|By Mr_Rabbit on Monday, April 02, 2001 - 07:45 am: Edit|
"I was in kind of a silly mood when reading Mr Rabbits statement about the beauty of nature - of course that's true, but it had this kind of preaching undertone. "
I was in a silly mood when I wrote it man. The plop of every turd. Y'know. :-) That's how I meant it to be taken.
Seriousness is a disease.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 11:50 am: Edit|
There are no stupid interludes only opportunities for harrassment.
A forum, is a forum, is a forum...
Thank the Green Fairy we all love Absinthe.
|By Heiko on Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 10:11 am: Edit|
Sorry for my stupid interlude(the "Halleluja"...)!
I was in kind of a silly mood when reading Mr Rabbits statement about the beauty of nature - of course that's true, but it had this kind of preaching undertone.
-- Nonetheless, I shouldn't have made a stupid comment without being a participant of the conversation. I'm ashamed of my bad manners...
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, March 31, 2001 - 08:54 am: Edit|
"In every face, every pebble,every flap of a birds wing, the plop of every turd, is an infinite amount of wonder and beauty."
Very true. The world (and beyond) contains an infinite amount of things with infinite differences. This puts our own individual place in it into perspective.
I believe it also makes a nonsense of those who believe that their strive to be 'different' somehow sets them apart from, or even above, the rest. Being different is simply nature's way, everything is already different from everything else in an infinite number of ways. Making efforts to strive to be 'different' or more 'individual' will achieve nothing more than pointless superficial and cosmetic 'changes'. To strive to be the same, now that really would be striving to be DIFFERENT.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, March 30, 2001 - 10:45 pm: Edit|
There could be two modes of thought I suppose...
Taking the concept "nothing to say" literally i.e. being silent
To actually speak and say nothing in ad nauseam.
|By Heiko on Friday, March 30, 2001 - 01:12 pm: Edit|
|By Mr_Rabbit on Friday, March 30, 2001 - 01:10 pm: Edit|
LH, we have been stymied by semantics again... I think it's the connotative value of 'ordinary' as boring, hum drum, run of the mill. In that sense, ordinary and unique are opposites... but again, these words are shortcuts to describe a reaction to a percieved set of qualities. Like 'this is an ordinary house' leads the listener to expect nothing startling at first glance, while unique would lead you to expect a giant shoe with windows or something. It is indeed true that it is ordinary to be unique.
That's one of the coolest things about the world. In every face, every pebble, every flap of a birds wing, the plop of every turd, is an infinite amount of wonder and beauty.
|By Martin on Friday, March 30, 2001 - 11:56 am: Edit|
THE GREAT HUMONGOUS!!!
"I don't think I've ever seen such a short post that was ironic in so many different ways."
-Of course.. I'm honing my skills to a fine art.
"nothing to say" eh? So your silence wasn't enough? You had to open your mouth to say nothing?"
-I obviously had something to say then, didn't I? Besides, my exact words were, "I haven't had much to talk about lately.".. that doesn't necessarily mean I had "nothing to say", it just meant that I don't believe most of what I've been up to lately would be of much interest to the majority of forumites, and therefore I've been keeping it to myself rather than boring you all.
Well, I do have something of worth to add to the forum now... Check out my review of "La Muse Verte".
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, March 30, 2001 - 09:43 am: Edit|
Ordinary and unique are not opposites. Everything is unique, this is the normal, ordinary state of things. Being unique is not the same as being extraordinary, being unique is ordinary. If everybody was exactly the same then that would be an extraordinary state of affairs.
You and I are no doubt very different. Is our uniqueness really extraordinary and surprising, or is it the just the normal, ordinary state of things? Do we think for example, "He has brown hair and I have red hair, how extraordinary!" or would we think "He is exactly like me in every way, physical and otherwise, how extraordinary!". If our uniqueness was a startling surprise to us and was an exception to the ordinary state of things then uniqueness would truly be extraordinary.
Uniqueness is ordinary, and a good thing this is too; I wouldn't like to live in a world where uniqueness was indeed extraordinary.
I really am surprised at the apparant offence taken by some (not yourself I should add) at being described as ordinary. Their uniqueness does not mean they are exceptional and extraordinary. It is in fact quite ordinary to be unique. People should also learn to laugh at themselves more often; in the grand scheme of things none of us are really all that important individually.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, March 30, 2001 - 07:34 am: Edit|
I'm THE AYATOLLAH OF ROCK AND OR ROLLAH!!!
|By Artemis on Friday, March 30, 2001 - 06:46 am: Edit|
"Martin, "nothing to say" eh? So your silence wasn't enough? You had to open your mouth to say nothing?"
Damn, Head, you've become not only coherent, but dangerous. Beautiful post. It should be in one of those books of Zen koans.
|By Tlautrec on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 05:28 pm: Edit|
Mr. Rabbit: "Most every human being is a beautiful, terrible thing."
I'm not one to jump into these kinds of debates, but I thought that this statement was pretty damn close to the truth (whatever that is) about most of the people I know (including myself, I'm afraid).
|By Melinelly on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 05:13 pm: Edit|
cool, man =)
i met the dude at a poetry reading i was featured in put on by hennesey and esquire mag. it was great. a room full of stuffy cognac drinkers all went silent after i was on stage for a minute, and when i was done i got called back for an encore. then afterwards, michael introduced himself, said "great shit!" and slapped me five. =) aside from the blast i had at my wedding/party, 'twas the best night of my life, i tell ya.
|By Marc on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 03:59 pm: Edit|
On the back cover of my 2nd album for RCA,
I ran the following quote:
"And I burn with fine pure love, electricity
a thing of protein and desire!!"
|By Zack on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 03:58 pm: Edit|
"What is an ordinary person? People are unique. They share similarities... but I have yet to meet a person who was so much like another that I could classify them as 'pretty much the same.'"
