Gather 'round children while uncle Chef rambles to himself
Tea
A substance I've grown very fond recently, comes in an incredible variety. By this point I must have a little over forty different kinds of tea. Some would call that a problem, an obsession, a certifiable disease, but I just can't help myself anymore. Anytime I see a tea I've never tried before in a store, I buy it immediately. If there are several, I buy 1-3 and then make a note to come back another time when I want to get my consumerism on.
Why are people so elitist about tea?
People are elitist about nearly everything, but it seems like it is too far to be elitist about tea. Take this blog for instance. What a pretentious twat. If you thought the recent Chuiu blog about tea was filled with elitists, this is at least ten levels above that. While the guys in Chuiu's blog were using 'tail whip' by telling people anything but loose leaf is terrible, this guy had 'ember' and was talking about hundred year old expensive teas. Tea is an inexpensive drink. The reason I can have so much variety is because it hardly costs more than 4 CAD to get a few months supply of any tea I want, excepting of course the 100 year old teas. I'm sure you can tell the difference between a month old tea leaf and a hundred year old tea leaf, but I'm not convinced it's any more pleasing than the difference between teas grown in different regions which are still reasonably priced. Anyway. Let's not talk about the perfect brewing time, the perfect water temperature, or how to waste ludicrous amounts of water by boiling water, putting it in a tea pot, and dump it out without drinking any of it. Even if that did make the tea taste different, I have no clue why the method which is the biggest pain in the ass is automatically seen as the tastiest method. But I digress.
The hunt for a good tea ball
Or the like. I've tried various methods and I won't bore you by listing them all. Instead I will show you to the latest method I've been using, and one that I think has finally got it right. It's a 250 ml (one mug) French Press. Here are pictures for your enjoyment.
Being able to see the leafs get wet and expand is very satisfying. In this cup, Sow Mee (a Chinese white tea) is being brewed.
It's kind of like a beaker... :o
Blaaaaaaarrgg!
Squish!
Squished.
Here's a bonus picture of my turtle sticks. I use them to find happiness in the form of noodles.
StarCraft
I have to confess, dear readers, that I have a special account for doing dumb strategies and various conditions on. It's called ConditionSC. When I play on it I think of a condition before I play, such as mouse only, or proxy hatch, or whatever, and I do it in the game. This helps me not take the ladder seriously so I don't get pissed off by lag and not being able to regame players. It's also quite a bit of fun. I'm about to crush the dreams of all newbies on this site when I say I'm not actually that good at BW. I have the same idea that literally every other casual player has in that I think if I played enough, I'd be quite a lot better. But of course everyone would be better if they played more. Grobyc can attest that most of my matchups are pretty weak, although I can be somewhat formiddable when I am given a chance to practice and I know my opponents style. That's the modesty check. Now here's the battle report where I will be completely immodest.
I beat BoxeR
That's right, the real BoxeR. The 100% I'm not making it up real BoxeR wasn't just a random smurf on iCCup pretending to be boxer and I have proof but won't show it for inexplicable reasons. I beat Boxer. And here is my battle report of the occasaion. Allow me to give you a bit of background info. I was watching Jaedong's bnet attack when suddenly I had an epiphany. One of those BW epiphanies I have once every few years that makes me literally twice as good at BW as I was ten minutes before it. The epiphany came from watching how Jaedong 'spams' and where his focus lies. I suddenly realised after all these years that I was spamming wrong. I shouldn't be pressing 33 44 33 44 33 44 33 44 repetitively like a rabid rabbit on steroids for absolutely no reason. I should be rallying my hatchery furiously, and only occasionally checking my overlord. Believe it or not I'm not actually joking about this. This really was a huge error in my game play. I switch the screen so fast all the time, but really I should be putting my screen where my focus is needed the most. Whether that's at my units or at my hatchery in the beginning, it is super important that I only check on the other things for a split second before going back to what's important. It used to be that I'd lose random crap in my main because I didn't switch my screen often enough. Then it was that I switched by screen to much to be effective where it was important. Now I've finally found the harmony between the two, and it's made me a much smarter player. I feel like I have so much more time to think now that I'm not furiously readjusting my senses to the new screen position. It's liberating. In any case, I just have to pause b.net attack immediately so that I can try it out. When I think of something I get excited about it and want to do it immediately, it's just how I am. So there I go, I hope onto Condition SC and play a warm up round against the computer to see if I've got it all thought out. Then I select a real live 1v1, and who else could it be but Boxer. The last game I'd played on ConditionSC had been a 1v1 against SlayerS_Buffy, who I dispatched on match-point with Zero's proxy hatch strategy. That was very satisfying. But apparently Buffy had cried to BoxeR, and BoxeR just couldn't let his teammate be humiliated like that without trying to get revenge for him, even if it meant going back to BW. Thus, our match was fate.
