|
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Dear all,
First I would like to thank rec.food.drink.tea members, especially pu erh related, for posting here since this group was one of the inspirations for my interest in pu erh! And now it's a great source of new pu erh related knowledge. I would appreciate your help in indentifing two cooked pu erhs I have. I was looking for some info about them for quite a long time but to no effect. First one is 100g Beeng Cha, so called "plum emdossed cake" http://ph.icmp.lviv.ua/~vorobyov/BeengCha.jpg which seems to be the same as the one at ITC website http://www.imperialtea.com/AB1002000...Category_ID=23 However ITC dosen't indicate the factory and year of production :( One can read 高*普洱梅花饼茶 on the wrapper which again just almost useless, just "good quality pu erh cake with plum flower" :( I was told that my cake is 8 years old which I tend to believe but can't be sure. My cake dosen't have any wrapper. The same for the second one which is 50g Fang Cha http://ph.icmp.lviv.ua/~vorobyov/FangCha.jpg Again I was told that it is one year old, but no factory information. Goes in polyethlene wrapper Thank you so much though I understand that there might be not enough information to tell anything. |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Here is a Chinese discussion link found with Google:
http://translate.google.com/translat...as_ qdr%3Dall You'll have to read between the lines (CNNP 2003) or if you can read Chinese click the View Original Web Page. The 2003 5 x 100g bundle on TaoBao was 138y or /8 for dollars. Jim Oleg wrote: > Dear all, > > First I would like to thank rec.food.drink.tea members, especially pu > erh related, for posting here since this group was one of the > inspirations for my interest in pu erh! And now it's a great source of > new pu erh related knowledge. > > I would appreciate your help in indentifing two cooked pu erhs I have. > I was looking for some info about them for quite a long time but to no > effect. > > First one is 100g Beeng Cha, so called "plum emdossed cake" > > http://ph.icmp.lviv.ua/~vorobyov/BeengCha.jpg > > which seems to be the same as the one at ITC website > > http://www.imperialtea.com/AB1002000...Category_ID=23 > > However ITC dosen't indicate the factory and year of production :( One > can read 高*普洱梅花饼茶 on the wrapper which again just > almost useless, just "good quality pu erh cake with plum flower" :( I > was told that my cake is 8 years old which I tend to believe but can't > be sure. My cake dosen't have any wrapper. > > The same for the second one which is 50g Fang Cha > > http://ph.icmp.lviv.ua/~vorobyov/FangCha.jpg > > Again I was told that it is one year old, but no factory information. > Goes in polyethlene wrapper > > Thank you so much though I understand that there might be not enough > information to tell anything. |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Hi Oleg,
The factory that produced the plum flower cakes is the probably same as the one that produced the pumpkin pu'er that Jim has, the Ji Xing factory, or lucky brand factory. The one that you showed would be either the recent one, or it might be done by another factory - the tablet usually has the plum flower imprint but not the 'tea' character on the other side - that being said I'm familiar with the tablet pre-2001, having tasted some, but not after, so your picture may be one in the recent years or from another factory. As for the squares, it is made almost by every other factory in Kunming - figuratively. Danny "Oleg" > wrote in message oups.com... Dear all, First I would like to thank rec.food.drink.tea members, especially pu erh related, for posting here since this group was one of the inspirations for my interest in pu erh! And now it's a great source of new pu erh related knowledge. I would appreciate your help in indentifing two cooked pu erhs I have. I was looking for some info about them for quite a long time but to no effect. First one is 100g Beeng Cha, so called "plum emdossed cake" http://ph.icmp.lviv.ua/~vorobyov/BeengCha.jpg which seems to be the same as the one at ITC website http://www.imperialtea.com/AB1002000...Category_ID=23 However ITC dosen't indicate the factory and year of production :( One can read ???????? on the wrapper which again just almost useless, just "good quality pu erh cake with plum flower" :( I was told that my cake is 8 years old which I tend to believe but can't be sure. My cake dosen't have any wrapper. The same for the second one which is 50g Fang Cha http://ph.icmp.lviv.ua/~vorobyov/FangCha.jpg Again I was told that it is one year old, but no factory information. Goes in polyethlene wrapper Thank you so much though I understand that there might be not enough information to tell anything. |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Thank you, Jim and Danny!
But is Ji Xing (is it 吉幸?) a real name of the factory or just the brand? For example this two products are claimed to be of "Ji Xing" brand and produced by "Xing Hai Tea Mountain tea Co." http://www.jingteashop.com/pd_ji.cfm# http://www.jingteashop.com/pd_zhuan_cha_ban_zhang.cfm Unfortunately I don't read Chinese |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Thank you, Jim and Danny!
But is Ji Xing (is it 吉幸?) a real name of the factory or just the brand? For example this two products are claimed to be of "Ji Xing" brand but claimed to be produced by "Xing Hai Tea Mountain tea Co." http://www.jingteashop.com/pd_ji.cfm# http://www.jingteashop.com/pd_zhuan_cha_ban_zhang.cfm Unfortunately I don't read Chinese :( As for the second brick I suspected that this could be a kind of "no-name" thing :) Thanks! |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
I can be overruled but JiXing is the brand and Xin(g)Hai or HaiXin(g)
is the factory spelled both ways on TaoBao. Here is one picture from TaoBao that shows the factory name but not the brand name. CNNP is also an umbrella and only people in the know (like Danny) can identify the particular factory. There is no reason for 50g+ sizes to be missing wrappers. Only around 20g- is just the paper. You do see special casings with bamboo and baskets but that is normal. Those are the two characters for Ji Xing. Jim http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...haiFactory.jpg Oleg wrote: > Thank you, Jim and Danny! > > But is Ji Xing (is it 吉幸?) a real name of the factory or just the > brand? For example this two products are claimed to be of "Ji Xing" > brand but claimed to be produced by "Xing Hai Tea Mountain tea Co." > > http://www.jingteashop.com/pd_ji.cfm# > > http://www.jingteashop.com/pd_zhuan_cha_ban_zhang.cfm > > Unfortunately I don't read Chinese :( > > As for the second brick I suspected that this could be a kind of > "no-name" thing :) > > Thanks! |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
hi Oleg,
You have to take this up with Seb from Jing Teashop, haha! Ji Xing is both a brand as well as the factory, it was created by CNNP Yunnan branch in the 80s, along with another now defunct brand called Golden Cockerel - Jin Ji... I think I did mention on Jim's thread that Lucky Brand as well as the factory has changed hands... Danny "Oleg" > wrote in message oups.com... Thank you, Jim and Danny! But is Ji Xing (is it ???) a real name of the factory or just the brand? For example this two products are claimed to be of "Ji Xing" brand but claimed to be produced by "Xing Hai Tea Mountain tea Co." http://www.jingteashop.com/pd_ji.cfm# http://www.jingteashop.com/pd_zhuan_cha_ban_zhang.cfm Unfortunately I don't read Chinese :( As for the second brick I suspected that this could be a kind of "no-name" thing :) Thanks! |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Oleg -
I fully understand your attempt to know as much as you can about that tea. However, after years of taking the wrappers seriously (I do read some Chinese) I gave up after I saw how wrappers are sold on a teamarkets in Yunnan. By hundreds! All types and of all factories. So now when I buy something from my friend Roy at ITC and he tells me that he bought that puerh himself from a factory warehouse I am almost sure that what it is (there is a possibility that they fool Roy too). However I do not really care anymore because I learned to like what I like and buy as much of it as I can as soon as I figure out that I like it and not be too hang up about the wrappers. Here in Nevada once in a while I buy great fresh Fangcha in a teashop that has no idea what they sell (they get this as a new product under the name "Mongolian Tea" In reality its ???? . Nothing Mongolian about it. Cheers, Sasha. "Oleg" > wrote in message oups.com... Dear all, First I would like to thank rec.food.drink.tea members, especially pu erh related, for posting here since this group was one of the inspirations for my interest in pu erh! And now it's a great source of new pu erh related knowledge. I would appreciate your help in indentifing two cooked pu erhs I have. I was looking for some info about them for quite a long time but to no effect. First one is 100g Beeng Cha, so called "plum emdossed cake" http://ph.icmp.lviv.ua/~vorobyov/BeengCha.jpg which seems to be the same as the one at ITC website http://www.imperialtea.com/AB1002000...Category_ID=23 However ITC dosen't indicate the factory and year of production :( One can read ???????? on the wrapper which again just almost useless, just "good quality pu erh cake with plum flower" :( I was told that my cake is 8 years old which I tend to believe but can't be sure. My cake dosen't have any wrapper. The same for the second one which is 50g Fang Cha http://ph.icmp.lviv.ua/~vorobyov/FangCha.jpg Again I was told that it is one year old, but no factory information. Goes in polyethlene wrapper Thank you so much though I understand that there might be not enough information to tell anything. |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Mike Petro wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 13:24:05 GMT, "Alex Chaihorsky" > > wrote: > Sasha speaks the truth here. Alas they do NOT have a solid code of > ethics yet in China regarding "truth in advertising" and many such > forgeries exist. They do indeed have a solid code of ethics in China regarding ''truth in advertising," Mike. It just doesn't happen to match yours. :-) |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Ourania ink.net11/21/05
