Below is the text from Nick's post in the GoodEJuice subforum, linked by MrMann above:
What sets our NETs aside from the rest?
It starts with the simple philosophy of using Actual Premium Tobacco. Not TA, or TE, not Gambler, Bugler or Top tobacco that can be bought at your local quickie mart. Our tobacco blends come from a master blender that specializes in cigarette, cigar, and pipe blends. Our blends are farm fresh, unadulterated and never chemically sprayed.
Anyone using coffee, chocolate or any other PA or FA flavor that drowns out any hint of tobacco, calling them Naturally Extracted is a travesty. The whole point of NET's is to give the user the most realistic tasting tobacco possible. Any NET that requires artificial flavoring, which some don't depending on the target tobacco blend, should be added with a judicious hand and should merely compliment or enhance the tobacco, not overtake it. And that's brewing it the Goodejuice way!
I love the first paragraph. The second paragraph, however, pushes my buttons. I don't like being told how things "should" be, especially when it's just someone's personal opinion. Who is the appropriate judge for how much additional artificial flavoring is "enough"? Only the individual vaping the juice. No one else. If you like a ton of caramel with your NET, that's fine, and nobody's business but yours. If you prefer a straight-up 100% tobacco NET juice, that's fine too. It's personal preference, not Cosmic Law.
Here's how I'd prefer that sentence to read:
"For any NET to which artificial flavoring will be added, I [Nick] use a judicious hand in order to compliment or enhance the tobacco, not overtake it."
Nick could also have written that he "recommends" using a judicious hand. Either way would be authoritative without coming off as authoritarian.
I'm a big fan of Nick's NETs at GeJ. It's just that writing in absolutes happens a lot on ECF, and it gets tiresome.