BoxeR asked me what rank I was and I told him D+. Too be honest that's a lie. I'm not actually that bad, but I didn't want to scare him away by telling him my rank was Jaedong (as a direct result of watching Jaedong's B.net attack). The game name had been "D only Zerg come." It was obvious that BoxeR was the type who would leave the game unless the conditions were exactly right, as evidenced by his very specific questions. If it weren't enough that I'd embarrassed his teammate Buffy by cheesing a proxy hatch, and if it weren't enough that he was talking a lot and talking a lot usually means a player is trying to make you not think about scouting, then it was made obvious by the fact that it's fucking BoxeR and what else does he do but cheese. I focused hard and prepared myself with a mindset that would be strong in the early game.
BoxeR asked me for a re, and I told him yes. I'm not going to lie, I just logged off iCCup right then and there. I was on the combat high of my life after beating BoxeR, plus I had a paper to write that was due the next morning. If I hadn't told him yes, I feared BoxeR would just to drag the game out by hiding supply depots all over the map. I apologise to anyone who thinks it's rude that I wasted his time and he might have been waiting for me, but I suspect he just typed /whois conditionsc and thought I'd lost my internet. The circumstances were extenuating and I would not do it normally. I'd like to reiterate again, that I beat BoxeR and I am the greatest StarCraft player to ever live.
Sex
If you scrolled down here looking for something to jerk off to, I'm sorry to say you're going to be disappointed. When I say sex, I only mean gender. In the recent blog by JWD, XIII, he made some comments about some inequalities between the sexes that he perceives on this board. He said some pretty dumb things too, but I think JWD is a pretty good guy on the whole and meant well. I also think it's good to continue the discussion. I don't really care about the use of the word rape. When I first joined this community I thought it was tactless and a little disturbing, but I never viewed it as sexist. I also eventually got used to it and stopped thinking much about it. I don't want to talk about words here.
How to objectify women
There are two ways of objectifying women. The first way is to think of women as being only useful for sex, being pretty... Other selfish needs. That's the most obvious way and I think most people can agree it's not a particularly healthy outlook. The other way (okay, there's probably more than two, but dichotomies are fun) is to think of women as being too good for sex. This is more or less the angel in the house way of thinking that feminists have been trying to leave in the Victorian era (but which actually pervades to this day) I'm going to make this point short because I don't think it needs elaboration. In much the same way that I went from two ways of thinking about how to spam in StarCraft to a happy medium, women are more complex than just only thinking about sex or never thinking about sex. No one's entire personality revolves around their sexual appetite—that's why there's StarCraft. It's the feeling that there is a time and a place for everything, and when you are browsing a forum or playing a game, you are probably not looking for solicitations on your sexuality. I don't like to place sex in a box and put it to the side, but let's have some self-restraint, TL. This is not a site which you visit so you can find pictures of incredibly endowed women or men. It's not a place where people post pictures of themselves to be criticised or commented about. I'm not going to stop hordes of 14 year olds for commentating on the physical attractiveness of every girl that happens to be in the StarCraft community, and I'm not going to going to stop people posting pictures of models on this site either. There are always going to be horny teenagers and nothing can stop that. I just want to say that if you are trying to be feminist, talking about how beautiful the female body is while only looking at pictures of models is not a particularly good way of doing it. Focusing only on the female body and not any other accomplishments (that go beyond a bubbly personality) is also a pretty shit way of doing it, model or not. A well rounded person has many other things to offer, and it's a shame to ignore them :O
(This last section is admittedly way too preachy and I apologise for that. I just want to say love women, not just their twenty year old bodies ;o)
[shameless-self-promotion] Then of course there are other ways of dealing with said hormones brought along by petering out of one's teenage life, check NaDa's body for an upcoming piece of my own about that, and how, in the end, NaDa's Body is the answer! [/shameless-self-promotion]
Unfortunately for the community at large, we have few events to judge the caliber of TL's new resident progamer, especially in terms of Race Wars, Team Mele or ZvZ categories. As such, on behalf of all OP TL'ers, I challenge you, Chef, to come along some time and teach us a few moves. Epicness guaranteed
Agreed. Sorry if i was being a loose leaf elites in that last blog, but the main reason i tell people to make the switch isn't that loose leaf tastes better, it's that if you drink a lot of tea it's much cheaper. As long as you have a basic means of steeping (mine is a thermos with a mesh bowl attachment that can hold the leaves) drinking loose leaf saves you tons of money, especially if you resteep.