I guess it all depends on what you look for in people (and how hard you look). Most people I meet - "I could classify them as 'pretty much the same.'" very easily.
"Christ, I have yet to meet a cat or a dog like that."
I'm not one that meets a lot of dogs and cats....but as my father always told me "Pussy's pussy."
|By Mr_Rabbit on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 03:48 pm: Edit|
I guess I was trying to say that the very idea of 'ordinariness' seems silly to me.
It's sloppy thinking, a mental shortcut that lets you ignore a lot of input for speedy decision making. Useful in certain cases, I guess... but as a means of classification for every day use it leaves a great deal to be desired. An oversimplification.
What is an ordinary person? People are unique. They share similarities... but I have yet to meet a person who was so much like another that I could classify them as 'pretty much the same.' Christ, I have yet to meet a cat or a dog like that.
Hiya Martin. I was wondering what happened to you... relax. Shoot the shit. It's nice to shoot the shit and be retarded. Put on a crash helmet with the rest of us ;-)
|By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 01:52 pm: Edit|
Martin, "nothing to say" eh? So your silence wasn't enough? You had to open your mouth to say nothing?
I was wondering how you were doing, my Big Cuddle Bear.
Remember the first three rules of Absinthe Club
1) We, the inhabitants of [what I like to fantasize is a punk-rock-stripper-bar filled with interesting and diverse people] reserve the right to answer or not answer questions posted, to be opinionated, occasionally arrogant, and parade in fluffy bunny suits. Anyone making any of these already answered questions on the forum will be cut in half and their guts will be used for garters.
2) Inflammatory posts (and threads) will be summarily deleted, respect must be accorded to all.
3) Biscuits will be tossed to those free with information, including new absinthe providers, brands not already featured, taste tests of new brands, recipes, etc. Sharing is caring!
I like the sharing is caring part... We're all just slurping it up from the same big loving cup...
LOVING CUP, LOVING CUP
WE ACCEPT YOU, WE ACCEPT YOU!!!
|By Anatomist1 on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 01:41 pm: Edit|
I don't think I've ever seen such a short post that was ironic in so many different ways.
|By Martin on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 01:31 pm: Edit|
Retarded threads like this are the main reason I don't post much anymore.... that, and I haven't had much to talk about lately.
Grow up, all of you, please.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 12:40 pm: Edit|
I love you.
|By Artemis on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 12:28 pm: Edit|
"Look at them assholes. Ordinary people. I hate em".
Harry Dean Stanton in "Repo Man".
|By Anatomist1 on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 12:06 pm: Edit|
I think Steve Irwin is a contemporary superhero. He's also a media whore, but that's contemporary for you. I also find him funny, but I find his fearlessness, focus, and absurd enthusiasm for animals awe-inspiring. I once heard Carlos Santana say "Nothing is as contagious as enthusiasm." I expect he is doing more to salvage the buried remnants of the TV-watching public's reverence for wilderness than all the environmental activists put together.
|By Melinelly on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 12:00 pm: Edit|
hrm... well, i can only speak for people i've met and known in my life...
my eccentric uncle, Harrison
my 3rd grade creative writing teacher, Doug Cole
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 11:45 am: Edit|
Adding my list of extraordinary people (not necessarily in order of preference) to the thread.
Alexander the Great
John F Kennedy
Atilla the Hun
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 10:57 am: Edit|
My comments on this ocassion had nothing whatsoever to do with my Socialist views. (But as for chopping wood and carrying water becoming fulfilling activities, if you'd read any Marx then you'd know that he would have been in agreement with you)
Ordinary is simply a word that describes the normal, usual state of things. If you find 'ordinary' offensive and distasteful then what an unhappy man you must be, living in a world that repulses you. Your "chop wood, carry water" won't change this.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 10:40 am: Edit|
Just for the record. My comment on 'rock-stars' was a joke. No offence was intended towards Marc, who is indeed a talented musician and song-writer and I have no quarrel with him.
|By Morriganlefey on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 10:32 am: Edit|
To see "Steve Irwin (The Crocodile Hunter)" and "extraordinary people" in the same sentence. KRIKEY! (sp?) - I've not giggled so hard in ages!!
Don't get me wrong, he makes me laugh like no other, I admire his respect for animals, and I love him to death - just never thought of him as extraordinary (beyond "extraordinarily goofy!!) Thanks for broadening my persepective, Anatomist.
|By Melinelly on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 10:25 am: Edit|
although if the supposed absinthe boom happens, we may want to get exclusive hehe...
start charging dues, have a secret handshake, wear green hoods... *grin*
|By Terminus on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 10:16 am: Edit|
Yes, I agree, "unique" is a better word.
|By Anatomist1 on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 10:04 am: Edit|
I don't think the objection to Hobgoblian Socialist mediocritization is a function of over-exaggerated egos, or even just plain exaggerated ones. The offense is an intuitive reaction to the spirit of it. You seem to have an anti-zen proclivity for trying to propagate boredom and malaise. In zen, we have "chop wood, carry water" -- cultivate an awareness such that ordinary activities become extraordinary and fulfilling. Your project seems diametrically opposed -- walk into a vibrant den of poets, artists, punks, mad scientists, eccentrics and project your own passionless, straitjacketed dullness on them. In other words, go Grim.
|By Melinelly on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 09:59 am: Edit|
Terminus, i'm not sure what you meant in saying absinthe drinkers are a fairly exclusive group... we're only exclusive in that we like the taste: one that's not all that popular statewide... other than that we're one of the most inclusive groups i've had the pleasure of participating in... gay, straight, bi... from retail clerks to chemists... high school dropouts to PhDs... noise rockers to operaphiles... communist to capitalist... and though for the most part folks seem to be of the pasty persuasion, there are a few of us brown people in here too ;)
and despite all of our differences, we can come together peacably and enjoy the hoisting of a fair green glass or three.
i think you meant "unique" rather than "exclusive" =)
|By Anatomist1 on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 09:50 am: Edit|
Extraordinary people. There are many, but some of my current favorites: Nikolai Tesla, Camille Claudel, PJ Harvey, Ryan Adams, Emily Watson, Steve Irwin (The Crocodile Hunter), David Foster Wallace, Bruce Lee, Larry McMurtry, etc, etc....
