Ask not for whom the bell tolls

Greetings, greetings,

First of all, thanks for the reply. I always enjoy reading text that
has a little care taken over it, and it seems as if the tone is
friendly. For not being aggressive, you have my thanks. It would be
rude of me not to reply after such a message, so here goes:


There's been a lot of discussion and even a successful book recently on
....
handling, use in combination with foods, health effects good and bad, etc.

I don't think the avoidance of absolutes in the context of tea brewing
and drinking can be contested. De gustibus non disputandum est.


Concedo nulli, especially if the assertion is incomprehensible.

As you do later in your message, I appreciate when you tell me that you
cannot understand my writing, because it gives me the opportunity to
clarify. My point here was restated in a subsequent paragraph, but I
introduced it gently in an attempt to avoid offence. I claimed that
the "challenge question" is specious. You've gone some way to
explaining the context surrounding your question, which is gratefully
received.


The real
point of the "challenge question" was twofold: to aim critical thinking
at claims that are probably untrue and the quality of thinking and
discourse that gives rise to them; and also to elicit evidence if any
exists, or at least a higher level of inquiry on this oft-encountered
topic.

I cannot second-guess your motives, of course, and my reply is based
only on the superficial appearance of your responses in this thread. I
don't have access to the "background discussion" that has, apparently,
prompted this challenge, and, as I mention above, I'm glad of your
rehearsal.


Given that excessive boiling results in several chemical alterations
occuring simultaneously

For "results" substitute "may, in some common circumstances, result" or
an equivalent formulation.

On a purely pedantic note, I should definitely challenge this given my
assumption that surely more than one chemical alteration occurs
simultaneously during excess boiling. The chemical properties of
boiling water is not a field that I have spent any considerable effort
researching, but it would surprise me if in the overwhelming majority
of examples, only a single chemical alteration occurred (given the
complexity of the solution).

Of course, I'm always willing to be proven wrong, and I would welcome
any further information from someone who has spent some time
researching boiling water.


Where I live, the
concentration of divalent carbonates in water is nil, so boiling doesn't
matter much. Extensive reboiling of water makes no difference to tea
taste that I can detect (except when chlorine or organics happen to be
running high). When I've lived in chalky parts of the UK, the effect was
dramatic. However, I'll stand by the assertion that even there, the main
effect of overboiling is to deposit more lime scale in the kettle.

This really is very surprising to me, and I welcome your opinion. I
suppose that this is the crux of the discussion, and the singular point
of interest, for me. I'm fascinated to hear that excessive boiling of
water might not alter your perception of the taste of tea brewed using
it.

Like you, I've had the dubious pleasure of some extremely chalky water
supplies in the UK, in various districts. My home city was built on
ground which is fenland and chalk, and it certainly has an unpleasant
effect on the health of the long-term inhabitants - particularly kidney
accumulatives and "stones".


...it sounds as if a reader, who has invested some of their time in
understanding the physical process of water's chemical content, has
come across people discussing "dissolved oxygen" and wants to make the
point that it is a variable obfuscated by others. This is fair.
However, rather than stating this fact, the reader prefers to the
spectacle of offering his "best puerh", and saving the fact for later.

I might comment if I could parse the foregoing paragraph. Is this the
current state of Oxford English?

I must confess to being sincerely surprised that this paragraph would
cause difficulties, and I'm thankful that you raise it so that I can
bear it in mind for Newsgroup writing in future. I suppose that, yes,
this is the current state of Oxford English. I tested it out on 2.5
random victims (one being split between here and another place) and it
didn't seem to cause too much agony. I'll be careful when posting in
future, though, so again, thanks.


I tried pretty hard to offer
information at several levels, including search terms for people who
actually want to understand and even experiment with this sort of thing
and qualitative descriptions for the less scientifically inclined.

Honestly, if your motives are for an investigation of the topic without
a desire to show off, the effort that you have taken is genuinely
appreciated. We cannot guess your motives, but can only form opinions
based on the text, which is borderline ostentation. If I promise to be
more direct in my wording to reduce reader confusion, I would welcome a
slightly more amiable approach to discussion of the investigation
(though let it be said that the manners with which it is discussed are
refreshingly good).


It's the diversity of posting styles, content, background and
predilections that makes this place fun. Hobbes, I'd urge you to
killfile any poster whose ostentation offends, certainly including this one.

On this subject, I have absolutely nothing worthy of ostentation. I
simply have not spent time with the literature in this area. As I
mentioned above, contributions from those for whom this is one of their
research topics are welcome - provided they are worded in a format that
doesn't lead to discomfort. It's dangerous knowing a subject in detail
- it has to be communicated carefully, in order to avoid the audience
jumping to undesirable conclusions. I certainly agree that this is a
fun place, and I trust that the spirit of my reply has not offended.

I certainly wouldn't dream of adding to a killfile any poster who is
able to provide good information in an area of which I have little
technical familiarity. I prefer to provide a gentle prod towards
making that valuable content appear in a more congenial form.


Addio, addio,

Hobbes

.

Relevant Pages

  • Homebrew Digest #5661 (February 21, 2010)
    ... TODAY'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY: ... temporary hardness ... Re: water ... "Will boiling remove some of the hardness? ...
    (rec.crafts.brewing)
  • Re: mechanism of de-superheating water
    ... Boiling may be set off by starting ... pressure in the body of water. ... In the depths of the water, ... Apparently I was misusing 'superheating'. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Rigidity of Plastic at 212F
    ... It is difficult because of the heat to brew in the ... Someone has proposed using a food-grade plastic pail ... rigidity of the plastic pail at the boiling point. ... doesn't hold up well with boiling water. ...
    (sci.polymers)
  • Re: Rigidity of Plastic at 212F
    ... It is difficult because of the heat to brew in the ... Someone has proposed using a food-grade plastic pail ... rigidity of the plastic pail at the boiling point. ... doesn't hold up well with boiling water. ...
    (sci.polymers)
  • Re: Help with deciphering old ad
    ... a metal saucepan that I placed on the electric stove's cooktop ... a glass bowl that I placed in the microwave oven ... sequence of boiling was the order listed above. ... The kettle water ...
    (alt.usage.english)