> Mike Petro wrote: >> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 13:24:05 GMT, "Alex Chaihorsky" >> > wrote: > > >> Sasha speaks the truth here. Alas they do NOT have a solid code of >> ethics yet in China regarding "truth in advertising" and many such >> forgeries exist. > > They do indeed have a solid code of ethics in China regarding > ''truth in advertising," Mike. It just doesn't happen to match > yours. :-) Would you kindly elaborate upon it. Thanks. Michael |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
"Ourania Zabuhu" > wrote in message nk.net... > Mike Petro wrote: >> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 13:24:05 GMT, "Alex Chaihorsky" >> > wrote: > > >> Sasha speaks the truth here. Alas they do NOT have a solid code of >> ethics yet in China regarding "truth in advertising" and many such >> forgeries exist. > > They do indeed have a solid code of ethics in China regarding ''truth in > advertising," Mike. It just doesn't happen to match yours. :-) I happen to agree with Ourania, despite the fact that I am extremely irritated by the way products are advertised in China. Here in the US we also have tons of false advertising its just happen to be not about tea. Just to read and hear every other minute of yet another "World leader in..."... May be we should be more upset about our own "fine print"? If you look at the issue closely you will see that really very few people are upset about quality and truth while the majority eagerly eats up snake oils and cannot wait for more. That means that the markets are OK with this at current levels and as a pure market conservative I have to accept that. That is why I stopped reading the wrappers. I buy a tea, like it and buy more, don't like it and throw it away even if it has the authorized signature of the late Chairman Mao himself. That approach works beautifully with everything I tried. You can call it anti-branding. Sasha. |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Most of us Westerners can't read Chinese. Besides CNNP I don't think
it too much to expect factory and year from the seller or from elsewhere along the line. Understanding what is on the wrapper adds to the drinking ambience not the taste. Also knowing some particulars might help you find it cheaper elsewhere. Speaking of a factory named Nan Jian might be better than describing opposing dragons on their 100g tuos or funny deer on their 200g mini beengs. On Ebay they're $2.50/$4 respectively on TaoBao $.50/$1. I did some homework. I buy teas blind all the time with some educated guessing but I'm not throwing my money away on lotto. I wished I could be overwhelmed by teamarkets with more wrappers than I've ever seen. I'd stay at a hotel with a concierge and make it worth while to pack and send by China Post. Jim Alex Chaihorsky wrote: > Oleg - > > I fully understand your attempt to know as much as you can about that tea. > However, after years of taking the wrappers seriously (I do read some > Chinese) I gave up after I saw how wrappers are sold on a teamarkets in > Yunnan. By hundreds! All types and of all factories. > So now when I buy something from my friend Roy at ITC and he tells me that > he bought that puerh himself from a factory warehouse I am almost sure that > what it is (there is a possibility that they fool Roy too). However I do not > really care anymore because I learned to like what I like and buy as much of > it as I can as soon as I figure out that I like it and not be too hang up > about the wrappers. > Here in Nevada once in a while I buy great fresh Fangcha in a teashop that > has no idea what they sell (they get this as a new product under the name > "Mongolian Tea" In reality its ???? . Nothing Mongolian about it. > > Cheers, > > Sasha. |
International Business Ethics, was (Two unknown cooked pu erhs)
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:16:07 GMT, "Alex Chaihorsky"
> wrote: >>> Sasha speaks the truth here. Alas they do NOT have a solid code of >>> ethics yet in China regarding "truth in advertising" and many such >>> forgeries exist. >> >> They do indeed have a solid code of ethics in China regarding ''truth in >> advertising," Mike. It just doesn't happen to match yours. :-) > >I happen to agree with Ourania, despite the fact that I am extremely >irritated by the way products are advertised in China. Here in the US we >also have tons of false advertising its just happen to be not about tea. >Just to read and hear every other minute of yet another "World leader >in..."... May be we should be more upset about our own "fine print"? You are quite right Sasha, but I was referring to tea not politics. Here in the US we are fairly strict about the labeling of consumable products in particular. We are also pretty strict about forgeries, at least to the point that most knock-offs are driven to the black-market instead of being mainstream. If I buy a box of Kraft macaroni and cheese I can be extremely confident that it is indeed made by Kraft, and this holds true for most edible *products*. We don't bother trying to forge cheap stuff and food is almost held sacred. Now antiques, watches, and other expensive collectibles are a whole different matter, we do have our fair share of crooks there. Wanna buy a Rolexx watch? I guess the main difference is that we have much stiffer penalties so the crooks don't bother forging cheap stuff, they tend to make it worth their while in case they get caught. In China it seems that the business ethics of right and wrong most certainly exist but they don't devote the resources to deal with it at a criminal enforcement level. The result is rampant dishonesty to the point of being considered acceptable, consequently it is almost impossible to trust anything you are told. Even cheap 25 cent items are blatantly forged. Personal relationships and/or education are your only defense. The onus is clearly on the customer to ensure fairness, even on the smallest of transactions, with no expectation of government or legal support. Small transactions in the US are usually honest, even amongst the crooks. Mike Petro http://www.pu-erh.net |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Michael Plant wrote:
> Ourania ink.net11/21/05 > > > >>Mike Petro wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 13:24:05 GMT, "Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote: >> >> >>>Sasha speaks the truth here. Alas they do NOT have a solid code of >>>ethics yet in China regarding "truth in advertising" and many such >>>forgeries exist. >> >>They do indeed have a solid code of ethics in China regarding >>''truth in advertising," Mike. It just doesn't happen to match >>yours. :-) > > > > Would you kindly elaborate upon it. > Thanks. Actually, I was just pointing out the cultural chauvinism implicit in Mike's comment. What to Mike/us qualifies as "ethical" may not be even be an "ethical" consideration at all in another culture, or may even be deemed unethical or patently ridiculous in terms of that culture's standard business practices. But in any case, the labeling and advertising constraints in the U.S. are the results of legislation and most definitely not the result of ethics. Check out the label on a can of Campbell's SpaghettiOs, for example. It emphasizes how healthy that junk is for children (because vitamins are added). And Campbell's advertising for that product claims, "Now you can feel good about giving your kids what they are asking for!" because in addition to being delicious (!), it's so healthful and will help them grow. Then look at the ingredients. One small can contains over one gram of sodium! On top of it, the whole salty mess is just a glob of white flour and cheese and sugar. That's truth in labeling and truth in advertising? No. That's ethical? No. That's legal? Yes. Or look at an ad from GM that says you can buy a car at x% over invoice, or at employee discount prices, or whatever. Naturally, the ad doesn't mention the dealer pack, the "manufacturer's fees," etc., that result in the selling price being considerably (and invariably) much higher than what was advertised: unethical, untrue, and legal. Our hubristic assertions about U.S. consumer protection (not to mention U.S. business "ethics") are misinformed. Our notion that other cultures' "ethics" are inferior to ours is, well, a misguided assessment, at best. |
International Business Ethics, was (Two unknown cooked pu erhs)