Also, there's no reason to drink tea made from Lipton tea bags. Ever.
While overall i agree with Chef that many people take tea too seriously, i have to object to throwing water temperature into that category. The temperature you steep at really matters, and it's easy to ruin a green or white tea by steeping it in water as hot as you'd use for black.
Question - how are you liking the french press method of steeping? I tried it once, but i found that by the time i finished the cup the tea would have become bitter and oversteeped from the leaves at the bottom of the cup. Does that occur for you at all, or is it not a problem with the cup you use?
Yeah, I get loose leaf because it is much cheaper as well. The French Press is only a 250 ml one, so when it's steeped adequately, I just pour it into a mug. I've heard bitterness is a problem with larger French Presses since the coffee or tea is sitting in there longer, but I haven't had to occasion to find out and I steep some teas a very long time anyway.
The main thing I like about the French Press is that my tea balls were terrible and let lots of the smaller bits of leaves through into my drink. The French Press has a much finer mesh, though I'm sure there are quality tea balls which would achieve the same effect. The French Press is also easier to clean than a tea ball, which I like.
On April 18 2011 02:56 Chef wrote: Yeah, I get loose leaf because it is much cheaper as well. The French Press is only a 250 ml one, so when it's steeped adequately, I just pour it into a mug. I've heard bitterness is a problem with larger French Presses since the coffee or tea is sitting in there longer, but I haven't had to occasion to find out and I steep some teas a very long time anyway.
The main thing I like about the French Press is that my tea balls were terrible and let lots of the smaller bits of leaves through into my drink. The French Press has a much finer mesh, though I'm sure there are quality tea balls which would achieve the same effect. The French Press is also easier to clean than a tea ball, which I like.
This is what i use for almost every cup of tea i make, and i love it to death. It makes resteeping so easy, since you just switch tops and place the mesh top with the leaves still in it in a coffee cup or somewhere where it can drip without creating a mess, and put it back in when you're ready for a second cup.
Never used tea balls, but i haven't ever heard anything good about them.
I used to steep a long time, but of late I've really been cutting down on how long i steep my green teas. I still steep blacks for about 7 min or so, but i just switched from steeping greens for 5 minutes to just 2-3, and i've really liked the results.
On April 18 2011 02:10 Chef wrote: There are two ways of objectifying women. The first way is to think of women as being only useful for sex, being pretty... Other selfish needs. That's the most obvious way and I think most people can agree it's not a particularly healthy outlook. The other way (okay, there's probably more than two, but dichotomies are fun) is to think of women as being too good for sex. This is more or less the angel in the house way of thinking that feminists have been trying to leave in the Victorian era (but which actually pervades to this day)
The angel in the house was less about a chaste v. corrupt sexual object (that dichotomy goes way back to Arthurian romance) and more about praising the domestic pliability and submissiveness of the wife. I can't generalize and say, "feminists say this but not this" because it's a broad range of thought, but Virginia Woolf's murdering her "angel" had more to do with breaking the gender role assigned to her as female: always be polite, be complimentary, be good to men, always yield to men, etc. - hence Woolf's noted androgyny and bisexuality.