Extraoridinary seems too broad. In what sense? Out of the many billions that populate human history, a list of millions could still be a small minority.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 09:38 am: Edit|
Human beings are beautiful things, as is all of nature, but do we classify everything as extra-ordinary? This would not make sense, as ordinary would cease to exist. 'Ordinary' is not a derogatory term.
How some people take offence at being described as 'ordinary'. Have we got enough room on this forum for so many large egos?
As for a list of extraordinary persons, I'm surprised some that forumites haven't added their own names to the list. Anatomist, have you become uncharacteristically humble?
Grim, try to develop a sense of humour.
Don, Bushmills would do nicely, but Jamesons would be better, and quite right Don I find the traditional manner of consumption preferable.
|By Terminus on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 09:23 am: Edit|
I have no problem with wrestling fans. But as a general rule, they come from a lower economic background than the modern day Absinthe drinkers.
Of course wrestling fans have rights. They have the right to spend millions of their hard-earned dollars on T-shirts and $29.95 pay per view events to promote and watch a rigged, fake, staged "sport."
Many wrestling fans still consider professional wrestling a sport, even though states classify wrestling as entertainment. Yes, wrestling is legal, but it is not a sport. If I want to see a sport, I'll go to a baseball game. If I want to see something fake, I'll go to the theatre. Combining the two just doesn't work for me. Oh well, to each his own.
Oh, and I like the fact that Absinthe drinkers are a fairly exclusive group.
Wrestling appeals to the lowest common denominator. Bad actors who make daytime soap opera stars look like Academy award winning actors and who pretend to smack chairs across each others' backs are not my cup of tea.
As for "smelling what the Rock is cooking," I hope that the Rock and Vince McMahon are not cooking up another shitty football league. "Suck it" has been the people's response to the XFL.
|By Marc on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 09:14 am: Edit|
Charles Bukowski, Allen Ginsberg, Martin Scorsese,
Leonard Cohen, Lenny Bruce, Robert Mitchum, John Cassavetes, Patti Smith, Dusty Springfield...
|By Mr_Rabbit on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 06:16 am: Edit|
Um... thanks Don. I guess that nixes my plans for this weekend! I wonder if Wal-Mart will give me my money back for this Berringers White Zinfandel Enema Kit and Party Pak?
LH, it's a glass half full thingy. To say we are all 'ordinary' has fallacious connotations. Most every human being is a beautiful, terrible thing. It's just hard to see sometimes.
Though, I do have to say, the collection of 'intelligence, literacy, creativity, education, abilities ' gathered in this forum is a damn sight greater than that typically found in a web forum. Or a bar for that matter.
What would you consider to be an extraordinary person? Name some names (that ought to start a fairly interesting thread!)
|By Anatomist1 on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 06:09 am: Edit|
You have to remember, despite the fact that he tries to jazz up his language with hyphenated redundancies, Hobgoblin is an old time socialist. He's on a mission to make the whole world bland and mediocre. I don't think many here will accept his vision of plain, ordinary, vanilla reality without a struggle.
|By Don_Walsh on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 06:04 am: Edit|
I'd think Lord H. would prefer Bushmills, and probably prefer to take it in the traditional manner (by the glass) rather than as a TimK signature high colonic.
By the way, important Safety Tip: alcohol enemas are dangerous, as the alcohol enters the bloodstream directly and is not oxidixed by the liver. The resulting rapid uptake can be fatal even with wine. Whiskey is right out. Kiddies, don't try this at home.
|By Grimbergen on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 05:26 am: Edit|
Please take your condescending attitude and shove it up your arse m'lord...along with a bottle of blue label of course.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 05:17 am: Edit|
"Just for the record: I'm not ordinary."
What an unusual thing for a rock-star to say ;-)
|By Timk on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 01:25 am: Edit|
"The fact is that we are just plain ordinary people drinking an ordinary liquor called absinthe."
LOL, my quote of "Absinthe-Is-Just-An-Aperitif" seems to pretty much agree with that, this is exactly my standpoint on the matter
|By Marc on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 01:08 am: Edit|
Just for the record: I'm not ordinary.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, March 29, 2001 - 12:30 am: Edit|
The trouble with this forum is that it is packed with self-opinionated people with over-exaggerated views of their own intelligence, literacy, creativity, education, abilities (sexual and otherwise), and importance. The fact is that we are just plain ordinary people drinking an ordinary liquor called absinthe.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 06:41 pm: Edit|
There's an idea parodying an industry that parodies itself. Garrison can really spin a yarn though...
|By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 05:54 pm: Edit|
For a hilarious parody of wrestling, and Minnesota politics, try ME: BY JIMMY (BIG BOY) VALENTE, by Garrison Keilor. There's an abridged version on tape that makes a fantastic driving listen.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 05:14 pm: Edit|
Terminus I don't appreciate your derogatory tone in regards to wrestling fans. They have rights too. By the way there are quite a few more of them than there are Absinthe drinkers(thus the multi-million dollar industry)
Wrestling is legal in most states too. Unlike most shady activities discussed in this forum.
