Guest guest Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Dear Pippa, I can unserstand your misgivings, but I do not agree with them. There is = enough space on this list for both you and Rezz! Usually I can only cope with a part of what he writes because his world of thought is too convoluted for me. So I read till mental indigestion sets in, then I stop reading and let the matter slip of my mental plate.;-) I am absolutely sure that Rezz in no way is victimising you or anyone else. It's just that his mindset and ours don't always coincide. But that is fine. As regards Rezz's scrib about tea below, as far as I know that is quite correct and workable. Now what he has written regarding the use of sugar is piffle-poffle to me, because my cultures thrive on sugar and the resulting KT is wonderful. Sugar cane and sugar beet has been around for many hundreds/thousand of years, so in gratitude I accept what is available and affordable to me today! After all, natural sweet stuff (I do hate artificial sweeteners of any kind!!) is just sucrose or fructose and glucose in its subsugars (the bacteria and yeasts do the chemical trick os transforming the sucrose into those!). So, let's be sweet and accept each other's differences. Pobody's nerfect! ;-) Blessings to you and all, Margret:-) In message you wrote: > That's why I put the term " tea plant " in QUOTATION MARKS. And quite frankly, the drink " tea " is referred to as " tea " because it is made from the " tea plant " . Other drinks, steeped from plants other than Camellia sinensis should technically be referred to as " tisane " , not as " tea " , though that term has dropped from colloquial usage in recent years. The point, however, is that I used QUOTATION MARKS to keep you from sending out yet another message harassing me for using the " wrong term " for tea. GET OFF MY CASE ALREADY. I have requested this before, and I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO REQUEST IT AGAIN. ly, if this were one of the communities that I moderate, I would have banned you by now for your arrogance, and frankly I'm about to remove myself from the list because you make me crazy and you REFUSE TO LEAVE ME ALONE. > > > greetings all, > > > i am replying to the below comment made recently. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Um, no, green tea DOES have caffeine in it. All tea that comes from the actual > " tea " plant, Camellia sinensis, has caffeine. Because there is caffeine in the > plant. So unless it has been actively decaffeinated, it will have caffeine. In > general, black tea has the most, green tea has a middling amount, and white tea > has the least - though depending on how they're processed, that can be > different for particular individual brands. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > yes, green tea{variations in thousands exist} does have caffeine inside the > leaves of it which is not in drug form. when 'science' identifies something, it > must first isolate > whatever it is. then, and only thereafter, can 'science' lay some claim to the > material > in an isolated|incoherent form. it never addresses any substance in concert or > tandem > with another specifically for identification|labeling whatever has been drug > converted. > > > there is no unified meaning|consensus of a " tea plant " in this world. as i have > stated, > we humans simply make things up as we go along over the eons and later on down a > time-line treat these signifying markers as some form of 'gospel'. most > individuals do not have any awareness of the so-called camellia assamica or the > thousands of varied > species of this sub-genus alongside camellia sinensis. and the fact that what is > called > white tea|green tea|oolong|black tea|darjeeling|plus more varieties/preparations > are > all from the same plant species! they are merely various stages of maturity & > human intervention processing. so why all the fuss and fear about caffeine > anyway? who(m) > has engaged us to fear this single nutrient and confusedly think of it outside > its form? > > > we must educate ourselves, do the research and quintuple check our {re}sources > yes! > > > brewing fruition, > > ~Rezz > -- +------------------ Minstrel@... --------------------+ http://www.therpc.f9.co.uk/family/scobygrow/home.html http://bavarianminstrel.wordpress.com http://www.hebrew4christians.com/index.html creation.com Fear not tomorrow! God is already there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Dear Pippa, I can unserstand your misgivings, but I do not agree with them. There is = enough space on this list for both you and Rezz! Usually I can only cope with a part of what he writes because his world of thought is too convoluted for me. So I read till mental indigestion sets in, then I stop reading and let the matter slip of my mental plate.;-) I am absolutely sure that Rezz in no way is victimising you or anyone else. It's just that his mindset and ours don't always coincide. But that is fine. As regards Rezz's scrib about tea below, as far as I know that is quite correct and workable. Now what he has written regarding the use of sugar is piffle-poffle to me, because my cultures thrive on sugar and the resulting KT is wonderful. Sugar cane and sugar beet has been around for many hundreds/thousand of years, so in gratitude I accept what is available and affordable to me today! After all, natural sweet stuff (I do hate artificial sweeteners of any kind!!) is just sucrose or fructose and glucose in its subsugars (the bacteria and yeasts do the chemical trick os transforming the sucrose into those!). So, let's be sweet and accept each other's differences. Pobody's nerfect! ;-) Blessings to you and all, Margret:-) In message you wrote: > That's why I put the term " tea plant " in QUOTATION MARKS. And quite frankly, the drink " tea " is referred to as " tea " because it is made from the " tea plant " . Other drinks, steeped from plants other than Camellia sinensis should technically be referred to as " tisane " , not as " tea " , though that term has dropped from colloquial usage in recent years. The point, however, is that I used QUOTATION MARKS to keep you from sending out yet another message harassing me for using the " wrong term " for tea. GET OFF MY CASE ALREADY. I have requested this before, and I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO REQUEST IT AGAIN. ly, if this were one of the communities that I moderate, I would have banned you by now for your arrogance, and frankly I'm about to remove myself from the list because you make me crazy and you REFUSE TO LEAVE ME ALONE. > > > greetings all, > > > i am replying to the below comment made recently. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Um, no, green tea DOES have caffeine in it. All tea that comes from the actual > " tea " plant, Camellia sinensis, has caffeine. Because there is caffeine in the > plant. So unless it has been actively decaffeinated, it will have caffeine. In > general, black tea has the most, green tea has a middling amount, and white tea > has the least - though depending on how they're processed, that can be > different for particular individual brands. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > yes, green tea{variations in thousands exist} does have caffeine inside the > leaves of it which is not in drug form. when 'science' identifies something, it > must first isolate > whatever it is. then, and only thereafter, can 'science' lay some claim to the > material > in an isolated|incoherent form. it never addresses any substance in concert or > tandem > with another specifically for identification|labeling whatever has been drug > converted. > > > there is no unified meaning|consensus of a " tea plant " in this world. as i have > stated, > we humans simply make things up as we go along over the eons and later on down a > time-line treat these signifying markers as some form of 'gospel'. most > individuals do not have any awareness of the so-called camellia assamica or the > thousands of varied > species of this sub-genus alongside camellia sinensis. and the fact that what is > called > white tea|green tea|oolong|black tea|darjeeling|plus more varieties/preparations > are > all from the same plant species! they are merely various stages of maturity & > human intervention processing. so why all the fuss and fear about caffeine > anyway? who(m) > has engaged us to fear this single nutrient and confusedly think of it outside > its form? > > > we must educate ourselves, do the research and quintuple check our {re}sources > yes! > > > brewing fruition, > > ~Rezz > -- +------------------ Minstrel@... --------------------+ http://www.therpc.f9.co.uk/family/scobygrow/home.html http://bavarianminstrel.wordpress.com http://www.hebrew4christians.com/index.html creation.com Fear not tomorrow! God is already there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.