Also, how you've characterized the behaviour and/or argument you're responding to is a bit of a strawman. I don't think JWD ever asserted that women are only good for their beauty or sexual capabilities or whatever, but this being his blog, he elected to post pictures of women he found attractive.
I'm never going to look like Lomo; this doesn't mean NeverGG's objectification of him is shameful or something.
On April 18 2011 02:10 Chef wrote: It's the feeling that there is a time and a place for everything, and when you are browsing a forum or playing a game, you are probably not looking for solicitations on your sexuality. I don't like to place sex in a box and put it to the side, but let's have some self-restraint, TL. This is not a site which you visit so you can find pictures of incredibly endowed women or men.
TL.net is also not explicitly a website for men's fashion or new music downloads, let alone anime or news, but as a vibrant community of various personalities, it has come to house discussion pertaining to those topics.
I'm all for a discussion about the relationship between sexual objectification/fantasizing and violence (if there even is one), but saying "take it somewhere else because I find this specific subject vaguely, morally objectionable" is a tone argument and not really an ethical stance beyond advocating sexual chastity, a stance that always seems ideological rather than logical.
On April 18 2011 02:10 Chef wrote: I just want to say that if you are trying to be feminist, talking about how beautiful the female body is while only looking at pictures of models is not a particularly good way of doing it. Focusing only on the female body and not any other accomplishments (that go beyond a bubbly personality) is also a pretty shit way of doing it, model or not. A well rounded person has many other things to offer, and it's a shame to ignore them :O
So, would it be more acceptable if JWD posted pictures of girls he knew on Facebook along with the content of their profiles, copied and pasted?
JWD's blogs are some of the most off-putting on this site. He is what I and many call a "Daryl". If you don't know what that means then you are probably one as well.
Chef's blog is the most appealing, to me any way. I live in China. I'll send you some serious tea if would like.
Day[9]'s story of playing the guy who said he was getting a blowjob during an hour-long BGH game is one of my favourite Starcraft-related stories and blowjob-related stories.
I thoroughly enjoyed the read, Chef, and why I've never thought of using my French press for anything other than coffee, I'll never know. Thanks for opening my eyes.
As a woman, I'd like to comment on the "Sex" portion of your blog post and perhaps respond to jon; however, I'll restrain myself.
I think there's a difference between the pictures of male gamers thread and pictures of girls you've never heard of, namely that on this site, we have a diverse picture of what we perceive as male. You can be liked for your StarCraft ability, your accomplishments, your travels and all kinds of things. But the issue is more sensitive with women because there isn't a very diverse representation of women on this site. It is one female role model, and that type happens to be super model... It's a little unfair, don't you think? If there were lots of different kinds of representations of women on this site, then it would be easy to pass by the models, but there is basically one representation of women on this site, which is the model. Sure, there is TossGirl (sort of T.T) and a few notable contributors who are women which is very good, but these look like anomalies in comparison to how often women are just models or pictures to look at.
You're right about the angel in the house thing. It's not really the greatest term for my purposes, and I meant it more for the connotations of putting women on a pedestal than anything else. Deciding who a woman is without asking her. That kind of thing.
I don't find pictures of models or even pictures of models on this site in itself offensive. It is how it seems to be the only representation, with very few exceptions. Putting pictures of more common body types and having little blurbs from their facebook wouldn't exactly be any different.
Before anything else, thanks for the tea tutorial. I'm probably going to get a French press soon to take my coffee and tea to the next level, and this helps.
Re "Daryl" all I'm thinking of is Mark McKinney's character from Kids in the Hall or this fat kid with a mullet named Daryl who showed me his mom's vibrator when I was 7. Little help?
On April 18 2011 03:24 Chef wrote: But the issue is more sensitive with women because there isn't a very diverse representation of women on this site. It is one female role model, and that type happens to be super model... It's a little unfair, don't you think?
