Actually...I have no idea what Sanka is, I gather from the thread it's something to do with coffee? Possibly whatever it is is confined to the U.S. so the analogy has completly threw me....sorry...javyn wrote:I'm not a coffee drinker, am young, and of course I know what Sanka is. Everyone does. I see nothing wrong with the analogy. Even if I did, I wouldn't split hairs over it.
Jing Ja, I have to admit first that I only read the beginning and skimmed your response, since I really did not intend to to begin a long conversation on starbucks or coffee. i'm just going to reiterate that you've really stuck onto the "first" thing in my original post and expanded it and argued against it in a sense that i never intended--i said that i thought they were the first "to really promote" that kind of awareness of good coffee, etc, which to me can be distinct from being technical firsts in putting the product out there, or even uneffective/unpopular firsts. i'm sure i could have made more efforts to make the syntax more clear, i just didn't expect that kind of dissection.
my post was not meant to be about starbucks. i was just trying to be helpful in clarifying why that comparison could be seen as useful. and i don't feel belligerent or negatively towards you, i'm just baffled at these huge responses just latching onto the starbucks/coffee thing. i didn't realize i was instigating that.
and i think tazo is fine, i just don't personally prefer it. if starbucks wants to popularize tea, that's fine with me, but that's not a question to really address to me. starbucks is a part-time job, not my profession. what i meant by that is just what i said--that i personally think that kind of widespread enlightenment about tea would be nice, nothing more and nothing less. i was actually thinking of (and hoping for) adagio when i wrote that...
my post was not meant to be about starbucks. i was just trying to be helpful in clarifying why that comparison could be seen as useful. and i don't feel belligerent or negatively towards you, i'm just baffled at these huge responses just latching onto the starbucks/coffee thing. i didn't realize i was instigating that.
and i think tazo is fine, i just don't personally prefer it. if starbucks wants to popularize tea, that's fine with me, but that's not a question to really address to me. starbucks is a part-time job, not my profession. what i meant by that is just what i said--that i personally think that kind of widespread enlightenment about tea would be nice, nothing more and nothing less. i was actually thinking of (and hoping for) adagio when i wrote that...
i hear them singing each to each
Dearest Sippy Cup,
I think we have a little misunderstanding and a lot of disagreement on the issues. The disagreement is fine and ok with me, but I will try again to clear up the misunderstanding so that we can at least respect each other's position.
I will try to write as plain, simple, and concise as I can as to make it easier on you. Well, I'll try to write plain and simple at least!
I don't mean to "dissect" the issue so much as provide context to the real challenge of introducing new people to quality tea. I believe that answers to problems are best found in careful analysis and understanding of all mechanisms at play.
Obviously, you disagree with that. That's ok. But please respect my preference to root out the relevant factors and challenge the basis of broad, sweeping claims which may be misguided or inappropriate to the ultimate good of the cause.
Again, the validity and accuracy of saying that Starbucks is, "the one," who came along to show us how much better coffee can be and saying that there is a direct parallel to this phenomena in tea is my personal pet peeve. I attempt to clarify the basis of my position by presenting facts, ideas, and appropriate context to the issue. I simply ask people to look beyond what is commonly believed or perceived to perhaps re-think their assumptions and clarify, not necessarily abandon, their positions.
I take offense to the Starbucks statement because it puts down and marginalizes the many hard-working people who have and who are truly instigating change in the quality of coffee out there. I also feel that the analogy as it is written is not relevant for a variety of factors which I have previously discussed and find no need to re-hash here. Ultimately, I think it does more harm than good, but that's just my opinion as a careful and critical thinker.
Reading your replies, I think you miss my points. I feel that you are the one, "hung up," on particular details and cannot see the forest for the trees. In fact, I don't think you see the trees either. You seem to just see a bunch of burning logs.
I really am glad for your contributions to the discussion. Thank you.
Moreover, I'm glad to have the chance to hear your perspective and personal observations. I think you have a lot of good and important things to say. I only hope you might think the same of me.
Will Gladly,
Jing Cha
Never let us do wrong, because our opponents did so. Let us, rather, by doing right, show them what they ought to have done, and establish a rule the dictates of reason and conscience, rather than of the angry passions.
I think we have a little misunderstanding and a lot of disagreement on the issues. The disagreement is fine and ok with me, but I will try again to clear up the misunderstanding so that we can at least respect each other's position.
I will try to write as plain, simple, and concise as I can as to make it easier on you. Well, I'll try to write plain and simple at least!
I'm not stuck on the "first" thing. I'm not even stuck on the Starbucks thing. I just wanted to engage in a discussion about whether the coffee analogy AS IT WAS WRITTEN confused or diluted getting across the powerful difference in the quality and freshness of Adagio teas compared to supermarket teas. I offered a couple alternatives and asked for opinions on them.sippy cup wrote: i'm just going to reiterate that you've really stuck onto the "first" thing in my original post and expanded it and argued against it in a sense that i never intended--i said that i thought they were the first "to really promote" that kind of awareness of good coffee, etc, which to me can be distinct from being technical firsts in putting the product out there, or even uneffective/unpopular firsts. i'm sure i could have made more efforts to make the syntax more clear, i just didn't expect that kind of dissection.
I don't mean to "dissect" the issue so much as provide context to the real challenge of introducing new people to quality tea. I believe that answers to problems are best found in careful analysis and understanding of all mechanisms at play.
Obviously, you disagree with that. That's ok. But please respect my preference to root out the relevant factors and challenge the basis of broad, sweeping claims which may be misguided or inappropriate to the ultimate good of the cause.
Again, the validity and accuracy of saying that Starbucks is, "the one," who came along to show us how much better coffee can be and saying that there is a direct parallel to this phenomena in tea is my personal pet peeve. I attempt to clarify the basis of my position by presenting facts, ideas, and appropriate context to the issue. I simply ask people to look beyond what is commonly believed or perceived to perhaps re-think their assumptions and clarify, not necessarily abandon, their positions.
I take offense to the Starbucks statement because it puts down and marginalizes the many hard-working people who have and who are truly instigating change in the quality of coffee out there. I also feel that the analogy as it is written is not relevant for a variety of factors which I have previously discussed and find no need to re-hash here. Ultimately, I think it does more harm than good, but that's just my opinion as a careful and critical thinker.
Reading your replies, I think you miss my points. I feel that you are the one, "hung up," on particular details and cannot see the forest for the trees. In fact, I don't think you see the trees either. You seem to just see a bunch of burning logs.
As anyone around here will tell you, I write huge, verbose, arcane responses on just about everything around here. Few people actually read every word unless they have insomnia and need a sure-fire means of achieving sleep.sippy cup wrote:my post was not meant to be about starbucks. i was just trying to be helpful in clarifying why that comparison could be seen as useful. and i don't feel belligerent or negatively towards you, i'm just baffled at these huge responses just latching onto the starbucks/coffee thing. i didn't realize i was instigating that.
I really am glad for your contributions to the discussion. Thank you.
Moreover, I'm glad to have the chance to hear your perspective and personal observations. I think you have a lot of good and important things to say. I only hope you might think the same of me.
Will Gladly,
Jing Cha
Never let us do wrong, because our opponents did so. Let us, rather, by doing right, show them what they ought to have done, and establish a rule the dictates of reason and conscience, rather than of the angry passions.