Patww79 wrote: This post has been deleted.
Arghus wrote: » I met a fair few hardened beer snobs over the years that were always ready to denigrate Guinness in favour of some black forest gataeux stout or black pudding Porter or some such crap that they thought was immaculate. Guinness!, they'd shout, Chemicals, muck, yadda, yadda, yadda... To be honest, I don't care if Guinness is 99% toxic waste: a good Guinness is the real deal. And those idiots didn't have a clue what they were talking about.
Hitman3000 wrote: » My bad, however I wouldn't be caught dead in my local drinking that.
Colser wrote: If there was nothing else there I bet you would.😄
smurgen wrote: » Over the ipa phase i was lost in,hamgover are too bad.when out i now drink pints of guinness and g&t's. At home i love bottles of guinness foreign extra.that stuff i delicious!
Paz-CCFC wrote: » Imo, Guinness drinkers are the biggest beer snobs of the lot. It's hilarious the way so many swear that X pub has the best Guinness known to man, while every other pub only serves muck, as if a multi-billion euro multinational would allow that kind of disparity in its products. It has to have two pours with the glass at a very specific angle, the first pour has to be X% of the pint exactly, it has to settle for a precise amount of time before the second pour, then you have to wait 113.875642 seconds before drinking the pint and the head should be Y millimetres exactly
Arghus wrote: » There's undoubtedly a difference in taste and creaminess between Guinness served in some pubs and Guinness served in some others. Without a doubt! I don't know why, but there is.
Gorgeousgeorge wrote: » Staropramen
Rick Shaw wrote: » This stuff. Nectar of the gods.
harry Bailey esq wrote: » Aren't they the crowd that do home-brew kits? Or two separate companies?