Valid. Ideally, women could post freely on this website without privilege or prejudice on the basis of their sex and appearance, but that seems like it's a long way off.
On April 18 2011 03:24 Chef wrote: If there were lots of different kinds of representations of women on this site, then it would be easy to pass by the models, but there is basically one representation of women on this site, which is the model. Sure, there is TossGirl and a few notable contributors who are women which is very good, but these look like anomalies in comparison to how often women are just models or pictures to look at.
Also valid, although I don't know JWD enough to know if he's a chauvinist pig who denigrates ugly women actively online or off-, or if his blogs seem to contribute to that behaviour in others. I'm assuming by his mod status that it's the latter; as I said elsewhere, the most egregious offenders on this site are banned.
If it's the former, then I've dug myself pretty deep.
On April 18 2011 03:24 Chef wrote: I don't find pictures of models or even pictures of models on this site in itself offensive. It is how it seems to be the only representation, with very few exceptions. Putting pictures of more common body types and having little blurbs from their facebook wouldn't exactly be any different.
Ostensibly, it would be different. The women on Facebook would not be models, but women he knows and whose body types are more "realistic" or "natural" or whatever word you want. The blurbs would ostensibly again provide detail as to how this attractive woman is a human being and not a constructed aesthetic object. (I know how creepy this sounds; I'm not advocating it. It's a thought experiment.)
On April 18 2011 03:24 Arkansassy wrote: As a woman, I'd like to comment on the "Sex" portion of your blog post and perhaps respond to jon; however, I'll restrain myself.
Go for it.
This is mostly boilover from JWD's blog, and the only female input came from a guy quoting his girlfriend. Input on the subject from a woman (more?) familiar with TL.net would be great, being that feminist discourse among men and men only turns into something of a circle jerk.
On April 18 2011 02:10 Chef wrote: People are elitist about nearly everything, but it seems like it is too far to be elitist about tea.
For the most part, at least tea elitists get together and talk to other tea elitists. I've seen teenagers (you know, the ones who can't legally drink) say that they only want Patron or Grey Goose and that everything else is beneath them. Also, it's still cheap to be a tea elitist. I bought some oolong tea that all came from the same tree and it was still cheap.
While the guys in Chuiu's blog were using 'tail whip' by telling people anything but loose leaf is terrible, this guy had 'ember' and was talking about hundred year old expensive teas.
Pu-erh is fermented for many years so it'll definitely change the flavor, and the age doesn't really mean anything anyway. Other teas aren't really aged... maybe oolongs but not really. Usually for the hardcore, they go crazy over the first tea harvest of the season. (Which, when I think about it... it's actually going on now in China.)
I wouldn't say he had 'ember,' more like 'leech seed.'
I think it's all good anyway. I only get mad when people say they like tea and then they name things like Chamomile or whatever, because it's not really tea, it just shares the same brewing process. For that matter, coffee does too, but I don't hear people talking about herbal coffee.
Also valid, although I don't know JWD enough to know if he's a chauvinist pig who denigrates ugly women actively online or off-, or if his blogs seem to contribute to that behaviour in others.
I want to say on the record I don't think JWD is chauvinist at all. Female models are a regular and forth-most part of his blogs, but I don't think he was pondering the social ramifications of doing so. Like I said, it's not offensive that he posts models, it's that it's just more of the same representation of women we've been getting on this site for years. It's not changing anything or adding female types for us to think about. I'm not gonna say TL needs to go out of its way to find women who are admirable in other fields, I'm just gonna say that we almost never do it at all right now. The first alternative female representation I can think of other than the female posters at TL, are the authors of Harry Potter and Twilight, which are only posted to say how not very good their writing is.
Also valid, although I don't know JWD enough to know if he's a chauvinist pig who denigrates ugly women actively online or off-, or if his blogs seem to contribute to that behaviour in others.
