Once again, Scruff, you've elevated my pathetic attempt at humor to the realm of true and valuable generalization.
Kudos to your rhetorical sleight-of-hand!
Oct 5th, '07, 19:33
Posts: 1598
Joined: Jan 11th, '07, 16:13
Scrolling: scrolling
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Contact:
scruffmcgruff
Is there such thing as valuable generalization? Besides, this place would be a lot more boring without your humor.
Tea Nerd - www.teanerd.com
Oct 5th, '07, 20:27
Posts: 5151
Joined: Dec 20th, '06, 23:33
Scrolling: scrolling
Location: Gainesville, Florida
"Generalization is a foundational element of logic and human reasoning. Generalization posits the existence of a domain or set of elements, as well as one or more common characteristics shared by those elements. As such, it is the essential basis of all valid deductive inference." Wikipedia
I really do not think you want to be known as someone who belittled deductive inference!
"Oolongs are partially oxidized." That seems a valuable generalization.
I really do not think you want to be known as someone who belittled deductive inference!
"Oolongs are partially oxidized." That seems a valuable generalization.
Oct 5th, '07, 22:25
Posts: 1598
Joined: Jan 11th, '07, 16:13
Scrolling: scrolling
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Contact:
scruffmcgruff
Oct 9th, '07, 21:43
Posts: 1598
Joined: Jan 11th, '07, 16:13
Scrolling: scrolling
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Contact:
scruffmcgruff
More info:
I received an email from Vivek Lochan which contained scans of a few different Makaibari receipts that look reasonable, but they are dated... incongruously. One is dated 3/29/07, one 9/2/07 (or 2/9/07, its hard to tell what date convention they're using here), and one 5/8/07 (or 8/5/07). The problems are twofold:
1. Anything before this summer couldn't possibly be 2007 second flush tea. (With the exception of the third receipt listed above, all the receipts indicated the purchase of first flush tea.)
2. Supposedly my order was shipped at the end of August.
So, the only conclusions I can think of (also twofold) are:
1. The third receipt date is August 5, and there is no foul play or error.
2. My tea was mislabeled. It is either 2006 second flush or 2007 first flush. Whether or not this was intentional isn't clear to me.
The weird thing is that the tea in question has been referred to by several different names during the course of these emails. I have no idea how much of the fluff is pre- or post-producer. It has been called "makaibari muscatel" (which is not on my package) and "imperial vintage" (which is on my package, but seems to refer to first flush tea in all other contexts), in addition to some combinations of the above and various other frilly words. I have no idea what this tea even *is.*
Whatever, I'm growing less and less concerned with this. Unless someone takes it further, I'm just gonna drop it and assume there is nothing shady. Even if there is some sort of labeling issue, I'm going to invoke Hanlon's Razor.
I received an email from Vivek Lochan which contained scans of a few different Makaibari receipts that look reasonable, but they are dated... incongruously. One is dated 3/29/07, one 9/2/07 (or 2/9/07, its hard to tell what date convention they're using here), and one 5/8/07 (or 8/5/07). The problems are twofold:
1. Anything before this summer couldn't possibly be 2007 second flush tea. (With the exception of the third receipt listed above, all the receipts indicated the purchase of first flush tea.)
2. Supposedly my order was shipped at the end of August.
So, the only conclusions I can think of (also twofold) are:
1. The third receipt date is August 5, and there is no foul play or error.
2. My tea was mislabeled. It is either 2006 second flush or 2007 first flush. Whether or not this was intentional isn't clear to me.
The weird thing is that the tea in question has been referred to by several different names during the course of these emails. I have no idea how much of the fluff is pre- or post-producer. It has been called "makaibari muscatel" (which is not on my package) and "imperial vintage" (which is on my package, but seems to refer to first flush tea in all other contexts), in addition to some combinations of the above and various other frilly words. I have no idea what this tea even *is.*
Whatever, I'm growing less and less concerned with this. Unless someone takes it further, I'm just gonna drop it and assume there is nothing shady. Even if there is some sort of labeling issue, I'm going to invoke Hanlon's Razor.
Oct 9th, '07, 22:29
Posts: 5151
Joined: Dec 20th, '06, 23:33
Scrolling: scrolling
Location: Gainesville, Florida
I'd say you've gone above and beyond on this. It sounds a little like two feuding children turning to Big Mama Scruff to resolve their dispute.
I'd also say it emphasizes how little we will ever know about the provenance of any tea, much less the processing!
Trust your vendor, close your eyes, and drink. After all, it's just kool-aid, ... err ... I mean tea.
I'd also say it emphasizes how little we will ever know about the provenance of any tea, much less the processing!
Trust your vendor, close your eyes, and drink. After all, it's just kool-aid, ... err ... I mean tea.