Mike Petro wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:16:07 GMT, "Alex Chaihorsky" > >>I happen to agree with Ourania, despite the fact that I am extremely >>irritated by the way products are advertised in China. Here in the US we >>also have tons of false advertising its just happen to be not about tea. >>Just to read and hear every other minute of yet another "World leader >>in..."... May be we should be more upset about our own "fine print"? > > > You are quite right Sasha, but I was referring to tea not politics. We can find "weight loss tea" all over the place in the U.S., Mike. Do you know anyone who has ever lost weight by drinking that stuff? :-) > Here in the US we are fairly strict about the labeling of consumable > products in particular. I'm sure you've seen consumable products labeled "delicious" or "nutritious" or "healthy" that don't even come close to being so. >We don't bother trying to forge cheap stuff > and food is almost held sacred. Yeah, we're way too wealthy in the U.S. to bother with forgeries these days, but if food were held sacred we wouldn't be seeing such epidemic-level increases in diabetes, arteriosclerosis, hypertension, and other food- or additive-correlated diseases. > The result is rampant dishonesty to the point of being considered > acceptable, consequently it is almost impossible to trust anything you > are told. Obviously it's considered acceptable in China: it exists and it's legal. It's considered acceptable and legal in all cultures whose trading practices adhere to the standards of the bazaar. Not trusting anything you're told is a logical and prudent consumer practice anywhere in the world. "Trust" is as unnecessary (and trouble-causing) a concept in the marketplace as it is in a marriage. Use your senses and your intelligence to guide your business affairs (and your personal relationships), and leave fuzzy, vague, indefinable, and always relative notions of "trust" to the self-help-product hustlers. You'll do fine! > Small transactions in the US are usually honest, even amongst the > crooks. Not so, if your determination of "honest" depends on accuracy in advertising and labeling. |
International Business Ethics, was (Two unknown cooked pu erhs)
"Mike Petro" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:16:07 GMT, "Alex Chaihorsky" > > wrote: > >>>> Sasha speaks the truth here. Alas they do NOT have a solid code of >>>> ethics yet in China regarding "truth in advertising" and many such >>>> forgeries exist. >>> >>> They do indeed have a solid code of ethics in China regarding ''truth in >>> advertising," Mike. It just doesn't happen to match yours. :-) >> >>I happen to agree with Ourania, despite the fact that I am extremely >>irritated by the way products are advertised in China. Here in the US we >>also have tons of false advertising its just happen to be not about tea. >>Just to read and hear every other minute of yet another "World leader >>in..."... May be we should be more upset about our own "fine print"? > > You are quite right Sasha, but I was referring to tea not politics. > Here in the US we are fairly strict about the labeling of consumable > products in particular. We are also pretty strict about forgeries, at > least to the point that most knock-offs are driven to the black-market > instead of being mainstream. If I buy a box of Kraft macaroni and > cheese I can be extremely confident that it is indeed made by Kraft, > and this holds true for most edible *products*. We don't bother trying > to forge cheap stuff and food is almost held sacred. Now antiques, > watches, and other expensive collectibles are a whole different > matter, we do have our fair share of crooks there. Wanna buy a Rolexx > watch? > > I guess the main difference is that we have much stiffer penalties so > the crooks don't bother forging cheap stuff, they tend to make it > worth their while in case they get caught. In China it seems that the > business ethics of right and wrong most certainly exist but they don't > devote the resources to deal with it at a criminal enforcement level. > The result is rampant dishonesty to the point of being considered > acceptable, consequently it is almost impossible to trust anything you > are told. Even cheap 25 cent items are blatantly forged. Personal > relationships and/or education are your only defense. The onus is > clearly on the customer to ensure fairness, even on the smallest of > transactions, with no expectation of government or legal support. > Small transactions in the US are usually honest, even amongst the > crooks. > > Mike Petro > http://www.pu-erh.net In short - the difference is in scale. I also have to tell you that I am pretty sure that lot of California wine sold at 7/11s and gas stations are forgeries. I have pretty good nose for wines and things that I used to buy that way were no CA wine - it was cheap "vin de table" from Chile. I can smell that old machines Andes rust stench from half a mile. On the other hand I bought a beautiful, completely undistinguishable from an original men's Cartier watch in China for $20. The problem - I do not like square watches... Wanna exchange your Rolex for my Cartier? :))))))))))) Sasha. |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
snip snip snip snippity snip snip
Hi Ourania, Astute responses interleaved below. Michael >>> They do indeed have a solid code of ethics in China regarding >>> ''truth in advertising," Mike. It just doesn't happen to match >>> yours. :-) >> Would you kindly elaborate upon it. >> Thanks. > Actually, I was just pointing out the cultural chauvinism > implicit in Mike's comment. What to Mike/us qualifies as > "ethical" may not be even be an "ethical" consideration at all in > another culture, or may even be deemed unethical or patently > ridiculous in terms of that culture's standard business practices. Yes, quite. But I was asking for the solid ethical standard (or foundation) in China that you had mentioned; I wasn't doubting that there is one. > > But in any case, the labeling and advertising constraints in the > U.S. are the results of legislation and most definitely not the > result of ethics. Which *should* somehow correlate to or reflect the ethics of the community at large. >Check out the label on a can of Campbell's > SpaghettiOs, for example. It emphasizes how healthy that junk is > for children (because vitamins are added). And Campbell's > advertising for that product claims, "Now you can feel good about > giving your kids what they are asking for!" because in addition > to being delicious (!), it's so healthful and will help them > grow. Then look at the ingredients. One small can contains over > one gram of sodium! On top of it, the whole salty mess is just a > glob of white flour and cheese and sugar. That's truth in > labeling and truth in advertising? No. That's ethical? No. > That's legal? Yes. You've hit on something important here. I personally believe that the entire concept of advertising is unethical because it polutes the environment, whether that be our great outdoors or our peace of mind on the underground. Further, advertising is in practice a no-holds-barred attempt to get me to buy stuff, and that in itself is unethical. That's my humble opinion. > > Or look at an ad from GM that says you can buy a car at x% over > invoice, or at employee discount prices, or whatever. Naturally, > the ad doesn't mention the dealer pack, the "manufacturer's > fees," etc., that result in the selling price being considerably > (and invariably) much higher than what was advertised: > unethical, untrue, and legal. I agree so completely I'm jumping up and down. > Our hubristic assertions about U.S. consumer protection (not to > mention U.S. business "ethics") are misinformed. Our notion that > other cultures' "ethics" are inferior to ours is, well, a > misguided assessment, at best. Are you suggesting that the only source of consumer protection is from the gods? I'm not disagreeing, just asking, my hubristic assertions aside. Sooooo......what about China? Perhaps you were just rambling, much like my additions to your post here? BTW, I'm drinking the very worst Feng Huang Dan Cong I've ever drunk. No pretense to Dan Cong flavor, lousy leaf, overroasted, poorly made, crumby taste, no fruitiness, no magnolia aroma, just harsh rough and nasty. I might as well have Alex send me some of that river water he mentioned elsewhere. Wanna know where I got this tea? It will be my secret, and you'll never know. (You won't get any either unless you go *far* out of your way, so don't worry.) Hope this helps, but the tea's still cruddy. Michael |
International Business Ethics, was (Two unknown cooked puerhs)
much clippage and snippage
> Obviously it's considered acceptable in China: it exists and > it's legal. It's considered acceptable and legal in all cultures > whose trading practices adhere to the standards of the bazaar. Hey, that's not fair. In Iran -- many years ago and perhaps still today -- when you buy something in the bazaar, it's probably been made before your eyes of ingredients and parts in your full view. So, the standards in the bazaar are pretty good. Also, I ate some of the best food with the bazaar guys, and it *was* delicious and *nutritious,* so dig yourself! > > Not trusting anything you're told is a logical and prudent > consumer practice anywhere in the world. "Trust" is as > unnecessary (and trouble-causing) a concept in the marketplace as > it is in a marriage. Use your senses and your intelligence to > guide your business affairs (and your personal relationships), > and leave fuzzy, vague, indefinable, and always relative notions > of "trust" to the self-help-product hustlers. You'll do fine! Wow. Please do let us know where to send your counseling fee. You have completely turned my life around. (Yes, I'm joking. This is a joke.) > >> Small transactions in the US are usually honest, even amongst the >> crooks. > > Not so, if your determination of "honest" depends on accuracy in > advertising and labeling. Our standards here have sunk so low, we have no difficulty whatsoever meeting them. This obtains from chewing gum to presidents, both heavily marketed products. Michael |
International Business Ethics, was (Two unknown cooked pu erhs)
Most Americans can barely forge their own John Hancock. What we do