IF YA' SMELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH...
|By Terminus on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 02:52 pm: Edit|
Marc> Oscar Wilde was a cocksucker, so I don't suppose he'd be offended much by someone calling him that name.
As far as I know, Tim Kilvington is not a self-admitted or "outted" cocksucker.
Therefore, he doesn't deserve to be called one.
And if you ever want to discuss the joys of muff diving, I'm game. My wife will do anything for me after I eat her out.
|By Marc on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 02:15 pm: Edit|
Hell, our fights yield some of the best imagery available on the web. We wrassle poetically.
I can imagine what arguments between the likes of Verlaine and Rimbaud must have been like. Oh, the bitch-slapping..
I'm sure Oscar Wilde was capable of some down and dirty wordslinging. And Hemingway, forget about it. After a few glasses of absinthe, Toulouse would get loose and talk about muff-diving for hours. And he was the perfect height for it. The ladies would just walk up to him
and grind away.
|By Terminus on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 01:46 pm: Edit|
Thanks, Melinelly. I'll do that.
|By Melinelly on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 01:38 pm: Edit|
sure did. check out the "Pain Perdu, or, Deceptive Clarity in the big Easy" and "Was the forum down or does everyone have a hangover" threads for our reflections if you haven't already.
|By Terminus on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 01:28 pm: Edit|
Thanks for the welcome, Melinelly. I just viewed your pics of the get-together in NOLA. It looks like y'all had a great time.
|By Melinelly on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 01:21 pm: Edit|
heya Terminus. welcome to the fray.
we're usually a pretty swell bunch, but every now and again the testosterone levels explode into fits of mudslingin' the likes of which you'd be hard put to find elsewhere.
in any online community be it chat, message board, or email list, these things happen. a sad facet of what this technology has brought about, but perhaps a small price to pay for the joys to be found and had (new orleans for instance).
|By Terminus on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 01:14 pm: Edit|
Hi everyone. I'm a newbie, though I've been lurking for a short while. Is "smack talking" the norm here, or do people actually have conversations without making fun of each others' nationalities, weight, education, or sexual orientation?
I think saying "fuck you" and calling someone a "cocksucker" are staples at wrestleline.com.
You would think that a bunch of sophisticated absinthe lovers would have more class than a bunch of wrasslin' fans.
|By Admin on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 01:00 pm: Edit|
Thanks Ted & Marc (and others seeing reason) ... Please consider thread closed. Nuff said, already ...
|By Timk on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 12:16 pm: Edit|
I shall however reiterate, I have no quarrel with any of you other forum members
Respectfully : - P
|By Timk on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 12:14 pm: Edit|
"If we all spoke to each other in cyberspace as though we were in the same room together, the tone would be much different"
i can therefore presume that the manner in which Don speaks to myself and others is the manner in which you think he would speak in reality to us, face to face?, and in all instances you can note that I did not instigate it, or replied in response to an attack of his on myself or another forum member.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 11:15 am: Edit|
What the fuck is going on here? This thread ranks up alongside the 'Big Gay Orgy' thread in the hostile hot air rantings league.
|By Mochit on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 10:38 am: Edit|
Having been away for some time it was with great disappointment I returned to find I had indeed missed what can only be described as a classic in the Absinthe Ring. Though it was never in doubt, it is always refreshing to see the Young Turks butt up against the master in the steel cage, hoping against hope for the belt.
TKO in the 4th. Official.
Now, when can we throw money at you Don and Ted?
|By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 09:44 am: Edit|
Oh, the usual pious hypocrisy from misogynist Tim,
a classic perfidious Albion type, honest yoeman from the English shires, happy to put the boot in but squeals like a piglet when it is returned with interest. Fuck you, Britshit, no one is buying your prattle, Mr.Absinthe-Is-Just-An-Aperitif. Your little tirade against the Thais tipped your hand, there are no prostitutes in this house, save my wife, who retired from that profession shortly after meeting me a dozen years ago.
Don (still chilled out.)
|By Marc on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 09:41 am: Edit|
click on my name, the one attached to my posts. You'll get my full name, website
and biography. I'm surprised you didn't try that already.
Yes, I see that you have posted your full name. My mistake.
I apologize for that.
My point is that the internet is full of chickenshits who talk tough and have nothing to lose...like their teeth. If we all spoke to each other in cyberspace as though we were in the same room together, the tone would be much different.
|By Timk on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 09:28 am: Edit|
"The vicious comments you directed at Don carry no weight because they come from someone who would never have the courage to say those things to
someone's face. Why don't you post your address"
what address would that be, you want my street address, I presume, other than that, all the information in my profile is real, country, county, name - its a lot easier to locate someone by their full name, than from Marc, so what is your point, i have all the same info as you in my profile, more infact, I have my real name, but what is this BS anyway, just because I am not face to face with the guy
On the internet, I am as anonamous as shit, you have my real name, country and county, if you want to find me go ahead, as for you, Marc, I bear you no ill, but you are just as anonamous, if not moreso than me. The reason I react to Don's bullying pratt behaviour is because I myself was the unprovoked victim of it some time back, and I will never sit idley by while something I dissagree with is said or transpires
|By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 09:24 am: Edit|
Never mind, fellows. I am chilled out.
Grim, relax, nothing more to say, anyway, and in hindsight I regard it as much ado about nothing. I recognize that methanol is not a major risk factor, I just have a thing about alcohol purity standards (ask Ted!) and I don't think most if any home distillers are up to my idea of potable. However, they are probably up to typical (sloppy in my view) government and industrial (beverage grade) standards. Some of these are appalling.
