"st" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 00:18:01 +0100, <a> wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I have a number of friends who claim that Stella Artois effects them in
an
> >adverse manner. Basically, they reckon they get a lot more drunk on
Stella
> >than on the same amount of any other lager/beer of the same alcohol
content.
> >Not sure where most of you come from, but Stella has the nickname
> >"wifebeater" here in England, due to it's supposed propensity to incite
> >violence in it's drinkers. Personally, I don't find it effects me any
> >differently to beers of the same strength. Does anyone know if there
really
> >is anything about it that would make it more potent than other beers? Or
is
> >it, as I suspect, all in their minds?!
>
> Here in Australia at least, compared to most other standard beers
> (local or imported), it has a slightly higher alcohol content. So if
> you go 1:1 with a mate or whatever, the bloke drinking Stella would be
> more ****ed.
>
> I get really monstrous hangovers after a night on Stella. That,
> coupled with the fact that is it horrendously expensive here, makes me
> drink it less than I'd like to.

Yes, this is another claim often made - "I get a worse hangover on Stella
than anything else". I can't think of any scientific reason for this so I
suspect it's another figment of their imagination. I asked a friend to
clarify why Stella effects them more today, the answer was along the lines
of "there's some chemical that it's got more of"! I have to agree with all
the posts saying it's a load of rubbish, was hoping someone might suprise me
with a strange fact or stat though...

Also, I didn't realise how unpopular Stella was - have to admit it's usually
my choice of lager in a UK pub (typical draught lager choice is Kronenbourg,
Carling, Grolsch, Stella). This is probably why I hear the evils of the
drink from other people so much!

Cheers,
Dan