The next time I hear you claim that aging improves the taste of puerh I
expect scientific evidence. I also expect you to stand behind every
medical claim made about puerh in a scientific reference. Especially
the ones where it says little or no caffeine. You can't explain
multiple infusions. I can. You can't explain why gongfu works. I can.
You can't explain why the last cup of gongfu isn't pure tannins. I
can. The reason your references are meaningless factoids is because
they can't predict anything. Caffeine by weight is more or less a
constant so the caffeine reaction to all types should be the same. It
ain't. The differential rates of solutions should produce different
tasting cups of the same tea. It doesn't. Learn how science works. I
don't make the argument you do.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:
> Space Cowboy wrote:
> > A concentration is an
> > average of all components you can taste and not some meaningless
> > scientific factoid that claims tea taste depends on differential rates
> > of solution which you could never taste from one split second to the
> > next.
>
> Well Jim,
>
> It seems you debunk any collaborating studies I have presented as
> "factoids"(1) yet you present no collaboration for your theory
> whatsoever. I don't see where this can possibly go any further.
>
> Mike
>
> (1)Webster says: "something that may not be true but is widely accepted
> as true because it is repeatedly quoted"
> or " a small and often unimportant bit of information"