TimK: Have Blue Label Will Travel.
All others: mea culpa.
Yeah I have stress, but no pain - no gain.
Marc, special thanks.
Mr Rabbit, glad you enjoyed the ride.
|By Grimbergen on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 08:14 am: Edit|
damn it, I was about to whip out some of my best material. Oh well here it goes. *Don lands a solid right uppercut on Grim's jaw. He staggers once and hits the mat. KO!!!*
ciao donnie. feel free to take one more shot, I would.
|By Mr_Rabbit on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 08:06 am: Edit|
I tried to bracket 'begin disclaimer' and 'end disclaimer' around my first sentance up there and they didnt take. HTML works in here! Not that begin disclaimer is a valid command, but still. Now in color! Heh.
|By Tabreaux on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 08:01 am: Edit|
Well, at least I am relieved that this kind of thing did *not* transpire at the recent New Orleans get-together. Nevertheless, Don is under a great deal of stress at the present, and I don't feel that this is especially the best time to participate in heated conversations on bulletin boards. Regardless, as far as I can see, this conversation is going nowhere.
Next thread please.
|By Mr_Rabbit on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 07:42 am: Edit|
I don't wanna get in this, and understand TimK, I bear you no rancor- the target woudln't have mattered
But I have got to say Don, thats got to be the best line I've seen in quite awhile! Say THAT three times fast :-)
Shit, man, that made my morning. I have to go be The Heavy in a meeting in five minutes, and I am not going to be able to keep a straight face. I might end my stern little speech with "watch me shove a liter bottle of Blue Label up your ass and give you an enema you'll never recover from, you pasty faced Brit closet case cocksucker"
Except for my target isn't British. But aside from that, no one would believe him if he told somebody. Seriously considering...
|By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 - 12:02 am: Edit|
Hey, Tim, watch me shove a liter bottle of Blue Label up your ass and give you an enema you'll never recover from, you pasty faced Brit closet case cocksucker. Marc is right: you are a coward.
|By Marc on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 11:48 pm: Edit|
Tim, Don, Grim,
Don, chill out. Its obvious you are busting your balls on this project and its getting to you. Take a breath. You're a better man than this.
Be cool, brother.
Tim, its easy to be a tough guy on the internet.
Anonymity allows chickenshits like you to attack
people without any fear of retribution. The vicious comments you directed at Don carry no weight because they come from someone who would never have the courage to say those things to
someone's face. Why don't you post your address, as Don and I have, then maybe your tough talk will carry some weight. Otherwise, crawl back under your mother's skirt and keep quiet. And don't assume that folks in the forum are so easily manipulated by Don's dramatics. We're smarter than that. We've been around Don for awhile and we're accustomed to his occasional bursts of temper. He may be an asshole, but he's a brilliant one. You learn to take the good with the bad.
Grim, thanks for attempting to keep it lighthearted. Take the dive and let's call the fight off.
|By Timk on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 11:29 pm: Edit|
"I'll just take this entire project and chuck it in the South China Sea, and the people who are waiting for the product would have YOU to thank for that."
read blatant attempt at trying to turn the rest of the forum against someone, Don you are really pathetic, did you know that? Do you cry yourself to sleep at knight head cradelled in the lap of one of your Thai whores, just thinking that if maybe you hadnt been such an asshole all your life, maybe you would have some friends to console you and not a two bit prostitute to do the job for them
|By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 11:17 pm: Edit|
I'm working very hard to get these liqueurs on your tables. My days are quite stressful, I'm bleeding $$$ out of every orifice in this pursuit, fighting with inane bureacracies and lawyers, and all I get from a shithead like grimbutt is a bunch of attitude, for not liking a fucking home distillation website in Kiwiland. If I see one more picture of a handmade 'still' I think I'll barf. Old hot water heaters and aquarium heater elements, ugh. I don't need bottom dwellers yanking my chain right now. I have never had much time for fools, nor suffered them gladly. Now, no time at ALL.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 10:38 pm: Edit|
I don't think you'll do that.
|By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 10:26 pm: Edit|
You think three-four years of postgrad research in organic synthesis is 'taking an orgo lab'? Fuck you, grimshit. I forgot more about DOING much more difficult fractionations than alcohol, than you will ever know. I'm in the chem literature, and you are NOT. I could give a shit about wine and beer except for drinking them. And while you're at it, why don't you ask Ted whether or not he had to 'spoonfeed' me anything?
If YOU, you puling child, are an example of our clientele, I'll just take this entire project and chuck it in the South China Sea, and the people who are waiting for the product would have YOU to thank for that. Get out of my face, you little jerk. I regard you as a nonentity. Too ignorant to know what you don't know.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 09:45 pm: Edit|
Grown ups suck. Childish abandon is King. PORN DRIVES THE INTERNET!!!
|By Malhomme on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 09:41 pm: Edit|
I'd rather take us all acting like grown-ups.
(Okay, I guess it it's unfiltered pee-pee for me too, I guess.)
|By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 09:40 pm: Edit|
"Absinthe: Like the days of old, Makes Getting Shit-Faced Respectable Again."
|By Grimbergen on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 09:21 pm: Edit|
I'll take a dive in the 4th round for some absinthe.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 08:42 pm: Edit|
My money is on the salty dog over the young lion. However I need to know, Is Don King or Vince McMahon running the show?
|By Marc on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 08:39 pm: Edit|
Love him or hate him, Don inspires some of the best rants in the absinthe forum. After weeks of peace and tranquility, this joint needed a little drama. Now, I don't know shit about distilling alcohol, but I know a good fight when I see one. And this one's a good one. Anyone takin' bets?
