It has risen to the level of blemishes. I now use it with affectional
connotation with the following modification. In the future I will use
hanging factoid (with affection) because that implies some legitimacy
with the implied Usenet caveat while meaningless factoid is redundant
and irrelevant. I think it disingenuous quoting scientific references
to prove your point waving a wand proclaiming them indisputable and
then waving it again and saying other references are disputable. All
initial bodies of scientific work are inherently contradictory.
They're a better indicator for detecting underlying principles than
hanging factoids. However hanging factoids historically does cause
science to come up with better explanations. I stayed with the thread
because Google never forgets and there is no science to tell us how to
brew a cup of tea. At his point I would add a DUH but I allow for
those pesky references. IMHO I think tea taste is proportional no
matter how you make it. For the past couple of years I've been
drinking teas off the top, leaves in cup, no stirring, and those last
sips tasting like the first, which leads me to observing the saturation
phenomena possibly also occuring in gongfu. Not in every case but
something is going on. One hallmark of science is observation.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2005 16:24:48 -0700, "Space Cowboy" >
> wrote:
>
> >If you hang your hat on it it has to be a meaningless factoid.
>
> Lets not get personal now Jim, I take that as an insult. You are also
> an easy target if we go down that road.
>
>
> >I think
> >I remember you saying you dismissed the medicinal claims and not that
> >the jury was still out.
>
> You memory is faulty Jim, that's not what I said, search it yourself
> if you doubt me. Besides what difference does it make, it appears that
> your only use for my comments is to use them against me on some future
> date anyway.
>
> My exact words were " I don't think there is really any conclusive
> evidence but there does seem to be a smoking gun. "
>
> I went on to say:
>
> "As for the slimming claims I do not put much faith in them. Anyone
> who has met me in person would question those claims as well. I am a
> very large man, both tall and wide, and drinking puerh does not
> appeared to have changed that at all, and I do drink a tremendous
> amount of puerh."
>
> >You can't explain
> >multiple infusions by your references.
>
> You keep going back to that, it's nothing more than a Red Herring, I
> it is irrelevant to my "caffeine is not linear within taste" argument.
>
> > As it turns out you can't most
> >things by those references. My black puer around bedtime does NOT give
> >me the caffeine jitters like other teas including green puerh. That is
> >supported by my arguments heretofore and your admitted body of
> >conflicting scientific research on puerh which still supports my claim.
>
> Why should your subjective judgments carry any more weight than you
> give to mine?
>
> Lets move on Jim this is starting to get boring. At least in the
> beginning it was mildly thought provoking.
> Mike Petro
> http://www.pu-erh.net
> "In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed."
> Samuel Johnson, 1775, upon finishing his dictionary.