I want to say on the record I don't think JWD is chauvinist at all. Female models are a regular and forth-most part of his blogs, but I don't think he was pondering the social ramifications of doing so. Like I said, it's not offensive that he posts models, it's that it's just more of the same representation of women we've been getting on this site for years. It's not changing anything or adding female types for us to think about. I'm not gonna say TL needs to go out of its way to find women who are admirable in other fields, I'm just gonna say that we almost never do it at all right now. The first alternative female representation I can think of other than the female posters at TL, are the authors of Harry Potter and Twilight, which are only posted to say how not very good their writing is.
Not sure I follow regarding the need for an alternative female representation on TL. The way people feel about women is not a product of the TL boards. It isn't really the website's or poster's responsibility to encourage more holistic views on women.
As for JWD's posts... its what he does. You wouldn't expect MAXIM or FHM to replace their model shoots with an Artosis interview about Gerbils right?
I mean... I agree that a lot of kids on here (both in terms of age and maturity) appear to have a very unhealthy view of women, but thats got nothing to do with TL or portrayals of women on TL.
good read. Glad to see there are ppl on TL.net with some class. Hard for me a lowlife buy-by-the-bulk Lipton tea bag to relate. I always thought tea was meant to be "cooked" in the sun in some old discarded glass jug? I doubt I can be civilized. I'm way too far beyond repair.
@ beating boxer! Wow.. NICE! .. looks like you did this in recent times as those screenshots are most likely from a replay (with text capture) as opposed to screenshots. I wouldn't expect you had time to micro/macro vs. god AND take screenies? With that said... WHERE IS THE REPLAY?!!!!! Dude come on YOU BEAT BOXER! I'd be posting that replay in every far corner of the Starcraft community!
@ Women and peachyness We treat women with the due respect they deserve here in Santa Cruz, CA! Seriously, women make the world go round. Love em! That said, I still find it ridiculous that magazines like Surfer magazine have slowly moved away from showing hot babes in bikini's as it isn't as politically correct. Wth? What's next? Sports Illustrated annual swim suit edition to be discontinued? What's so hypocritical about admiring women for both their inner and outer beauty?
As an update, I did eventually learn that if you use too high a temperature for green tea, you will get a really bitter tea which is immediately solved by using water that is a little less hot. I wouldn't say you have to have an exact temperature, but the ranges are pretty accurate and 80 degrees is about what I let my water cool down to for green tea.
...You buy tea balls and use a french press. That in itself is enough to disqualify you as any sort of authority on tea culture.
Tea culture has had many centuries to develop and evolve and many of the greatest countries of the world poured vast sums of money into developing this culture. To show up out of nowhere and start talking about tea preparation as if there's nothing to it is foolhardy in the extreme. The type of leaf, the temperature, and how to brew it produce vast differences in flavor.
It's the equivalent of saying all wines are the same, hot or cold doesn't matter, how they're bottled doesn't matter, where the grapes are from don't matter, all the same shit. Cheap wine = expensive wine etc etc.
That was a pretty spiteful post. Is this about the time I made fun of you for giving people advice on how to write? I guess we're both hypocrites.
In any case, the thing I find offensive is when someone is enjoying a cup of tea, and someone comes around and tells them they've done it wrong it a really snooty way (oh my god, you use a FRENCH PRESS???), as opposed to just suggesting another method they might try. Actually, I'm the same way about writing. I hate when an editor thinks they know everything, as opposed to an editor who can suggest alternatives. Maybe it's the tact.
For what it's worth, I actually did research and looked at bio journals and studies to discover what the actual differences are (coles notes: there's certain things in tea which react only at a certain temperature, some of them you want to react, others you don't), and also experimented a little myself based on these studies. So I probably know a lot more than some guy who listened to the old asian lady at the supermarket drone on about the history of tea in China and how you need to drink it from a special cup and wear special clothes to enjoy it. That may or may not have actually happened to me. I meet a lot of weird people.
I have a french press thermos for coffee, but I don't use it for tea very often; even though it's pretty small, the tea still ends up oversteeped by the time I get to the bottom. Then again, I drink pretty slowly, so that might be part of it. I only use it when I need to bring my beverage with me somewhere (and I only use it for black teas, which I don't really mind oversteeping). If I'm just at my desk, I use a small teapot (less than a mug's volume) so I can control the timing and portions more easily. I see all these tools for making tea, but I've never had a problem with a plain old teapot.