My money's on Don. But, shit if grimbergen ain't holdin' his own.
This is Marc Campbell at ringside.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 08:38 pm: Edit|
Ooh boy! You're gonna get a bottle full of unfiltered pee pee if you don't quit it...
|By Grimbergen on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 08:14 pm: Edit|
ouch Don, that hurts. *deep breath* In with anger, out with love.
"how many patents DO you have? I have a patent in USA, UK, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Austria, and Chile."
Whoa there Nelly! Easy girl! hehe, almost got me there Don, maybe if you did a bit of your name dropping it would have worked.
"Just how much alcohol have you ever distilled? Next to none."
Absolutely none! Haven't you heard? It's illegal donnie-boy.
"Your beer/wine analogy is false. Beer and wine are fermented from specific yeasts, not generic baker's yeast or alleged turbo's. No one distills vodka from such beer or wine. Your argument is a bait and switch."
Come on don, I gave you enough material to attack me on, at least you could do so without misrepresenting me. I clearly made the distinction between yeasts used by brewers and winemakers and yeasts used by distillers. Recap for the slower forumites: beer/wine yeasts not designed to give clean fermentation, distillers yeast is. "I proposed the situation of distilling homemade beer. But with beer we choose yeasts and fermentation conditions (ex. brewing at warmer temps) that are not ideal for a clean
fermentation (one just designed to produce alcohol and little else). Brewers often want their yeasts to produce other compounds. However, home distillers who are simply interested in making ethanol (as opposed to whiskey for instance) can make cleaner fermentation. Yeasts designed to ferment cleanly are easy to find. There is also no reason, unlike with brewing, to ferment in conditions that aren't optimal. "
"That's the difference between a doer (someone who does) and someone who just runs his mouth."
Don, now everyone here knows that I'm not the greatest writer. I'm the first one to admit that I don't know shit about grammar, but, shouldn't the "that" at the beginning of your sentence have a marginally clear referent? What's the difference? Difference between people who have patents and people who don't? Difference between people who have distilled and people who haven't? Or the difference between people who use bait and switch tactics and people who don't? I'm all confused now.
"And by the way, Ted (smart young chemist that he is) didn't teach me how to distill; he taught me how to make the best absinthes in the world. I was doing fractional distillations roughly about the time Ted was learning to ride a bicycle without training wheels."
Shit, so anyone who took an orgo lab is now a trained distiller? Comon now don. I can't help you till you start being honest with yourself. Help me help you. Unlike most of the forumites who've never stepped into a distillery, you and I both know that there is nothing that you are doing that Ted couldn't easily teach everyone else here to do. Ted has spoon fed you how to produce his absinthes. Distilleries ain't the most complicated things in the world. Sorry, I know you like the gentleman distiller image, but it just ain't so.
If you want to call yourself a distiller, get off your ass, take your tired old palate and try creating something. Here's a little something I've picked up from brewing. You don't know shit about beer until you've gone out there and seen the effects of slightly changing your malt bill, seen the effects of different hoping schedules and rates, seen the effects pitching different yeasts and pitching in different quantities, seen the effects of different mashing techniques, seen the effects of different aeration rates, etc. I don't care how many fractional distillations you've done in a lab, or how much of Ted's absinthe you make; if you want to call yourself a distiller, you need to go out and do what Ted has done. Until then you are just another schmo doing an interesting party trick.
"It's a team of a smart young chemist with a smart old chemist. While you on the
other hand are a solo act of an arrogant little asshole."
Trust me don, I couldn't do it without you.
oh yeah, and sorry for my last post, it was a little incomplete. Had I more time, I would have gone and found a picture to post of a Cleaner fish sucking onto a shark's belly.
|By Marc on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 06:27 pm: Edit|
And in the green corner, wearing the emerald tights and weighing 340 pounds, he's well-rested and ready to rock, the man who put the "bang" into Bangkok, who put the "man" in mango and the "sin" into abSINthe, deadlier than a hot tub full of Hill's and twice as explosive, the one and only, :
BIG MANGO DON!!!
And the crowd goes wild!
|By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 06:04 pm: Edit|
You GO Don!!! -Head_Peanut
|By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 05:54 pm: Edit|
And by the way, Ted (smart young chemist that he is) didn't teach me how to distill; he taught me how to make the best absinthes in the world. I was doing fractional distillations roughly about the time Ted was learning to ride a bicycle without training wheels. It's a team of a smart young chemist with a smart old chemist. While you on the other hand are a solo act of an arrogant little asshole.
|By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 05:49 pm: Edit|
So, scumbag, how many patents DO you have?
I have a patent in USA, UK, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Austria, and Chile.
Just how much alcohol have you ever distilled? Next to none. Your beer/wine analogy is false. Beer and wine are fermented from specific yeasts, not generic baker's yeast or alleged turbo's. No one distills vodka from such beer or wine. Your argument is a bait and switch.
That's the difference between a doer (someone who does) and someone who just runs his mouth.
|By Grimbergen on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 07:21 am: Edit|
oops sorry Tim. Didn't read you post in time. oh well. maybe next time.
|By Grimbergen on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 07:20 am: Edit|
"I didn't see any content to respond to."
I'm sorry you couldn't follow the simple argument from the safety of other beverages to the relative safety of homemade ethanol.
"You are a bullshit artist,"
Thanks Don! I've always wanted to be an artist. I guess my 6th grade art teach was wrong, I am creative!
