But then for someone who wanted to start the topic you havent enlightened us with your thoughts!
Just to answer you though. Coke, BK ( as swiss mcd tastes rank!) and windows (only expereince of anything mac like is my apple and i hate the no flash thing...or am i getting confused here? Mybe thats why i stick to what i know with computers!)
Lindt invented "conchage" and that made chocolate indeed the best at that time. Now, even the Martians do it. Best or not best has to be define by other criteria. Fair enough. But the Swiss chocolate's historical fame is about conchage. Now you know.
Enjoy the chocolate your like, if you like it, it's the best, I'm not arguing that case.
Oh, and on the chocolate biscuit line, you cannot beat Tim Tams . Especially when you use one as a temporary (quick-melting!) straw to drink a nice hot chocolate ...
Wow, you must be eating the wrong stuff if you think milk tray is only marginally different from even the lowest form of Swiss chocolates. This being said, I'm not a fan of Swiss chocolates (not even before I arrived...) as I prefer my chocolates dark and Belgian and a lot less sweet. Cadbury is...a bit like Hershey only sweeter which is really for the sugar driven (kids and the nostalgic), not the chocolate driven.
If you like milk chocolates, give the lindt 60% chocolate bar a try as it's sweet, but still has actual chocolate in it.
Spoken like a true Brit who forgets that A) Mexico is in 'America' and the place where chocolate was originally created and B) there are US chocolatiers who make some excellent chocolate (though not up to Belgian quality). As someone who describes Cadbury as 'an orgasm', I don't think you're qualified to judge.
Yes I know exactly what an oxymoron is. I had the sort of English grammar school education that had the class reciting the parts of speech and figures of speech from the age of 11. (Yep, it explains a lot ) It was a heck of a long time ago but I can still recite the definitions now.
But I read back what i wrote and there is no oxymoron there. Sorry!
you're absolutely right. at one point wannabie wine snobs would opine on wines based on their alcohol content. you see the same thing from wannabie chocolate snobs talking about cocoa content.
it's one thing to like or dislike chocolate based on taste, but to look down on other people's choice due to cocoa level etc.? come on!
Well, to be fair there is something in the wine alcohol thing. Keeping it simple -
At one time it was hard to get wine naturally to a decent alcohol level - say 12%. It was only possible in good vintages when the sun shone enough and the grapes ripened enough to produce enough natural grape sugar. So there was actually a correlation between alcohol and quality. A 13% French wine 20 years ago usually was a good indicator of vintage quality. But in recent years, as summers have got hotter in Europe, and temperature-controlled wine-making techniques have got more successful, it's easy to make 13%, 14% even 15% table wines.
As mentioned, anything beyond 13.5, perhaps 14 max, starts to get too intense for me, so the there is a limit to the more-is-better thing even though the basic principle is good.
Aside 2:
And incidentally, of course I got the joke about the Brits and alcohol level. My objection was grammatical - an oxymoron is a short phrase, usually 2 words that seem paradoxical. Like 'organized chaos' or 'police intelligence'. Not just two competing ideas expressed in different paragraphs.
Aside 3:
Enjoyed the joke about Brits and booze though funnily enough we tend to drink slightly lower alcohol "session beers" compared with Europe at large. Where our bad rep is deserved is the quantity. Eight pints on a Saturday night - that'll do me. None of this namby-pamby 2 or 3 little beers that the Southern Europeans go for!
Fine. Paradox if you prefer. It was a comment in jest, so you don't need to take it so seriously: you wrote it isn't about the "higher the better alcohol content", then said you grew up in the UK, where it is "the higher the better" when it comes to alcohol and the generally pervasive booze culture.
To say otherwise is to be immediately branded a poofter , snob or even a snobbish poofter , and be asked whether you are feeling OK, etc. Indeed, the only time it is socially acceptable not to be getting drunk is "when driving" (and even then, one glass won't harm you, will it?...). Any other excuse is greeted with much suspicion, incredulity and disbelief.
If you can't see the paradox/contradition/oxymoron then don't worry about it.
Aw, come on fella, I totally took the joke on the chin. You can accuse the Brits of many things, but we can laugh at ourselves.
What I went on to say is that we drink large quantities of the stuff rather than going for high-alcohol content like you get in some countries. In the average English pub the highest selling bitters are likely to be 3.5 to 4%. We do drink a heck of a lot of it though, so no doubt end up absorbing more alcohol than most. But no contradiction at all. High alcohol beer has never been very popular in the UK, nor has high cocoa content chocolate.