anyway.
-
It'll damn sure do to give to guests that care. Those fuckers will probably put coke in it anyway.
:thumsup:
-
Taste tests are horse hockey. I'll bet you a hundred that most cannot tell the difference in some of the local crack I can buy around here and the supposedly premium stuff my cousin Larry gets in ATL.
-
I can tell the difference in shitty bourbon and good bourbon.
This man speaks the truth!
I'm not much of a wine drinker theses days, I prefer to spend my dollars on nice beer and Kentucky Gold. I mainly drink wine with weekend dinners. Back in the PC(Pre-Children) days we would indulge in nice bottles of wine in the $20+ range, that is a rarity now. I have found that I now enjoy the $6-10 bottles from Trader Joe's.
-
Oh I know, I thought y'all were the Scotch connoisseurs of the board, no?
Love me some Jameson too. The only whiskey other than Kentucky Bourbon is Irish Whiskey. The rest are horrible.
No sir.
Sounds like that is officially Chizad.
Me and pct were nursing off his 18 yr Jameson at the last x gate.
A little birdie was helping too. Hell we even took a shot in honor of Shane's demise.
-
No sir.
Sounds like that is officially Chizad.
Me and pct were nursing off his 18 yr Jameson at the last x gate.
A little birdie was helping too. Hell we even took a shot in honor of Shane's demise.
Will there be more available WSU game?
-
No sir.
Sounds like that is officially Chizad.
Me and pct were nursing off his 18 yr Jameson at the last x gate.
A little birdie was helping too. Hell we even took a shot in honor of Shane's demise.
I took a little nip off that bottle too. Right before I left the x-gate.
-
Anyone who claims they drink alcohol for "the taste" is lying.
-
Anyone who claims they drink alcohol for "the taste" is lying.
Wrong sir.
-
Wrong sir.
Lying to themselves as well.
It all tastes like gasoline.
-
I remember my first sip of beer. I was 4 years old. I had to reach up on to the kitchen counter on my tippy toes to grab that white can that said "Lite" on it. I took a swig of it and thought it was the best thing EVAR. Didn't touch it again until I was 15 but I loved it just as much at 15 as I did at 4. I loved even more the "game" of keeping it from my parents. I sucked at that game.
Even now I'm to the point where after a 2 1/2 year alcohol hiatus I am able to enjoy a glass of red wine with dinner every now and then. I even keep my pants on!
-
Even now I'm to the point where after a 2 1/2 year alcohol hiatus I am able to enjoy a glass of red wine with dinner every now and then. I even keep my pants on!
In all seriousness, that is good news. All hope is not lost for you having a couple of beers at an X-Gate again one day (responsibly, if you so choose that method).
-
I remember my first sip of beer. I was 4 years old. I had to reach up on to the kitchen counter on my tippy toes to grab that white can that said "Lite" on it. I took a swig of it and thought it was the best thing EVAR. Didn't touch it again until I was 15 but I loved it just as much at 15 as I did at 4. I loved even more the "game" of keeping it from my parents. I sucked at that game.
Even now I'm to the point where after a 2 1/2 year alcohol hiatus I am able to enjoy a glass of red wine with dinner every now and then. I even keep my pants on!
Not my business, but that's a dangerous path Ogre. We "think" we can control our dragons. That is the lie we tell ourselves. But in truth they control us. And they know they way to our souls.
-
Anyone who claims they eat tomatoes for "the taste" is lying.
AMIRITE
-
Son, never trust a man who doesn't drink because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They're the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how to survive himself. It's damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he's heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl.
-
Son, never trust a man who doesn't drink because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They're the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how to survive himself. It's damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he's heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl.
Meant in humor, I know.
I drank. Drank a lot. Never had to kneel because it doesn't affect me that way. Don't get hangovers.
I'm better when I don't drink.
I've even drifted back into the "I can have a few and handle it" self delusion.
My life is better when I don't.
-
"There are two kinds of problem drinkers in the world. Those that drink too much and those that drink too little."
-Winston Churchill
-
Not my business, but that's a dangerous path Ogre. We "think" we can control our dragons. That is the lie we tell ourselves. But in truth they control us. And they know they way to our souls.
I truly appreciate your sentiment. I agree with you that it could be a dangerous path. I had to put "safeguards" around my imbibing. I also had a long discussion with my wife prior to my first glass. She fully supports me and also holds me accountable. Since I don't travel for work anymore it is much easier for her to do so.
The weird thing is that I have something I've never experienced before - a cutoff switch. I've only treaded close to the line of a buzz once and the internal guilt and conviction was too much to bear, so I put it down mid-drink. This is such a foreign concept to me because my mantra for the first 31 years of my life was to drink until I passed out.
I promise not to go off on another sermon, but I fully attribute this to the freedom I've found in Christ. God has fully transformed me from the inside-out to the point where my desires have changed. I have absolutely no desire to get drunk. Not even a little bit. I do, however, enjoy the taste of red wine and one glass or so does relax me. It's not something I could have done even a year ago. After much prayer and consideration and a successful trial run where I didn't go full-bore on a 3 day bender, I realized that God has truly changed me into a new creation.
In all seriousness, that is good news. All hope is not lost for you having a couple of beers at an X-Gate again one day (responsibly, if you so choose that method).
