9/9/04



Mike Petro wrote:

You discounted the "dictionary" quotes. I agree that maybe those
definitions were a little broad in relation to this newsgroup's
expectations, we are a persnickety bunch. However my statement still
stands - you must decide what exactly is your definition of tea? I
cant judge that something is "not" tea if I don't what the definition
of tea really is. Puerh satisfies all commonly accepted definitions
that I know of. What is your definition?

How's this:

Leaves of the Camellia Sinensis that have been picked, subjected to a
range of oxidation -- from complete (black), to partial (Oolong), to not
at all (white and green) -- and then dried or fired prevent further
oxidation and deterioration.

It seems to me that you are attempting to redefine tea to represent a
meaning of your own personal preference.

This is hardly my own, personal, made-up redefinition. Any primer on
tea will say something along those lines.

The Chinese people have
called Puerh "TEA" for thousands of years, it seems to me that it
would be kind of arrogant for Westerners to come in now and redefine
it. After all it is a product of their culture, not ours!

Cultural relativism plays no part in this discussion. I'm speaking as a
tea drinker, not a member of a particular hemisphere.

I think we are going to have to agree - to disagree - on this one....

Your use of the word "product" above gives hope that we can come to some
mutual agreement. How about we call Puerh "fermented tea product"? All
the Puerh lovers can be happy with the inclusion of the word "tea", and
those detractors with upturned noses like myself can feel smug that the
classification of this substance shares the format of other questionable
foodstuffs such as Velveeta, a "processed cheese food product".

--crymad



You can call me Mike, or you can call me John, but never call me late for
tea.