"not a doer;"
aww geez, which self-help book do I have to read to become a 'doer'? Oh wait, I have an I idea! Why don't I just latch onto a smart young chemist?
"so climb down off your high horse"
I don't know, I kinda like it up here.
"before someone knocks you off it."
oh, is that where I get the "how many patents do you have to your name" speech? so what were you trying to do in your last post, intimidate me off my horsie?
|By Timk on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 07:08 am: Edit|
"You are a bullshit artist, not a doer; so climb down off your high horse before someone knocks you off it."
Please guys, as Don is not mature enough to control himself, try not to set him off (it is so easilly done and then we all have to put up with a tirade of bullshit insults and allegations)
|By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 06:53 am: Edit|
Pope on a rope!
Don you're the shit any old way. Don't you forget it.
|By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, March 27, 2001 - 01:19 am: Edit|
True, true, Marc old friend.
|By Marc on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 11:47 pm: Edit|
getting advice on decorum from "head prosthesis" is like getting sex tips from the pope.
|By Don_Walsh on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 10:25 pm: Edit|
Grim, I didn't see any content to respond to. You are a bullshit artist, not a doer; so climb down off your high horse before someone knocks you off it.
And Head, I am speaking as a private person, not for my company. I have no need of being a 'P.R.' anything (I prefer blunt honesty to circumlocution) and I can always back up anything I say. Absinthe making has NOTHING to do with fractional distillation, and alcohol made from wash/mash intended to produce vodka is not the best kind to make absinthe from anyway.
|By Heiko on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 09:46 pm: Edit|
Back then during our interesting chemistry lessons, where our teacher, an absolutely professional chemist (not distiller though), used expensive laboratory equipment to do the distillation of a smaller amount of wine, the result was something like ethanol - but it still tasted shitty.
He said that probably with some more time he could get better results, which would still not be really good at all.
This was my experience with making brandy - I rather buy alcohol ever since, it's better and easier ;-)
Maybe that was the lesson our teacher wanted us to learn from out brandy experiment...
|By Tabreaux on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 09:35 pm: Edit|
I'd have to go dig it up, but I am almost certain it is not Nixon/Stone. It is a soft cover book, and was written by a few guys who seemed fanatical about making good vodka. If I remember correctly, their homebrew tested cleaner than Stolichnaya. Not exactly my 'cup of tea', but a bit interesting nonetheless.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 09:25 pm: Edit|
I can see why Ted is the P.R. side of the Company.
|By Grimbergen on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 09:24 pm: Edit|
was it the nixon/stone book?
|By Tabreaux on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 09:18 pm: Edit|
I have a very good book which goes into quite a bit of detail regarding making your own spirits, as it is legal in some countries. These guys did it right using a clever distillation setup with temp monitoring, and followed up with GC analysis of the final products. They demonstrated some impressive results, although if both the fermentation and the distillation are not done to the letter, the results can be equally unimpressive (and dangerous). Interesting reading though.
|By Grimbergen on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 08:35 pm: Edit|
Well, at least I tried to be civil this time, too bad it didn't work. Live and learn. The dumbed down nature of my 'two-penny lecture' was intended for the other readers of this board. Unlike you I am not going to make assertions without backing them up. You are intent on misleading this board and abuse your status as a chemist and a 'pro' to do so. Way to avoid responding to the content of my post.
|By Don_Walsh on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 08:13 pm: Edit|
Reactionary and proud of it, you arrogant puppy. Even your teminology is that of the amateur: a 'reflux still' is a very inefficient fractionating column-equipped still. A proper still for producing clean ethanol is a serious fractionating column. It is my professional (as a chemist and a distiller) opinion that amateurs are not going to invest in the proper equipment, they are not going to understand the subtleties of the fractionating process, and therefore they are not going to produce clean alcohol. Inadequate time to achieve equilibrium, inadequate insulation of the column, variation in heating, improper reflux ratio, any or all of these can produce a less than adequate seperation. Uneven packing of the column, flooding of column due to higher than proper throughput or poor choice of column packing material, will also screw up a fractionation.
Despite your comments, the choice of a less than optimum yeast, and conditions unsuitable for fermentation, can produce much higher levels of methanol and other cogeners than anyone ought to drink.
To do it RIGHT takes money for good equipment, it takes training and experience, NOT a few minutes on the Internet.
Save the two-penny lectures culled from pompous introduction to pamphlets on home distillation. You are talking to a pro.
|By Grimbergen on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 05:57 pm: Edit|
"Every once a year you can read something about whole families in India died or became blind from some distilled spirits someone made from something (that contained methanol of course)."
Every case like this that I've read has been from unscrupulous people intentionally adding methanol because methanol is cheap to buy. I think the most recent case was in Kenya.
It is also a bad comparison looking at what happens in the middle of nowhere. Anyone with a few hours and access to the internet can learn how to avoid having methanol in their final product.
|By Grimbergen on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 05:50 pm: Edit|
True true. The correct comparison, to stick with your wine example, would be to take a glass of wine and a shot of brandy (where they contain the same volume of alcohol) and then look at the absolute level of methanol in each. Of course my example where only water was removed was absurd. Every distiller removes some of the heads and tails. Actually, if you talk to any home distillers, they will tell you that they usually throw away more than is necessary just to be on the safe side.
"Of course you can't get more methanol than was in the wine before, but you can make it 95% methanol in the worst case!"
The amount of methanol produced is very small. Sure you could get this if you kept only the first shot out of a 20 liter batch, but who does that?
My point was simply that it is very easy to reduce the relative levels of methanol. To go blind you would have to be extremely stupid, and actually only drink the very first runnings.