better is find stuff that falls off the back of trucks. Why settle for an imitation when you can find the real deal at a discount. The stuff you want has already been decided by others. I take wrappers off the various architectural forms of the pu. I wished I could get them back on the same way. Jim Ourania Zabuhu wrote: > Yeah, we're way too wealthy in the U.S. to bother with forgeries > these days |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Michael Plant wrote:
>>>>They do indeed have a solid code of ethics in China regarding >>>>''truth in advertising," Mike. It just doesn't happen to match >>>>yours. :-) > >>>Would you kindly elaborate upon it. >>>Thanks. > >>Actually, I was just pointing out the cultural chauvinism >>implicit in Mike's comment. What to Mike/us qualifies as >>"ethical" may not be even be an "ethical" consideration at all in >>another culture, or may even be deemed unethical or patently >>ridiculous in terms of that culture's standard business practices. > > Yes, quite. But I was asking for the solid ethical standard (or foundation) > in China that you had mentioned; I wasn't doubting that there is one. No, I didn't mention a solid ethical standard (or foundation) in China at all, Michael. All I said is that they do indeed *have* a solid code of ethics regarding "truth in advertising." How do I know? Because they have advertising. If they have advertising, they have a code of ethics regarding advertising. Ethics -- or a system of evaluating right conduct -- is a cultural universal, even in the earliest of civilizations. And there is no existing element or behavior in any society that is exempt or excluded from its system of evaluation. If an activity or conduct is observable, there's a cultural code for determining its ethical status. That's a given. Whether we as outsiders can even perceive or grok that code (much less agree with it) is of course irrelevant. >>But in any case, the labeling and advertising constraints in the >>U.S. are the results of legislation and most definitely not the >>result of ethics. > > Which *should* somehow correlate to or reflect the ethics of the community > at large. I don't think we can make that assumption any more. Our legislative system is now so convoluted, so heavily influenced by purely financial considerations, so far removed from anything resembling an authentically democratic process, and our citizenry is so unsophisticated and uneducated and easily manipulated by blipverts, that I think it's more accurate to say that our laws reflect the power struggles among various global military-industrial lobbying factions rather than the ethics of a so-called community-at-large. >>Check out the label on a can of Campbell's >>SpaghettiOs, for example. It emphasizes how healthy that junk is >>for children (because vitamins are added). And Campbell's >>advertising for that product claims, "Now you can feel good about >>giving your kids what they are asking for!" because in addition >>to being delicious (!), it's so healthful and will help them >>grow. Then look at the ingredients. One small can contains over >>one gram of sodium! On top of it, the whole salty mess is just a >>glob of white flour and cheese and sugar. That's truth in >>labeling and truth in advertising? No. That's ethical? No. >>That's legal? Yes. > > You've hit on something important here. I personally believe that the entire > concept of advertising is unethical because it polutes the environment, > whether that be our great outdoors or our peace of mind on the underground. > Further, advertising is in practice a no-holds-barred attempt to get me to > buy stuff, and that in itself is unethical. That's my humble opinion. Fine. But what you're saying, then, is that our entire socio-political-economic system (aka "capitalism") is unethical, because getting you to "buy stuff" is what sustains it and vice versa. With that opinion I concur. >>Or look at an ad from GM that says you can buy a car at x% over >>invoice, or at employee discount prices, or whatever. Naturally, >>the ad doesn't mention the dealer pack, the "manufacturer's >>fees," etc., that result in the selling price being considerably >>(and invariably) much higher than what was advertised: >>unethical, untrue, and legal. > > I agree so completely I'm jumping up and down. I'm not sure I can take that much excitement at this hour. >>Our hubristic assertions about U.S. consumer protection (not to >>mention U.S. business "ethics") are misinformed. Our notion that >>other cultures' "ethics" are inferior to ours is, well, a >>misguided assessment, at best. > > Are you suggesting that the only source of consumer protection is from the > gods? I'm not disagreeing, just asking, my hubristic assertions aside. No, I'm saying that our only reliable source of consumer protection is our own good sense. (Whether our own good sense comes from the gods I'll leave for you to decide.) I'm also saying it's hubristic (and naive) to believe that our comparatively infantile nation could come up with a legislated consumer-protection scheme more effective than the millennia-tested "caveat emptor." > Sooooo......what about China? Perhaps you were just rambling, much like my > additions to your post here? What about China what? China is the 800-pound gorilla that can pretty much call its own shots, no? > BTW, I'm drinking the very worst Feng Huang Dan Cong I've ever drunk. No > pretense to Dan Cong flavor, lousy leaf, overroasted, poorly made, crumby > taste, no fruitiness, no magnolia aroma, just harsh rough and nasty. I might > as well have Alex send me some of that river water he mentioned elsewhere. > Wanna know where I got this tea? It will be my secret, and you'll never > know. (You won't get any either unless you go *far* out of your way, so > don't worry.) > > Hope this helps, but the tea's still cruddy. Thanks for the heads-up, but I never go out of my way for bad tea. :-) |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Thank you again, Jim and Danny! You've been very helpful!
|
International Business Ethics, was (Two unknown cooked pu erhs)
Michael Plant wrote:
>>Obviously it's considered acceptable in China: it exists and >>it's legal. It's considered acceptable and legal in all cultures >>whose trading practices adhere to the standards of the bazaar. > > Hey, that's not fair. In Iran -- many years ago and perhaps still today -- > when you buy something in the bazaar, it's probably been made before your > eyes of ingredients and parts in your full view. So, the standards in the > bazaar are pretty good. Also, I ate some of the best food with the bazaar > guys, and it *was* delicious and *nutritious,* so dig yourself! Yeah, d00d. That's what I've been trying to say: We don't need no stinkin' lemon laws. Bazaar rules! >>Not trusting anything you're told is a logical and prudent >>consumer practice anywhere in the world. "Trust" is as >>unnecessary (and trouble-causing) a concept in the marketplace as >>it is in a marriage. Use your senses and your intelligence to >>guide your business affairs (and your personal relationships), >>and leave fuzzy, vague, indefinable, and always relative notions >>of "trust" to the self-help-product hustlers. You'll do fine! > > Wow. Please do let us know where to send your counseling fee. You have > completely turned my life around. (Yes, I'm joking. This is a joke.) Damn. I was counting on that fee to carry me through the holiday season. >>>Small transactions in the US are usually honest, even amongst the >>>crooks. >> >>Not so, if your determination of "honest" depends on accuracy in >>advertising and labeling. > > Our standards here have sunk so low, we have no difficulty whatsoever > meeting them. This obtains from chewing gum to presidents, both heavily > marketed products. Hey, we loves us our tee-vee and our Internet. More channels, maestro! |
International Business Ethics, was (Two unknown cooked pu erhs)
Alex Chaihorsky > wrote:
> >In short - the difference is in scale. I also have to tell you that I am >pretty sure that lot of California wine sold at 7/11s and gas stations are >forgeries. I have pretty good nose for wines and things that I used to buy >that way were no CA wine - it was cheap "vin de table" from Chile. I can >smell that old machines Andes rust stench from half a mile. Just because it was fermented in California doesn't mean it was grown in California. A few years ago it was not unusual to see 55 gallon drums of Argentinian grape guice behind out local (Virginia) winery. These days with the huge glut, though, I think all that stuff probably is made in California. Right now you can't give juice away... California is probably exporting to Argentina, even. >On the other hand I bought a beautiful, completely undistinguishable from an >original men's Cartier watch in China for $20. The problem - I do not like >square watches... Wanna exchange your Rolex for my Cartier? :))))))))))) With a quartz movement, no doubt. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Thank you Sasha and Mike! Among other sources of information I have to
thank your activity here and elsewhere on the web in finding my way to pu erh :) "Mike Petro" wrote: >So your choices are to pay someone a premium >who knows puerh and can travel to Kunming or >Guangzhou and buy the tea first hand, or to indeed >learn a little about the wrappers AND their >corresponding tea. I try to combine both approaches :) I seem to found a trust-worthy online source of pu erh (JTS) which I really like while trying to learn something new including wrappers and basic Chinese. "Mike Petro" wrote: >Roy is indeed a knowledgeable vendor whose >judgment I trust. Just remember that you must pay >for that hand-holding. I don't question Roy's knowledge but I don't consider ITC as a possible source. I just used the link to their site since they seem to have the same pu erh as I do. Thank you again! |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Ourania nk.net11/22/05
