True, but thats because its the thruth, because all (well most of) the arguments involve pointing out that some culture is better, smaller is better, more expensive is better bla bla bla. So yeah, why would I come to that conclusion!
Uhm - Crovax - I think you should first read the posts, THEN comment on them. ;-)
I don't think anybody but you actually mentioned culture/smaller is better etc. - I even pointed out that this is not necessarily true. Just to quote myself:
I'm also not of the opinion that you have to stick to some small underground breweries and/or immensely expensive stuff to get (quite) good beer - Hertog Jan in the Netherlands was acceptable to say the least (I checked that it's owned by the largest beer company in the world) and when I feel like drinking beer I usually get some Pilsner Urquell which comes from one of the largest breweries too.
What most beer-drinkers here have written is actually that Heineken isn't good because it tastes like horse piss. Ironically you were the one to bring up one truly "cultural" argument, claiming that if Heineken can't be bad because it's so popular (an argument I successfully countered =).
If you want more "flourish-y" descriptions of the horse-piss taste then you don't need to look farther than this site:
http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/heineken/37/
The reviews place Heineken in the bottom 8 percent of beers around the world. By comparison e.g. Pilsner Urquell, which like I pointed out is owned by the second largest beer corporation in the world (so much for "popular beer can't be good", "smaller is always better" etc.), is placed around the 70% mark.
http://www.ratebeer.com/beer/pilsner-urquell/717/
Login
FAQ
Search
