The lost art of boozing
"Were they the sons of tea-sippers who won the fields of Crecy and Agincourt or dyed the Danube's shores with Gallic blood?" - a stirring defence of the lost art of drinking in this age of bizarre government policies of expanding drinking hours while simultaneously trying to (partially) ban one of the very things which goes hand in hand with a nice pint - or at least force people who want to drink and smoke (a decent proportion of regular pubgoers) to go to an establishment which doesn't serve food, meaning they'll get more pissed and more lary. Nice one.
"Drunkenness is an attribute of those who do not appreciate what they are consuming, not of those who do." Too bloody right. If you drink watery, tasteless, overly fizzy British or American style lager or (shudder) sugar-laden alcopops rather than decent Belgian brews or (best of all) a hearty pint of rich, mahogany hued real ale, you're automatically a soft-cock lightweight pissant. But it also makes you more of an antisocial wanker. Fact.
8 Comments:
Yay! Too damn right. Nothing beats a healthy pint of foaming ale.
And, of course, here in Scotland they are banning smoking in pubs whether they serve food or not.
Christ Almighty, I hate this sodding government.
DK
Perish the thought that I might be a pedant ;-), but I ought to point out that (pace the excellent "Asterix in Britain") those "who won the fields of Crecy and Agincourt" were distinctly unlikely to have been drinking tea beforehand...
Indeed, they would probably have been half cut on ropey ale within an hour of sunrise given the toxicity of most sources of water in those days.
But the substantive argument (and especially its conclusion) is spot on.
Welcome back from Canada BTW.
PG
I think that that's the point, P-G; they weren't sipping beer. After all, to get involved in one of those little melees, you'd have to be half-cut... sorry... filled with Dutch courage... erm...
DK
Unless, of course, you were to believe in the 'asterix in Britain' version of history, in which Getafix introduces tea leaves into the Britons' traditional drink of hot water with a spot of milk, fooling them into believing it is the magic potion which makes all who drink it invincible. Or something.
You can't beat a decent pint.
Mines a pint of your finest Belgian Brew.
You are right only wusses drink the kind of pathetic brew they sell as Lager in the UK.
Am I the only non-smoker who is against the smoking ban?
Oscar - nope. Several non-smoking friends of mine are also against it. Including one who has a tendency to go into coughing fits approaching asthma attacks if he's in too smoky an environment. His reasoning? Pubs are smoky - if he starts feeling unwell he can always go outside for a bit.
Pubs are smoky. Their prime purpose may be drinking, but smoking without arseholes tutting, faux-coughing or making disgusted comments is a close second.
Militant non-smokers piss me off no end - what the fuck right does some twat I've never met have to berate me for having a fag? How'd they like it if I lectured them about how ugly their wife is, eh? Bastards. They're my lungs and I'll do what I want with them - if they don't like it they can piss off.
So there.
And as far as I can tell, most regular non-smokers take the view that it may be quite nice not to have smoke everywhere (fair enough), but that it's a bit harsh to ban it everywhere.
Although having said which, I'd happily support a total ban. That'd force me to quit. Partial bans just mean I'll get irritable when I can't have a fag when I want - found that in the various non-smoking bars of Vancouver. Pissing annoying.
Post a Comment