snip >...I didn't mention a solid ethical standard (or foundation) in > China at all, Michael. All I said is that they do indeed *have* > a solid code of ethics regarding "truth in advertising." How do > I know? Because they have advertising. > If they have > advertising, they have a code of ethics regarding advertising. That's subtle. > Ethics -- or a system of evaluating right conduct -- is a > cultural universal, even in the earliest of civilizations. And > there is no existing element or behavior in any society that is > exempt or excluded from its system of evaluation. If an activity > or conduct is observable, there's a cultural code for determining > its ethical status. That's a given. Whether we as outsiders can > even perceive or grok that code (much less agree with it) is of > course irrelevant. Your analysis is sophisticated, to say the least. But, the discussion would be a lot more interesting if you would share what you know or think about the specific ethical standards in question, the idea of ethical standard being inherent. > >>> But in any case, the labeling and advertising constraints in the >>> U.S. are the results of legislation and most definitely not the >>> result of ethics. >> >> Which *should* somehow correlate to or reflect the ethics of the community >> at large. > > I don't think we can make that assumption any more. Our > legislative system is now so convoluted, so heavily influenced by > purely financial considerations, so far removed from anything > resembling an authentically democratic process, and our citizenry > is so unsophisticated and uneducated and easily manipulated by > blipverts, that I think it's more accurate to say that our laws > reflect the power struggles among various global > military-industrial lobbying factions rather than the ethics of a > so-called community-at-large. We could argue, but we won't. Let me just say, Thus the asterisks I placed around the word "should." > >>> Check out the label on a can of Campbell's >>> SpaghettiOs, for example. It emphasizes how healthy that junk is >>> for children (because vitamins are added). And Campbell's >>> advertising for that product claims, "Now you can feel good about >>> giving your kids what they are asking for!" because in addition >>> to being delicious (!), it's so healthful and will help them >>> grow. Then look at the ingredients. One small can contains over >>> one gram of sodium! On top of it, the whole salty mess is just a >>> glob of white flour and cheese and sugar. That's truth in >>> labeling and truth in advertising? No. That's ethical? No. >>> That's legal? Yes. >> >> You've hit on something important here. I personally believe that the entire >> concept of advertising is unethical because it polutes the environment, >> whether that be our great outdoors or our peace of mind on the underground. >> Further, advertising is in practice a no-holds-barred attempt to get me to >> buy stuff, and that in itself is unethical. That's my humble opinion. > > Fine. But what you're saying, then, is that our entire > socio-political-economic system (aka "capitalism") is unethical, > because getting you to "buy stuff" is what sustains it and vice > versa. With that opinion I concur. Yes, I am saying that. You concur aright. > >>> Or look at an ad from GM that says you can buy a car at x% over >>> invoice, or at employee discount prices, or whatever. Naturally, >>> the ad doesn't mention the dealer pack, the "manufacturer's >>> fees," etc., that result in the selling price being considerably >>> (and invariably) much higher than what was advertised: >>> unethical, untrue, and legal. >> >> I agree so completely I'm jumping up and down. > > I'm not sure I can take that much excitement at this hour. It's OK. I'm back under control now. > >>> Our hubristic assertions about U.S. consumer protection (not to >>> mention U.S. business "ethics") are misinformed. Our notion that >>> other cultures' "ethics" are inferior to ours is, well, a >>> misguided assessment, at best. >> >> Are you suggesting that the only source of consumer protection is from the >> gods? I'm not disagreeing, just asking, my hubristic assertions aside. > > No, I'm saying that our only reliable source of consumer > protection is our own good sense. (Whether our own good sense > comes from the gods I'll leave for you to decide.) Person, that's hubris! Unfortunately good sense doesn't always get us there, but that perhaps is a discussion for another day. > > I'm also saying it's hubristic (and naive) to believe that our > comparatively infantile nation could come up with a legislated > consumer-protection scheme more effective than the > millennia-tested "caveat emptor." > >> Sooooo......what about China? Perhaps you were just rambling, much like my >> additions to your post here? > > What about China what? China is the 800-pound gorilla that can > pretty much call its own shots, no? No, I was asking you once again to be more specific about the ethical code regarding advertising in China, since they have advertising, hence ethical code concerning it. > >> BTW, I'm drinking the very worst Feng Huang Dan Cong I've ever drunk. No >> pretense to Dan Cong flavor, lousy leaf, overroasted, poorly made, crumby >> taste, no fruitiness, no magnolia aroma, just harsh rough and nasty. I might >> as well have Alex send me some of that river water he mentioned elsewhere. >> Wanna know where I got this tea? It will be my secret, and you'll never >> know. (You won't get any either unless you go *far* out of your way, so >> don't worry.) >> >> Hope this helps, but the tea's still cruddy. > > Thanks for the heads-up, but I never go out of my way for bad > tea. :-) Well, I wanted to run interference before any question about the vendor. So, what's your favorite tea? Michael |
International Business Ethics, was (Two unknown cooked pu erhs)
Quartz chronograph, like the original.
Sasha. "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message ... > Alex Chaihorsky > wrote: >> >>In short - the difference is in scale. I also have to tell you that I am >>pretty sure that lot of California wine sold at 7/11s and gas stations are >>forgeries. I have pretty good nose for wines and things that I used to buy >>that way were no CA wine - it was cheap "vin de table" from Chile. I can >>smell that old machines Andes rust stench from half a mile. > > Just because it was fermented in California doesn't mean it was grown in > California. A few years ago it was not unusual to see 55 gallon drums of > Argentinian grape guice behind out local (Virginia) winery. These days > with the huge glut, though, I think all that stuff probably is made in > California. Right now you can't give juice away... California is probably > exporting to Argentina, even. > >>On the other hand I bought a beautiful, completely undistinguishable from >>an >>original men's Cartier watch in China for $20. The problem - I do not like >>square watches... Wanna exchange your Rolex for my Cartier? :))))))))))) > > With a quartz movement, no doubt. > --scott > -- > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Alex Chaihorsky > wrote:
>Here in Nevada once in a while I buy great fresh Fangcha in a teashop that >has no idea what they sell (they get this as a new product under the name >"Mongolian Tea" In reality its ???? . Nothing Mongolian about it. It turns out that Mongolian Barbeque and Mongolian Cluster****s aren't really Mongolian either. At least not according to the grad student here who is Mongolian. Since Saigon brand hot sauce is made in California, Texas Pete is made in Louisiana, and Louisiana Hot Sauce is made in South Carolina, I don't know WHO you can trust. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
International Business Ethics, was (Two unknown cooked pu erhs)
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 01:51:58 GMT, Ourania Zabuhu >
wrote: >We can find "weight loss tea" all over the place in the U.S., >Mike. Do you know anyone who has ever lost weight by drinking >that stuff? :-) Ourania, those who have met mw will tell you that I am a very large man and I drink an awful lot of puerh. If it promotes weight loss you sure cant tell it by me. But exaggerating marketing claims, yes they are everywhere, is NOT what I am talking about. I am talking about being able to trust that the brand is authentic and the product is, in substance, what it is claimed to be. In other words that if I buy Kraft Macaroni and cheese I don't expect to get Acme brand macaroni and cheese or maybe even rice and cheese. I am not talking about some silly marketing jingle or exaggerated claims but blatant lying. Taking a product made by factory X and putting a forged factory Y label on it. Or saying it is macaroni when really it is rice. I have traveled in 14 different countries and this behavior is clearly wrong in any culture I have ever seen. I have conversed with many Chinese businessmen and they readily agree it is wrong and that it is a major problem in China right now. Yes, marketing BS frustrates me just as much as the next guy. However, it is a very different set of ethics that says it is OK to flat out lie about the very ingredients and even the manufacturers name. It is a very different set of ethics that says it is OK to blatantly copy, down to the smallest detail including the logo, any product at will and then sell it as if it were real. That is something you should be able to "trust" in any culture. Most countries call that copyright and/or trademark infringement and it is WRONG no matter where you live! That's what "I" mean by business ethics..... Mike Petro http://www.pu-erh.net |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Just one small addition about ethical standards.
