"Beer Novice":uub8fjm2 wrote: if [size=150:uub8fjm2]so many [/size:uub8fjm2]people, including those with the reputation (deserved or otherwise) that MJ has, repeat it then it's unfair to criticise writers for assuming that it's incorrect.[/quote:uub8fjm2]No. You should never cite anyone who doesn't cite a reliable source for their statement. Reputation is no substitute. The earliest source for this statement, as Zythophile says, is not reliable. MJ, as you say, quite rightly puts a health warning on his statement. "Supposed to have been" is as definite as you can go with this.
"Beer Novice":uub8fjm2 wrote: Or should I say allegedly incorrect?[/quote:uub8fjm2]No. Historically speaking, things are incorrect until proven otherwise.
"Beer Novice":uub8fjm2 wrote: If the Tuck version is 20 years later does this not make it less reliable? (If not more plausable sounding.)[/quote:uub8fjm2]Yep. I think that's why Zythophile mentions it: not so say this is the historical truth, just that it points to the story probably not being as simple as so many beer writers have said.
"Beer Novice":uub8fjm2 wrote: Is the truth not that we will never know how it came about unless something older is unearthed?[/quote:uub8fjm2]Basically. I'd say the truth is really rather boring and there's no great Eureka! story for the invention of porter.
&quot;Beer Novice&quot;:uub8fjm2 wrote: Honestly. I'm not itching for a fight; I just have an argumentitive disposition! <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt="
" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: -->
The medication should kick in soon.[/quote:uub8fjm2]No worries <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt="
" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D -->
