At Lagerheads
I don't know if Pete has any time to read things online, seeing that he doesn't have much time to write things online, but I still want to pass along this seemingly well-informed defense of Budweiser. (Defense in the sense of standing up for the ability to think it tastes okay.) I'm still not going to drink the stuff, but, duly noted as food for thought.
This is easily the best paragraph I've read all week:
Pete, it sounds like reading this book might put you in a huff! By which I mean, speak now or forever get it for your birthday this year.
This is easily the best paragraph I've read all week:
Budweiser does not taste like piss. Normal urine has a pH of 4.6 to 8.0. Budweiser, like most lagers, has a pH of around 4.0. Therefore, Budweiser is definitely more acidic than piss. It’s also just the ticket if you happen to be drinking beer for breakfast, as the fresh taste of the rice content goes particularly well with most cereals (it is not coincidental that nobody has yet marketed Barley Krispies).A step past this, a historian named Maureen Ogle apparently wrote a book last year on the history of American beer brewing, and it sounds like it constitutes a full-on throwdown against the cherished beliefs of anti-corporate-brewery beer snobs.
Pete, it sounds like reading this book might put you in a huff! By which I mean, speak now or forever get it for your birthday this year.
4 Comments:
I disagree with your enjoyment of that paragraph. They took "tastes like piss" literally? Yeah, thats some serious fucking argumentary genius right there. Not.
How about Budweiser tastes like shit?
Or perhaps, Budeweiser tastes like fascism? I think that Budweiser Select, the last Budweiser product that I have sipped (sometime in 2005), tasted like Fascism.
I think you're missing some irony in the pH discussion there.
I mean, look, this guy's crafted a small-scale, unusual argument with a substantial degree of bitterness and a lot of subtle undertones. You can't just swig it down like the kind of clear, unsubstantial commentary you find everywhere else.
Or if you don't have a taste for that, there's, you know, nothing wrong with that.
My only agenda here, anyway, was to get you riled up a bit. Mission accomplished!
And I've posted your funny email already.
No, I don't think I'm missing any irony. It's not clever. That's all I'm saying. Even if it is ironic, it isn't incisive.
I thought the most obnoxious part of the guy's post was his approval of John Searle's ideas about AI.
Post a Comment
<< Home