Being diabetic (when asked in Beijing airport during SARS scare if I have any medical condition I said yes and pointed to a diabetic card issued by a California hospital, which triggered a burst of laugh. I looked at the card and saw that "diabetic" was translated there as "sugary urine". I asked how should it be translated and the doctor told me, still laughing, that it should be "sweet pee". How sad, said I that Chinese in the US are so poorly educated in their own language. They all stopped laughing abruptly and his face turned into stone. I had to stop that stupid laugh and make him lose his face. Sorry my beautiful and humongously overeducated Chinese-American friends! I hope I will die before People's Army occupy Reno. Now about ethics. Most of supermarkets in the US have variety of pies that are marked "Sugar free". Its completely ridiculous because these are fruit pies, and there is no sugar-free fruits on this planet. It should be "No sugar added". Every time I see that I spoke to chain manager, wrote to their headquarters, called, explained.... They nod, they agree, nothing happens. Why? Sugar-free sells by tons. The knowingly sell these pies under false labels. I also saw drinks that say:Sugar - 10 gr. Carbohydrates: 0g. Ethics, - shmetics. Sasha. "Michael Plant" > wrote in message ... > Ourania nk.net11/22/05 > > > snip > >>...I didn't mention a solid ethical standard (or foundation) in >> China at all, Michael. All I said is that they do indeed *have* >> a solid code of ethics regarding "truth in advertising." How do >> I know? Because they have advertising. > >> If they have >> advertising, they have a code of ethics regarding advertising. > > That's subtle. > >> Ethics -- or a system of evaluating right conduct -- is a >> cultural universal, even in the earliest of civilizations. And >> there is no existing element or behavior in any society that is >> exempt or excluded from its system of evaluation. If an activity >> or conduct is observable, there's a cultural code for determining >> its ethical status. That's a given. Whether we as outsiders can >> even perceive or grok that code (much less agree with it) is of >> course irrelevant. > > Your analysis is sophisticated, to say the least. But, the discussion > would > be a lot more interesting if you would share what you know or think about > the specific ethical standards in question, the idea of ethical standard > being inherent. >> >>>> But in any case, the labeling and advertising constraints in the >>>> U.S. are the results of legislation and most definitely not the >>>> result of ethics. >>> >>> Which *should* somehow correlate to or reflect the ethics of the >>> community >>> at large. >> >> I don't think we can make that assumption any more. Our >> legislative system is now so convoluted, so heavily influenced by >> purely financial considerations, so far removed from anything >> resembling an authentically democratic process, and our citizenry >> is so unsophisticated and uneducated and easily manipulated by >> blipverts, that I think it's more accurate to say that our laws >> reflect the power struggles among various global >> military-industrial lobbying factions rather than the ethics of a >> so-called community-at-large. > > We could argue, but we won't. Let me just say, Thus the asterisks I placed > around the word "should." >> >>>> Check out the label on a can of Campbell's >>>> SpaghettiOs, for example. It emphasizes how healthy that junk is >>>> for children (because vitamins are added). And Campbell's >>>> advertising for that product claims, "Now you can feel good about >>>> giving your kids what they are asking for!" because in addition >>>> to being delicious (!), it's so healthful and will help them >>>> grow. Then look at the ingredients. One small can contains over >>>> one gram of sodium! On top of it, the whole salty mess is just a >>>> glob of white flour and cheese and sugar. That's truth in >>>> labeling and truth in advertising? No. That's ethical? No. >>>> That's legal? Yes. >>> >>> You've hit on something important here. I personally believe that the >>> entire >>> concept of advertising is unethical because it polutes the environment, >>> whether that be our great outdoors or our peace of mind on the >>> underground. >>> Further, advertising is in practice a no-holds-barred attempt to get me >>> to >>> buy stuff, and that in itself is unethical. That's my humble opinion. >> >> Fine. But what you're saying, then, is that our entire >> socio-political-economic system (aka "capitalism") is unethical, >> because getting you to "buy stuff" is what sustains it and vice >> versa. With that opinion I concur. > > Yes, I am saying that. You concur aright. >> >>>> Or look at an ad from GM that says you can buy a car at x% over >>>> invoice, or at employee discount prices, or whatever. Naturally, >>>> the ad doesn't mention the dealer pack, the "manufacturer's >>>> fees," etc., that result in the selling price being considerably >>>> (and invariably) much higher than what was advertised: >>>> unethical, untrue, and legal. >>> >>> I agree so completely I'm jumping up and down. >> >> I'm not sure I can take that much excitement at this hour. > > It's OK. I'm back under control now. >> >>>> Our hubristic assertions about U.S. consumer protection (not to >>>> mention U.S. business "ethics") are misinformed. Our notion that >>>> other cultures' "ethics" are inferior to ours is, well, a >>>> misguided assessment, at best. >>> >>> Are you suggesting that the only source of consumer protection is from >>> the >>> gods? I'm not disagreeing, just asking, my hubristic assertions aside. >> >> No, I'm saying that our only reliable source of consumer >> protection is our own good sense. (Whether our own good sense >> comes from the gods I'll leave for you to decide.) > > Person, that's hubris! Unfortunately good sense doesn't always get us > there, > but that perhaps is a discussion for another day. >> >> I'm also saying it's hubristic (and naive) to believe that our >> comparatively infantile nation could come up with a legislated >> consumer-protection scheme more effective than the >> millennia-tested "caveat emptor." >> >>> Sooooo......what about China? Perhaps you were just rambling, much like >>> my >>> additions to your post here? >> >> What about China what? China is the 800-pound gorilla that can >> pretty much call its own shots, no? > > No, I was asking you once again to be more specific about the ethical code > regarding advertising in China, since they have advertising, hence ethical > code concerning it. >> >>> BTW, I'm drinking the very worst Feng Huang Dan Cong I've ever drunk. No >>> pretense to Dan Cong flavor, lousy leaf, overroasted, poorly made, >>> crumby >>> taste, no fruitiness, no magnolia aroma, just harsh rough and nasty. I >>> might >>> as well have Alex send me some of that river water he mentioned >>> elsewhere. >>> Wanna know where I got this tea? It will be my secret, and you'll never >>> know. (You won't get any either unless you go *far* out of your way, so >>> don't worry.) >>> >>> Hope this helps, but the tea's still cruddy. >> >> Thanks for the heads-up, but I never go out of my way for bad >> tea. :-) > > Well, I wanted to run interference before any question about the vendor. > > So, what's your favorite tea? > Michael > |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Fortunetly the grocery store I work for sells pies marked as 'no sugar
added'. :) Tippins Bakery listened! Marlene > Now about ethics. Most of supermarkets in the US have variety of pies that > are marked "Sugar free". Its completely ridiculous because these are fruit > pies, and there is no sugar-free fruits on this planet. It should be "No > sugar added". Every time I see that I spoke to chain manager, wrote to > their headquarters, called, explained.... They nod, they agree, nothing > happens. Why? Sugar-free sells by tons. The knowingly sell these pies > under false labels. I also saw drinks that say:Sugar - 10 gr. > Carbohydrates: 0g. > Ethics, - shmetics. > > Sasha. > > > "Michael Plant" > wrote in message > ... >> Ourania nk.net11/22/05 >> >> >> snip >> >>>...I didn't mention a solid ethical standard (or foundation) in >>> China at all, Michael. All I said is that they do indeed *have* >>> a solid code of ethics regarding "truth in advertising." How do >>> I know? Because they have advertising. >> >>> If they have >>> advertising, they have a code of ethics regarding advertising. >> >> That's subtle. >> >>> Ethics -- or a system of evaluating right conduct -- is a >>> cultural universal, even in the earliest of civilizations. And >>> there is no existing element or behavior in any society that is >>> exempt or excluded from its system of evaluation. If an activity >>> or conduct is observable, there's a cultural code for determining >>> its ethical status. That's a given. Whether we as outsiders can >>> even perceive or grok that code (much less agree with it) is of >>> course irrelevant. >> >> Your analysis is sophisticated, to say the least. But, the discussion >> would >> be a lot more interesting if you would share what you know or think about >> the specific ethical standards in question, the idea of ethical standard >> being inherent. >>> >>>>> But in any case, the labeling and advertising constraints in the >>>>> U.S. are the results of legislation and most definitely not the >>>>> result of ethics. >>>> >>>> Which *should* somehow correlate to or reflect the ethics of the >>>> community >>>> at large. >>> >>> I don't think we can make that assumption any more. Our >>> legislative system is now so convoluted, so heavily influenced by >>> purely financial considerations, so far removed from anything >>> resembling an authentically democratic process, and our citizenry >>> is so unsophisticated and uneducated and easily manipulated by >>> blipverts, that I think it's more accurate to say that our laws >>> reflect the power struggles among various global >>> military-industrial lobbying factions rather than the ethics of a >>> so-called community-at-large. >> >> We could argue, but we won't. Let me just say, Thus the asterisks I >> placed >> around the word "should." >>> >>>>> Check out the label on a can of Campbell's >>>>> SpaghettiOs, for example. It emphasizes how healthy that junk is >>>>> for children (because vitamins are added). And Campbell's >>>>> advertising for that product claims, "Now you can