Like I said, you didn’t watch the video. Hoffmann clearly stated that decaf coffee can be made well. It is a documented fact that he said that, no subjectivity required.
So how is the other person “stretching” when they claimed he said it?
You say “no one knows coffee better than he does”, while blatantly disagreeing with his entirely empirical points in his video on decaf, that it can be made by several processes, all of them are fairly good, and the result can be masterful?
I live in a hockey capitol. That makes me nothing like an expert. Same for you.
Okay, so you make brilliant decaf. That means your point in this thread is moot?
Funny thing on that “subjectivity” is when you disagree with other people in this thread, you’ve plainly said they’re just entirely wrong.
When someone disagrees with you, you hide behind “subjectivity”.
Yikes this is getting drawn out and silly, eh. I’ll save us some time.
You win.
But one thing that I couldn’t help but chuckle at is your interpretation of the coffee capitol point.
You live in a hockey capitol. That doesn’t make you an expert, but I bet if you wanted to buy a hockey stick you would have a number of stores carrying top gear… If you wanted to see a game you probably have a number of hockey teams from pro to amateur you could go watch live.
I have direct access to three of the top 20 roasters in the country. I’m fortunate to have access to some of the best coffee in the world regardless if I’m an expert or not.
And this is sort of the point overall… You added so much of your own arguments to my position that you aren’t even arguing with me or the points that I’m making.
I’m not hiding behind subjectivity, I was the one who posted the video “negating” my so called “opinions”. You still think I did that as a mistake. Which I think is the second example that shows you are coming to this discussion in bad faith.
It’s no wonder you recommend introspection, given you have been arguing only with your interpretation of my opinion.
No no, that was the only reasonable part. Everything else wrapping that was absurd though.
Like I said, you didn’t watch the video. Hoffmann clearly stated that decaf coffee can be made well. It is a documented fact that he said that, no subjectivity required.
So how is the other person “stretching” when they claimed he said it?
You sincerely think you have a better grasp on coffee than James Hoffmann?
Much more likely you haven’t tried good decaf from a good roaster, tried a blind tasting, or your preparation is seriously flawed.
I’m a huge fan of James Hoffman… I don’t think anyone alive understands coffee better than he does.
I live in a US Coffee Capital…
I make brilliant decaf for my pregnant wife.
My preparation is flawless in drip and espresso
You guys really don’t understand subjectivity or sarcasm and are filling in a ton of the blanks.
You say “no one knows coffee better than he does”, while blatantly disagreeing with his entirely empirical points in his video on decaf, that it can be made by several processes, all of them are fairly good, and the result can be masterful?
I live in a hockey capitol. That makes me nothing like an expert. Same for you.
Okay, so you make brilliant decaf. That means your point in this thread is moot?
Funny thing on that “subjectivity” is when you disagree with other people in this thread, you’ve plainly said they’re just entirely wrong.
When someone disagrees with you, you hide behind “subjectivity”.
I encourage you to introspect.
Yikes this is getting drawn out and silly, eh. I’ll save us some time.
You win.
But one thing that I couldn’t help but chuckle at is your interpretation of the coffee capitol point.
You live in a hockey capitol. That doesn’t make you an expert, but I bet if you wanted to buy a hockey stick you would have a number of stores carrying top gear… If you wanted to see a game you probably have a number of hockey teams from pro to amateur you could go watch live.
I have direct access to three of the top 20 roasters in the country. I’m fortunate to have access to some of the best coffee in the world regardless if I’m an expert or not.
And this is sort of the point overall… You added so much of your own arguments to my position that you aren’t even arguing with me or the points that I’m making.
I’m not hiding behind subjectivity, I was the one who posted the video “negating” my so called “opinions”. You still think I did that as a mistake. Which I think is the second example that shows you are coming to this discussion in bad faith.
It’s no wonder you recommend introspection, given you have been arguing only with your interpretation of my opinion.
No, you’re just clearly either a compulsive lair or a troll. Either way, your input is not appreciated
“Coming up tonight: Sarcasm is hard to convey in text form, if not clearly signposted. More at eleven.” /s