Space Cowboy wrote:
> 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


Jim, you were doing so good at keeping this civil then you go and blow
it! Why?

You didn't substantiate a single thing you said, I did at least
substantiate large portions of what I proposed. It seems that it
doesn't matter what I say you will argue it anyway, so it's like - why
should I bother.

Just for the record, you have NEVER heard me make a "medicinal" claim
about puerh, ever, and explaining multiple infusions was never my
argument. I can explain them I just cant find any hard scientific data
on the subject.

My argument was with your statement "I think caffeine is directly
proportional to taste" and the Francis Leggett study, amongst others,
proves otherwise, it's that simple and that's the extent of my
argument. Arguing with you any further about it won't prove a thing,
even when proof is presented you wont acknowledge it, so what's the
point of arguing with you?

Cheers Dude........