feel good about >>>>> giving your kids what they are asking for!" because in addition >>>>> to being delicious (!), it's so healthful and will help them >>>>> grow. Then look at the ingredients. One small can contains over >>>>> one gram of sodium! On top of it, the whole salty mess is just a >>>>> glob of white flour and cheese and sugar. That's truth in >>>>> labeling and truth in advertising? No. That's ethical? No. >>>>> That's legal? Yes. >>>> >>>> You've hit on something important here. I personally believe that the >>>> entire >>>> concept of advertising is unethical because it polutes the environment, >>>> whether that be our great outdoors or our peace of mind on the >>>> underground. >>>> Further, advertising is in practice a no-holds-barred attempt to get me >>>> to >>>> buy stuff, and that in itself is unethical. That's my humble opinion. >>> >>> Fine. But what you're saying, then, is that our entire >>> socio-political-economic system (aka "capitalism") is unethical, >>> because getting you to "buy stuff" is what sustains it and vice >>> versa. With that opinion I concur. >> >> Yes, I am saying that. You concur aright. >>> >>>>> Or look at an ad from GM that says you can buy a car at x% over >>>>> invoice, or at employee discount prices, or whatever. Naturally, >>>>> the ad doesn't mention the dealer pack, the "manufacturer's >>>>> fees," etc., that result in the selling price being considerably >>>>> (and invariably) much higher than what was advertised: >>>>> unethical, untrue, and legal. >>>> >>>> I agree so completely I'm jumping up and down. >>> >>> I'm not sure I can take that much excitement at this hour. >> >> It's OK. I'm back under control now. >>> >>>>> Our hubristic assertions about U.S. consumer protection (not to >>>>> mention U.S. business "ethics") are misinformed. Our notion that >>>>> other cultures' "ethics" are inferior to ours is, well, a >>>>> misguided assessment, at best. >>>> >>>> Are you suggesting that the only source of consumer protection is from >>>> the >>>> gods? I'm not disagreeing, just asking, my hubristic assertions aside. >>> >>> No, I'm saying that our only reliable source of consumer >>> protection is our own good sense. (Whether our own good sense >>> comes from the gods I'll leave for you to decide.) >> >> Person, that's hubris! Unfortunately good sense doesn't always get us >> there, >> but that perhaps is a discussion for another day. >>> >>> I'm also saying it's hubristic (and naive) to believe that our >>> comparatively infantile nation could come up with a legislated >>> consumer-protection scheme more effective than the >>> millennia-tested "caveat emptor." >>> >>>> Sooooo......what about China? Perhaps you were just rambling, much like >>>> my >>>> additions to your post here? >>> >>> What about China what? China is the 800-pound gorilla that can >>> pretty much call its own shots, no? >> >> No, I was asking you once again to be more specific about the ethical >> code >> regarding advertising in China, since they have advertising, hence >> ethical >> code concerning it. >>> >>>> BTW, I'm drinking the very worst Feng Huang Dan Cong I've ever drunk. >>>> No >>>> pretense to Dan Cong flavor, lousy leaf, overroasted, poorly made, >>>> crumby >>>> taste, no fruitiness, no magnolia aroma, just harsh rough and nasty. I >>>> might >>>> as well have Alex send me some of that river water he mentioned >>>> elsewhere. >>>> Wanna know where I got this tea? It will be my secret, and you'll >>>> never >>>> know. (You won't get any either unless you go *far* out of your way, so >>>> don't worry.) >>>> >>>> Hope this helps, but the tea's still cruddy. >>> >>> Thanks for the heads-up, but I never go out of my way for bad >>> tea. :-) >> >> Well, I wanted to run interference before any question about the vendor. >> >> So, what's your favorite tea? >> Michael >> > > |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
Michael Plant wrote:
> Your analysis is sophisticated, to say the least. But, the discussion would > be a lot more interesting if you would share what you know or think about > the specific ethical standards in question, the idea of ethical standard > being inherent. Not being a native of China, and having visited various areas of that vast country only a handful of times over the years, I'm unqualified to describe the range and complexities of their specific ethical standards of commerce (which would probably require a book-length treatise, anyway), but I can say that from what I've observed, and from what I know of the experiences of other consumers there, both foreign and native, China's general standards and practices in the marketplace pretty much correspond to the ancient bazaar system that still functions effectively in much of Asia, North Africa, the Near East, and Eastern and Southeastern Europe, i.e. (more or less): anything goes; all is fair; buyer beware; shrewdness prevails; keep your eyes on the moving hands; barter 'til you drop; pay cash; try before you buy and be sure that what you buy is what you tried; trust is disadvantageous; etc. >>>>But in any case, the labeling and advertising constraints in the >>>>U.S. are the results of legislation and most definitely not the >>>>result of ethics. >>> >>>Which *should* somehow correlate to or reflect the ethics of the community >>>at large. >> >>I don't think we can make that assumption any more. Our >>legislative system is now so convoluted, so heavily influenced by >>purely financial considerations, so far removed from anything >>resembling an authentically democratic process, and our citizenry >>is so unsophisticated and uneducated and easily manipulated by >>blipverts, that I think it's more accurate to say that our laws >>reflect the power struggles among various global >>military-industrial lobbying factions rather than the ethics of a >>so-called community-at-large. > > > We could argue, but we won't. Let me just say, Thus the asterisks I placed > around the word "should." Yes, I noticed the asterisks, but because I don't have any way of knowing what *should* be, it's not a concept I can easily address. > No, I was asking you once again to be more specific about the ethical code > regarding advertising in China, since they have advertising, hence ethical > code concerning it. You may infer their general ethical principles by studying the advertising. > So, what's your favorite tea? Well, as a monastic renunciate I don't have access to much of a selection, so I suppose my favorites are whatever I'm drinking, which tend to be only Chinese teas. I usually keep on hand a couple of pu-erh beengcha and a toucha or two for my occasional refreshment. When I travel, which is not often, I carry the plastic "Best Chinese THERMOS Teapot in China" that I mentioned in a previous thread, along with a sufficient supply of pu-erh to help sustain my endurance. Right now I'm visiting family, with whom on my last stay in 2002 I inadvertently left the now-"aged" baozhong we discussed earlier, so I've been enjoying that particular tea these past two weeks. Speaking of which, I'll be leaving here tomorrow evening and probably won't again have access to a terminal or computer until some time next year, so please excuse my abrupt departure from this exchange if I'm not able to reply further. And enjoy the Pevear-Volokhonsky translations! |
International Business Ethics, was (Two unknown cooked pu erhs)
Mike Petro wrote:
> I am talking about being able to trust that the brand is authentic and > the product is, in substance, what it is claimed to be. In other words > that if I buy Kraft Macaroni and cheese I don't expect to get Acme > brand macaroni and cheese or maybe even rice and cheese. I am not > talking about some silly marketing jingle or exaggerated claims but > blatant lying. Taking a product made by factory X and putting a forged > factory Y label on it. Or saying it is macaroni when really it is > rice. I have traveled in 14 different countries and this behavior is > clearly wrong in any culture I have ever seen. I have conversed with > many Chinese businessmen and they readily agree it is wrong and that > it is a major problem in China right now. Right; I understand, Mike. But please realize that what you dismiss as mere "exaggerated claims" may very well constitute "blatant lying" to others, and that what you consider "clearly wrong" may very well be dismissed as mere "exaggerated claims" by Chinese vendors. That's all I'm addressing he the relativity of personal, cultural, national, and international standards of ethics, which can therefore never be adequately legislated or enforced. In fact, many U.S. business people with whom I've conversed readily agree that it's never been easier to confuse and trick (if not outright defraud) the American consumer-citizen than it is today, primarily because of the public's misplaced trust in governmental regulations and the resulting lack of experiential awareness and acumen (what we used to call "street smarts"). > Yes, marketing BS frustrates me just as much as the next guy. However, > it is a very different set of ethics that says it is OK to flat out > lie about the very ingredients and even the manufacturers name. It is > a very different set of ethics that says it is OK to blatantly copy, > down to the smallest detail including the logo, any product at will > and then sell it as if it were real. That is something you should be > able to "trust" in any culture. Perhaps, but trustworthy product labels don't exist in any culture or country, regardless of our wishes to the contrary. So why not just hone and trust your own instincts instead of trying to rely on essentially meaningless pieces of paper and financially motivated verbal claims? I bet you'd get cheated less often.... By the way, after tomorrow I won't be able to read Usenet news because I'll be without net access, so if you don't hear from me again, don't take it personally. :-) |
Good-bye, Ourania
