Rubbish Aussie county cricketers

taipan wrote:
Sorry about thsat Dan I edited instead of posting.

Unless Skulls just edited his as well.

So, what you actually meant is although the lager in this country and many other countries is stronger, because you're living at high altitude it feels weaker when you're drinking it. So it's not: 'Pom beer tasting weak as piss' it's: 'all beer in low-lying countries feeling weak as piss due to the difference in altitude/oxygen levels'? Well, at least that's that cleared up.

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:
Sorry about thsat Dan I edited instead of posting.

Unless Skulls just edited his as well.

So, what you actually meant is although the lager in this country and many other countries is stronger, because you're living at high altitude it feels weaker when you're drinking it. So it's not: 'Pom beer tasting weak as piss' it's: 'all beer in low-lying countries feeling weak as piss due to the difference in altitude/oxygen levels'? Well, at least that's that cleared up.

No, I said said my judgement might be clouded.

Your judgement may be clouded for every low-lying country?

Brass Monkey wrote:Your judgement may be clouded for every low-lying country?

Probably unless the drink is very strong.

So how do myou test the strength?

Read the percentage volume of alcohol on the label.

eowyn wrote:Read the percentage volume of alcohol on the label.

Which is skewed by the altitude as per the previous discussion.

taipan wrote:

Probably unless the drink is very strong.

So how do myou test the strength?

Well, this is getting to be one of the most ridiculous discussions I've ever had.

1) Facts are facts - what the volume is on the bottle, is the volume of the alcohol in that bottle.

2) Regardless of whether it affects you more at a higher altitude or not, it doesn't 'taste' any different.

3) Whatever strong drinks they get in other low-lying countries, is what we get here for the most part.

4) Your unfounded generalisation and the explanation given for that has been blown out of the water by yourself - unless you think there's some magical air in Britain, which other low countries don't have, that weakens the alcohol.

5) It's all immaterial, you're obviously Kalel from the Planet Krypton.

taipan wrote:

eowyn wrote:Read the percentage volume of alcohol on the label.

Which is skewed by the altitude as per the previous discussion.

Bullshit. You're making a gigantic fool of yourself now. The percentage of alcohol isn't skewed by altitude, how your body deals with it may be. That doesn't change the simple fact that English lager/beer isn't weak - in fact is stronger on average than most.

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:

eowyn wrote:Read the percentage volume of alcohol on the label.

Which is skewed by the altitude as per the previous discussion.

Bullshit. You're making a gigantic fool of yourself now. The percentage of alcohol isn't skewed by altitude, how your body deals with it may be. That doesn't change the simple fact that English lager/beer isn't weak - in fact is stronger on average than most.

Aye but it's an easy sledge just like the you're crap at sport sledge.

Totally unfounded but easy nonetheless....

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:

eowyn wrote:Read the percentage volume of alcohol on the label.

Which is skewed by the altitude as per the previous discussion.

Bullshit. You're making a gigantic fool of yourself now. The percentage of alcohol isn't skewed by altitude, how your body deals with it may be. That doesn't change the simple fact that English lager/beer isn't weak - in fact is stronger on average than most.

Which is clearly what I meant.

Personally I judge the strength of the brew by the effect it has on me. Myabe you do it differently, i don't know.

The point remains that the last time I was in England the brews I was drinking didn't have that much effect on me.

taipan wrote:

eowyn wrote:Read the percentage volume of alcohol on the label.

Which is skewed by the altitude as per the previous discussion.

Being at altitude effects the oxygen levels getting to your brain it doesn't effect the percentage volume of alcohol in a drink. You need to measure how little oxygen your brian is getting not what volume of alcohol you're drinking.

eowyn wrote:

taipan wrote:

eowyn wrote:Read the percentage volume of alcohol on the label.

Which is skewed by the altitude as per the previous discussion.

Being at altitude effects the oxygen levels getting to your brain it doesn't effect the percentage volume of alcohol in a drink. You need to measure how little oxygen your brian is getting not what volume of alcohol you're drinking.

And obviously the base fact of the discussion is how alcohol affects you differently at different altitudes.

As i said earlier I can drink far more of the same brew (no change in percentage alcohol) at the coast that at altitude.

This was born out by Charlie's post.

Maybe if mynah reads this she can add her input.

taipan wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:

eowyn wrote:Read the percentage volume of alcohol on the label.

Which is skewed by the altitude as per the previous discussion.

Bullshit. You're making a gigantic fool of yourself now. The percentage of alcohol isn't skewed by altitude, how your body deals with it may be. That doesn't change the simple fact that English lager/beer isn't weak - in fact is stronger on average than most.

Which is clearly what I meant.

Personally I judge the strength of the brew by the effect it has on me. Myabe you do it differently, i don't know.

The point remains that the last time I was in England the brews I was drinking didn't have that much effect on me.

1) By saying that you found the beer weak as piss doesn't recognise the strength of it in comparison to your 5% Castle. It says the opposite.

2) I judge the strength of it by looking at the bottle - seeing what percentage alcohol it has. Whether they had an affect on you or not, the only facts here... only facts are that on the bottle, on paper, English lager is stronger than Castle.

No point need remain, all your original points have bitten the dust with your backtracking point of view.

taipan wrote:And obviously the base fact of the discussion is how alcohol affects you differently at different altitudes.

As i said earlier I can drink far more of the same brew (no change in percentage alcohol) at the coast that at altitude.

This was born out by Charlie's post.

Maybe if mynah reads this she can add her input.

Why can she? You said English lager was weak as piss, not through actual physical volume of alcohol but by the proximity of oneself to sea level.

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:And obviously the base fact of the discussion is how alcohol affects you differently at different altitudes.

As i said earlier I can drink far more of the same brew (no change in percentage alcohol) at the coast that at altitude.

This was born out by Charlie's post.

Maybe if mynah reads this she can add her input.

Why can she? You said English lager was weak as piss, not through actual physical volume of alcohol but by the proximity of oneself to sea level.

Because she lives at the same altitude as me maybe? You yourself said you couldn't comment on the effects of altitude.

No, I said i found it as weak as piss, but that my perception could be clouded by the altitude effect. My standpoint hasn't changed.

taipan wrote:Because she lives at the same altitude as me maybe? You yourself said you couldn't comment on the effects of altitude.

No, I said i found it as weak as piss, but that my perception could be clouded by the altitude effect. My standpoint hasn't changed.

Your point changed after getting totally blown out of the water. That and you're obviously so vacuous that you cannot recognise that say 5.6% > 5.0%

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:Because she lives at the same altitude as me maybe? You yourself said you couldn't comment on the effects of altitude.

No, I said i found it as weak as piss, but that my perception could be clouded by the altitude effect. My standpoint hasn't changed.

Your point changed after getting totally blown out of the water. That and you're obviously so vacuous that you cannot recognise that say 5.6% > 5.0%

No, my point hasn't changed despite your poor attempt to claim I had edited my initial post.

taipan wrote:
No, my point hasn't changed despite your poor attempt to claim I had edited my initial post.

Nigel. Nigey, Nigey, Nigey.... 'The Forum' claims you edited your original post after an hour's debate with me. That is so woeful.

Here, Nigel - let me ask you a question:

Castle is 5.0%

Stella is 5.2%/5.5% (dependant on where you get it).

Which is stronger/less likely to be weak as piss?

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:
No, my point hasn't changed despite your poor attempt to claim I had edited my initial post.

Nigel. Nigey, Nigey, Nigey.... 'The Forum' claims you edited your original post after an hour's debate with me. That is so woeful.

Here, Nigel - let me ask you a question:

Castle is 5.0%

Stella is 5.2%/5.5% (dependant on where you get it).

Which is stronger/less likely to be weak as piss?

And the proof of the edit was on Skull's quote. Check the times.

I guess you have been googling SA brews to prove your point?

Obviously 5.2>5.0

My standpoint throughtout has been my perception and I have freely admitted that my perception could be clouded by the altitude issue.

You edited it an hour later, so it says to me.

Your stancepoint became that, yes, certainly. The facts are there, people's usual over here is stronger than people's usual over there. I CGAF - don't drink lager. Just when someone's bullshitting, you've just got to clear it all out. Warm, weak beer over here is bullshit.

Brass Monkey wrote:You edited it an hour later, so it says to me.

Your stancepoint became that, yes, certainly. The facts are there, people's usual over here is stronger than people's usual over there. I CGAF - don't drink lager. Just when someone's bullshitting, you've just got to clear it all out. Warm, weak beer over here is bullshit.

And Skull's post quoting my highveld upbringing comment was made exactly 2 minutes after my original post.

Where did I mention warm BTW?

You didn't - you were just waving your Demelza-tainted cyber pecker around. Horrie alluded to the usual stereotype - you were all like "These facking Poms, men, facking weak as piss beer ja? facking barbeques men, a minced cow cake ja? No facking rack of Springbok ja? Facking ridiculous. Our women are beautiful ja?"

We both know your original stancepoint and, typical Nigel, you backtrack to the point of desperation.

Brass Monkey wrote:You didn't - you were just waving your Demelza-tainted cyber pecker around. Horrie alluded to the usual stereotype - you were all like "These facking Poms, men, facking weak as piss beer ja? facking barbeques men, a minced cow cake ja? No facking rack of Springbok ja? Facking ridiculous. Our women are beautiful ja?"

We both know your original stancepoint and, typical Nigel, you backtrack to the point of desperation.

No I specifically mentioned the highveld bit to elicit a response. Which I was quite happy to explain as i did. Funnily enough I had no problems with the chilling of the beer.

So if you had a problem with Horrie, take it up with him.

The usual insults smack of your desperation now.

Of course you did Nidge, keep telling all and sundry that. We both know the reality. We're agreed that Japie beer is 'weak as piss' now though, so it doesn't matter.

So, who won this joust? Sounds like beer and skittles to me.