Maybe one day. Although I doubt you guys would recognize me. This fat face is long gone:
:bowl:
-
Meant in humor, I know.
I drank. Drank a lot. Never had to kneel because it doesn't affect me that way. Don't get hangovers.
I'm better when I don't drink.
I've even drifted back into the "I can have a few and handle it" self delusion.
My life is better when I don't.
I think some people can and others can't. Some have to just stop totally. All in how we're wired.
My old man couldn't just drink a couple. It would spiral. Me? I can. Never had an issue. I still only drink something once maybe twice a month. And it's the equivalent each time of 2-3 beers or a glass of wine or two. I may go another month or two sometimes before having another. Just never been an issue for me.
But for those who do have an issue? I totally understand the need to abstain.
-
Lying to themselves as well.
It all tastes like gasoline.
Gonna Disagree, nothing like after a long day, going out, sitting on a patio and a tall cold beer. (Blue moon my preference) or on about the third hole the beer cart lady comes by and you grab a couple for the rest of the round.
Everybody has their own thing.
-
Gonna Disagree, nothing like after a long day, going out, sitting on a patio and a tall cold beer. (Blue moon my preference) or on about the third hole the beer cart lady comes by and you grab a couple for the rest of the round.
Everybody has their own thing.
If it was the "taste" you would drink non-alcoholic beer. You don't.
End of story.
-
If it was the "taste" you would drink non-alcoholic beer. You don't.
End of story.
It can be both. Fermented hops combined with carbonation appeals to many. Especially when cold on a hot day. Then at the same time it helps relax or knock the edge off.
You've obviously never had any of dallas' super keen beer.
-
If it was the "taste" you would drink non-alcoholic beer. You don't.
End of story.
If they made a "non-alcoholic" beer that was worth a damn I would agree but they don't. They make that shit to appease a very small section of drinkers.
-
It can be both. Fermented hops combined with carbonation appeals to many. Especially when cold on a hot day. Then at the same time it helps relax or knock the edge off.
You've obviously never had any of dallas' super keen beer.
I made my own beer for a while, tasted like crap (non-keen). Tis easier for me to just buy it.
-
If it was the "taste" you would drink non-alcoholic beer. You don't.
End of story.
If non-alcoholic beer tasted like decent alcoholic beer that might be an option.
-
If non-alcoholic beer tasted like decent alcoholic beer that might be an option.
A friend of mine brought up a point. Grape soda taste like sweeter more potent grape flavor than any wine does.
While I'm not in Kaos's boat, I do admit that beer is straight up nasty. It tastes bad. Occasionally I can suffer through drinking one. I did last night because my father-in-law offered me a Guinness, so I drank it.
But really, the only alcohol I enjoy is bourbon or Irish whiskey neat in a cold glass.
-
A friend of mine brought up a point. Grape soda taste like sweeter more potent grape flavor than any wine does.
While I'm not in Kaos's boat, I do admit that beer is straight up nasty. It tastes bad. Occasionally I can suffer through drinking one. I did last night because my father-in-law offered me a Guinness, so I drank it.
But really, the only alcohol I enjoy is bourbon or Irish whiskey neat in a cold glass.
Never got the Guinness thing. (Wes, you stay out of this) I've tried several times with an open mind but that shipth is just plain nasty.
-
Never got the Guinness thing. (Wes, you stay out of this) I've tried several times with an open mind but that shipth is just plain nasty.
:facepalm:
-
A friend of mine brought up a point. Grape soda taste like sweeter more potent grape flavor than any wine does.
While I'm not in Kaos's boat, I do admit that beer is straight up nasty. It tastes bad. Occasionally I can suffer through drinking one. I did last night because my father-in-law offered me a Guinness, so I drank it.
But really, the only alcohol I enjoy is bourbon or Irish whiskey neat in a cold glass.
I like bitter things, dark chocolate, greens, black coffee, Kaos, unsweetened tea, red wine, and beer. Straight up hard liquor, hardly ever touch the stuff. My favorite hard liquor drink is gin and tonic, which again has the bitter quinine flavor to it.
-
I do admit that beer is straight up nasty. It tastes bad. Occasionally I can suffer through drinking one. I did last night because my father-in-law offered me a Guinness, so I drank it.
:facepalm:
Never got the Guinness thing. (Wes, you stay out of this) I've tried several times with an open mind but that shipth is just plain nasty.
:facepalm:
:facepalm:
:thumsup:
I like bitter things, dark chocolate, greens, black coffee, Kaos, unsweetened tea, red wine, and beer. Straight up hard liquor, hardly ever touch the stuff. My favorite hard liquor drink is gin and tonic, which again has the bitter quinine flavor to it.
:facepalm:
-
Beer snob
-
Never got the Guinness thing. (Wes, you stay out of this) I've tried several times with an open mind but that shipth is just plain nasty.
Guinness is not even the biggest seller in Ireland. Budweiser has their own plant over there and brew a stronger brew. (at least when I was there late 90's)
-
Guinness is not even the biggest seller in Ireland. Budweiser has their own plant over there and brew a stronger brew. (at least when I was there late 90's)
Cause it's cheap as dirt.
See they got this depression on. I got to do for me and mine.