> Well, as a monastic renunciate I don't have access to much of a > selection, so I suppose my favorites are whatever I'm drinking, > which tend to be only Chinese teas. I usually keep on hand a > couple of pu-erh beengcha and a toucha or two for my occasional > refreshment. When I travel, which is not often, I carry the > plastic "Best Chinese THERMOS Teapot in China" that I mentioned > in a previous thread, along with a sufficient supply of pu-erh to > help sustain my endurance. Right now I'm visiting family, with > whom on my last stay in 2002 I inadvertently left the now-"aged" > baozhong we discussed earlier, so I've been enjoying that > particular tea these past two weeks. Speaking of which, I'll be > leaving here tomorrow evening and probably won't again have > access to a terminal or computer until some time next year, so > please excuse my abrupt departure from this exchange if I'm not > able to reply further. And enjoy the Pevear-Volokhonsky > translations! I am enjoying them. Look forward to your safe return and resumption of discussion re tea and otherwise. Best, Michael |
International Business Ethics, was (Two unknown cooked pu erhs)
>> Yes, marketing BS frustrates me just as much as the next guy. However, >> it is a very different set of ethics that says it is OK to flat out >> lie about the very ingredients and even the manufacturers name. It is >> a very different set of ethics that says it is OK to blatantly copy, >> down to the smallest detail including the logo, any product at will >> and then sell it as if it were real. That is something you should be >> able to "trust" in any culture. > >Perhaps, but trustworthy product labels don't exist in any >culture or country, regardless of our wishes to the contrary. So >why not just hone and trust your own instincts instead of trying >to rely on essentially meaningless pieces of paper and >financially motivated verbal claims? I bet you'd get cheated >less often.... Well that depends on your definition of trustworthy. If you set aside the marketing issue, which my "street smarts" tells me is usually served up with BS, most Western and European countries I have visited could be trusted in so far as manufacturer and raw contents. Yes, I have honed my skills, and that is exactly why I am complaining. The standards that I have encountered in dealing directly with Chinese vendors have been appalling. Also consider that I have to "trust" quite a bit unless I want to hop on plane and go there myself, which is not very practical. When dealing via Internet or mail order you have no choice, you have to trust to a certain degree. What you call a "meaningless" piece of paper is often the only indicator of pedigree that you get when you are not there to see and taste the tea beforehand. Yes, it *is* supposed to have meaning, and it does otherwise nobody would bother to forge it. If goods are to be hidden underneath packaging then the wrapping must have meaning. Anything less is not acceptable. Yes, I am street smart, and I pride myself that I have been ripped off far fewer times than most others. However that does not excuse a lack of ethics on the vendors part, they do know it is wrong as many Chinese vendors have told me so, just nobody enforces it with any penalties *yet*. It is also my experience that nothing changes unless there is discontent. If I am not man enough to stand up for what is right and complain when things are not acceptable then I cannot ever expect things to change. Capitalism is a new concept for Chinese businessmen and it appears they are going through a phase of excess, much like we have, but they will respond to their customers eventually if enough customers complain. Lets face the truth, China has been forging just about everything very blatantly because they can and because nobody punishes them for it. It is not only tea but movies, watches, and just about any type of consumer goods imaginable. If we the customer don't educate them that this is not acceptable it will never change. If we continue to buy $20 Rolex watches (wink-wink) they will continue to make them. The Chinese legal system, and government, simply hasn't been able to keep up widespread capitalism, but they will eventually if enough of us speak up and not become passive sheep waiting to be fleeced. Mike Petro http://www.pu-erh.net |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
> but I can say that from >what I've observed, and from what I know of the experiences of >other consumers there, both foreign and native, China's general >standards and practices in the marketplace pretty much correspond >to the ancient bazaar system that still functions effectively in >much of Asia, North Africa, the Near East, and Eastern and >Southeastern Europe, i.e. (more or less): anything goes; all is >fair; buyer beware; shrewdness prevails; keep your eyes on the >moving hands; barter 'til you drop; pay cash; try before you buy >and be sure that what you buy is what you tried; trust is >disadvantageous; etc. Yes, and my point is that this must change in these days of Internet commerce because that model just does not work on the Internet. They are clearly venturing into Internet and other types of commerce where this bazaar mentality cannot succeed. I can hold my own if I am able to go to the Tea Market and see, smell, and taste the tea first, but if I have to order over the Internet than I have to trust to a large degree. >Well, as a monastic renunciate I don't have access to much of a >selection, so I suppose my favorites are whatever I'm drinking, >which tend to be only Chinese teas. I usually keep on hand a >couple of pu-erh beengcha and a toucha or two for my occasional >refreshment. I am surprised you cant see my frustration with fake pu-erh wrappers. Mike Petro http://www.pu-erh.net |
Two unknown cooked pu erhs
We will miss you.
Sasha. "Ourania Zabuhu" > wrote in message k.net... > Michael Plant wrote: > >> Your analysis is sophisticated, to say the least. But, the discussion >> would >> be a lot more interesting if you would share what you know or think about >> the specific ethical standards in question, the idea of ethical standard >> being inherent. > > Not being a native of China, and having visited various areas of that vast > country only a handful of times over the years, I'm unqualified to > describe the range and complexities of their specific ethical standards of > commerce (which would probably require a book-length treatise, anyway), > but I can say that from what I've observed, and from what I know of the > experiences of other consumers there, both foreign and native, China's > general standards and practices in the marketplace pretty much correspond > to the ancient bazaar system that still functions effectively in much of > Asia, North Africa, the Near East, and Eastern and Southeastern Europe, > i.e. (more or less): anything goes; all is fair; buyer beware; shrewdness > prevails; keep your eyes on the moving hands; barter 'til you drop; pay > cash; try before you buy and be sure that what you buy is what you tried; > trust is disadvantageous; etc. > >>>>>But in any case, the labeling and advertising constraints in the >>>>>U.S. are the results of legislation and most definitely not the >>>>>result of ethics. >>>> >>>>Which *should* somehow correlate to or reflect the ethics of the >>>>community >>>>at large. >>> >>>I don't think we can make that assumption any more. Our >>>legislative system is now so convoluted, so heavily influenced by >>>purely financial considerations, so far removed from anything >>>resembling an authentically democratic process, and our citizenry >>>is so unsophisticated and uneducated and easily manipulated by >>>blipverts, that I think it's more accurate to say that our laws >>>reflect the power struggles among various global >>>military-industrial lobbying factions rather than the ethics of a >>>so-called community-at-large. >> >> >> We could argue, but we won't. Let me just say, Thus the asterisks I >> placed >> around the word "should." > > Yes, I noticed the asterisks, but because I don't have any way of knowing > what *should* be, it's not a concept I can easily address. > >> No, I was asking you once again to be more specific about the ethical >> code >> regarding advertising in China, since they have advertising, hence >> ethical >> code concerning it. > > You may infer their general ethical principles by studying the > advertising. > >> So, what's your favorite tea? > > Well, as a monastic renunciate I don't have access to much of a selection, > so I suppose my favorites are whatever I'm drinking, which tend to be only > Chinese teas. I usually keep on hand a couple of pu-erh beengcha and a > toucha or two for my occasional refreshment. When I travel, which is not > often, I carry the plastic "Best Chinese THERMOS Teapot in China" that I > mentioned in a previous thread, along with a sufficient supply of pu-erh > to help sustain my endurance. Right now I'm visiting family, with whom on > my last stay in 2002 I inadvertently left the now-"aged" baozhong we > discussed earlier, so I've been enjoying that particular tea these past > two weeks. Speaking of which, I'll be leaving here tomorrow evening and > probably won't again have access to a terminal or computer until some time > next year, so please excuse my abrupt departure from this exchange if I'm > not able to reply further. And enjoy the Pevear-Volokhonsky translations! > |
International Business Ethics, was (Two unknown cooked pu erhs)
Mike Petro > wrote:
> >Lets face the truth, China has been forging just about everything very >blatantly because they can and because nobody punishes them for it. It >is not only tea but movies, watches, and just about any type of >consumer goods imaginable. If we the customer don't educate them that >this is not acceptable it will never change. If we continue to buy $20 >Rolex watches (wink-wink) they will continue to make them. The Chinese >legal system, and government, simply hasn't been able to keep up >widespread capitalism, but they will eventually if enough of us speak >up and not become passive sheep waiting to be fleeced. Note that this sort of behaviour was considered acceptable in the west in the 18th century. The concept of intellectual property is a fairly recent one. The problem is that, whereas the west got the concept of intellectual property before that of mass production, the Chinese have adopted them in the opposite order. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Good-bye, Ourania
Good Bye, and have a wonderful time, I envy your trip.
Hehe interested in brokering some pu-erh while you are there? Mike Petro http://www.pu-erh.net |
Good-bye, Ourania
Michael Plant wrote:
> I am enjoying them. Look forward to your safe return and resumption of > discussion re tea and otherwise. Thank you, Michael. Best regards to you in the meantime! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter