like_that;1262438 wrote:This.

Pretty much the worst beer I have ever had. Good hazing beer, smh. Miller highlife isn't far behind imo.

Manhattan Buckeye;1262712 wrote:Schaefer is the only beer I had where the beer went down the throat and then back up inside the can.

http://schaefer-beer.com/

ernest_t_bass;1262618 wrote:Stop that fucking shit, OTrap.

Raw Dawgin' it;1262759 wrote:Pumpkin beers

O-Trap;1262786 wrote:QQ moar plz



Here you go. Perfect example of a well-made beer that sits low on someone's totem pole. Nothing wrong with it.

My preference differs, but that's about the extent of it.

Raw Dawgin' it;1262790 wrote:steel reserve

O-Trap;1262792 wrote:I just threw up in my mouth thinking about that. Ugh, it's bad.

O-Trap;1262596 wrote:The quality of beer is equally objective ... potentially more so. Beer and the process by which it is made can be explained as objective truths. The differences, then, can also be discussed as a matter of objective fact.

It's a lot like automobiles. The difference between a Rabbit and a 350Li is more than just a matter of subjective taste. The mechanics of the 350Li establish it as a superior vehicle. Now, your preference may be for either one. A person may prefer the Rabbit anyway, and that is his prerogative. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Rabbit is an inferior vehicle.

The same can be said of cigars. Everything from the rolling to the tobacco itself to the soil goes into the quality of a cigar. Can the difference between the Phillies at the gas station and a Padron from Cuba be objectively distinguished? Absolutely. Does that mean a person who likes Phillies is "wrong?" Not at all, but the fact that a person has a different preference doesn't change the objective facts surrounding the quality.

Also, I lol'd at "one of the most prestigious and academic powerhouses in the country" for two reasons.

1) "Academic," though an adjective, is not quantifiable. Thus, something cannot be objectively said to be more or less academic, so your sentence doesn't make sense from an objective standpoint. "Prestigious" works, because something that is "more prestigious" can be said to have "more prestige." Something cannot have, to my knowledge, more "academia" or "academy."

2) Since you forgot the other 'L' in the word "illusion" in your signature, I'm going to guess this prestigious academy of higher education didn't teach spelling, assuming you already knew it, probably.

As for the actual claim of objectivity in establishing your alma mater as a "prestigious academic powerhouse" when compared to the rest of the academic institutions in the entire nation, by what criteria do you arrive at your objective conclusion?

If you were referring to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Brown, etc., I might have agreed with you. Alas, you weren't.

sleeper;1262849 wrote:I have already written exhausted posts about the "Harvard effect". It's a sham.

O-Trap;1262858 wrote:As someone who has attended multiple universities at several levels, I can personally attest to the fact that it isn't entirely, though I do understand your theory, and I'm sure that there are examples of it being true.

However, you still gave no criterion/criteria for establishing the level of excellence of the institute of higher education in question. Since you suggest this is an objective discussion, I'm assuming such criteria exist.

EDIT: I hope you fix the word "ilusion" in your signature. It's bothering me.