Also your representation of tea ceremony/preparation is... ignorant at best =\. Type of water, temperature, and timing aren't "elitist" any more than a person preferring their food cooked properly instead of burnt. The more elaborate parts of ceremonies aren't primarily meant to make the tea taste better; it's a ritual ceremony, and the steps are for atmosphere and show. I say "ignorant at best" because if you actual know about tea ceremonies and still say things like that, your condescension is just as bad as any pretentious tea elitist. If your attitude is in response to something from another topic or something, sorry if I come off harsh, but you seem pretty hypocritical from where I'm standing.
And tea is totally not cheap ;;. The kind I really want is at like .70/g, and I can't bring myself to spend that much :<.
Mr. Crap, I steep green tea for 2 minutes at 80 C and black tea at boiling for 3 minutes. Please tell me what I am doing so wrong? What mysterious art of something that is not more complicated than cooking instant noodles am I missing? What grasp of English do you not possess that you can not read into the sarcasm and hyperbole of my reference to tea ceremonies, which is meant to illustrate a spite of people who become know-it-alls after reading a few shitty blogs/adverts on the internet and believe every word of it without question, and then proceed to act like an asshole to everyone they see drinking tea? Seriously your post pisses me off, it's ridiculous.
Yes, expensive teas will taste different (I believe I said so in the OP—when I say there's a difference between teas grown in different regions, I mean it, and I mean it's not that expensive). If you've tried every normal priced tea in the world that may be exactly what you're looking for, to get something new, which I admit can be valuable. However, with a couple 100 varieties of reasonably priced tea, I doubt that's happening to all but the must hardcore of tea drinkers.
On June 05 2011 10:56 Chef wrote: That was a pretty spiteful post. Is this about the time I made fun of you for giving people advice on how to write? I guess we're both hypocrites.
In any case, the thing I find offensive is when someone is enjoying a cup of tea, and someone comes around and tells them they've done it wrong it a really snooty way (oh my god, you use a FRENCH PRESS???), as opposed to just suggesting another method they might try. Actually, I'm the same way about writing. I hate when an editor thinks they know everything, as opposed to an editor who can suggest alternatives. Maybe it's the tact.
For what it's worth, I actually did research and looked at bio journals and studies to discover what the actual differences are (coles notes: there's certain things in tea which react only at a certain temperature, some of them you want to react, others you don't), and also experimented a little myself based on these studies. So I probably know a lot more than some guy who listened to the old asian lady at the supermarket drone on about the history of tea in China and how you need to drink it from a special cup and wear special clothes to enjoy it. That may or may not have actually happened to me. I meet a lot of weird people.
There's a world of difference between people asking for advice on writing and receiving it and someone calling other people snobs due to his own ignorance. Why would you equate these two totally different scenarios?
I too think it's rude if someone, without prompting, goes out of their way to tell someone else they're doing it wrong when they haven't been asked. But someone who posts a public blog on the Internet ranting about how snooty know-it-alls are just making up crap to sound elitist when the truth is there are sound reasons for why certain tea leafs are prepared a certain way is quite another matter altogether. But of course, you know a lot more about this than anyone else because like you actually did research and bio journals and stuff (code for I googled a pdf that looked official and read a few pages).
Oh well. In general, your MO is to be consistently arrogant and disrespectful towards anything outside your realm of experience. So no, I'm not surprised you use a french press to make your tea. It's like watching a chimp eat ants with a stick.
P.S. Your line about instant noodles is hilarious. Of course "Chef" would use such an example. Why don't you just include the entire craft of pasta-cooking into that as well? Since that too involves the same mechanics as instant noodles. Or how about this? Any type of cooking that involves the heating of water can be similarly deconstructed to be as simple as cooking instant noodles. There is no craft or skill or knowledge required other than duration and temperature. Sous-vide, poaching, boiling, steaming, all of these are as easy as cooking a cup of ramen.
It sure must be nice living in Chef world. A place of simple beauty.