Also, it is easy to tell when the methanol has finished coming through a still by smell/taste. For those of us with any drinking experience, there is no way to confuse the taste of methanol and ethanol. Of course the preferred method is to watch the thermometer and see when it rises from approx 65c to 78c.
|By Heiko on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 05:43 pm: Edit|
sorry, I haven't read your post thoroughly enough - you said the same that I said.
Distilling a fluid that doesn't contain methanol will not produce methanol.
But still, Don is right you shouldn't drink homebrew from someone you don't know (maybe this someone was as stupid as me and thought the ethanol evaporates at 68°C - I think this was the temp for methanol, right?)
Every once a year you can read something about whole families in India died or became blind from some distilled spirits someone made from something (that contained methanol of course).
|By Heiko on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 05:29 pm: Edit|
"you cannot produce methanol by distilling"
Even I don't know much about it, as I stated before, I don't think you can say it like this.
If you want to distill alcohol from wine (which contains methanol) and you don't have a professional setup (that makes it easy to exactly control temperature), or -as I did in my first post- use the wrong temperature, you might end up with very high methanol levels compared to that of wine or cider.
You can make an unsafe product from a safe one, because the percentage (not the amount) of methanol in the end product might be much higher than in wine. Of course you can't get more methanol than was in the wine before, but you can make it 95% methanol in the worst case!
You must add that by distilling ethanol from wine, you should have an exact setup and good knowledge about the temperatures to use. Then it is of course possible to avoid the methanol (or at least keep it very low).
|By Head_Prosthesis on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 05:16 pm: Edit|
You must review it for sure. It can't be any worse than the hot pepper beer I had about 10 years ago.
|By Grimbergen on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 05:14 pm: Edit|
I actually have a wormwood beer that was given to me by another brewer. Haven't had it yet, apparently he used to much wormwood in it, very bitter. The beer is currently vacationing in florida, so it will be awhile before I try it.
|By Grimbergen on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 05:11 pm: Edit|
The blindness that you have heard about is from consuming methanol. As my last post mentioned, you cannot produce methanol by distilling. There will be nothing in your final product that isn't already in the Pernod. There is no chance that you will go blind.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 05:11 pm: Edit|
Wormwood Beer. Yummm...
|By Grimbergen on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 05:06 pm: Edit|
I find your comments alluding to methanol poisoning to be reactionary and misleading.
It is perfectly legal in the US and most countries to produce your own beer or wine. Apparently governments do not consider this to be a health risk. They are right not to; it is no more dangerous to drink homebrew as it is to drink a commercial beer. Homebrewers have access to almost every yeast used commercially, as well as all the supplies and information needed.
What you certainly know, but many people don't, is that DISTILLING DOES NOT PRODUCE ETHANOL OR METHANOL. Distilling is a process of purification. So the question is how do you turn a safe product into an unsafe one (which you seem to contend will make you go blind) by removing water from it?
I have even stated my case conservatively here. I proposed the situation of distilling homemade beer. But with beer we choose yeasts and fermentation conditions (ex. brewing at warmer temps) that are not ideal for a clean fermentation (one just designed to produce alcohol and little else). Brewers often want their yeasts to produces other compounds. However, home distillers who are simply interested in making ethanol (as opposed to whiskey for instance) can make cleaner fermentation. Yeasts designed to ferment cleanly are easy to find. There is also no reason, unlike with brewing, to ferment in conditions that aren't optimal.
-remove water from beer/wine, haven't introduced anything dangerous
-start with something safer than beer/wine and remove water, and you still have something safer.
So far the argument just considered how safe homemade alcohol would be if you just removed water, of course it is very easy to also remove methanol and other undesirables. To do this all you need to do is build a decent reflux still and be able to read a thermometer. You can clean up the product still further with carbon. Of course you don't know exactly how pure the final product is, but you certainly know that it is safer that homebrew, commercial beer, commercial wine, cider (which has very high levels of methanol), etc. Making safe ethanol is an absurdly simple thing to do. If you feel safe drinking the beverages I just listed, then you should feel safe drinking homemade ethanol.
|By Artemis on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 06:51 am: Edit|
I'm out of this. Sorry I got into it.
|By Don_Walsh on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 06:35 am: Edit|
Artemis, my post was written before I even saw your post and was a reply to Grim, not to you.
Just so you know.
Having done a LOT of work relating to alcohol quality standards, etc., I have strong views on the follies of such websites, I believe that people who moonshine at home ought to drink their own stuff only. Unless they can QC it. Killing oneself is fine, killing your neighborhood is uncool.
I don't believe many amateurs are really up to fractional distillation, just to name one step.
|By Don_Walsh on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 06:24 am: Edit|
Mostly because his information is half-assed, technically ignorant, half-baked, inaccurate, incomplete, vague, anecdotal, and often simply wrong. I don't care if he is God on some newsgroup. And I don't much care about 'home distillation'. I am speaking as a professional, and I am saying, I found his site to be less than thrilling. That's all.
The Swedish site may be 'commercial' but his information on properly done activated carbon treatment is way ahead of the stuff on the NZ site, his book is cheap, his yeasts are the best, and so on. Personally I don't think anyone without a BS in organic chemistry ought to be distilling alcohol for human consumption, but that's just my opinion. Gert Strand demonstartes that he has the technical expertise; the NZ site is full of the usual homespun hogwash and has precious little technical proficiency evident.
I don't believe anyone ought to produce liquor (ferment alcohol for distillation) without a GC and the competence to use one. Don't talk to me about heads and tails. Even the Thais require their distilleries to have industry standard analysis for quality control. What does the NZ guy do for QC? See if his buddies go blind?
I have previously stated the same, so why be surprised?
|By Artemis on Monday, March 26, 2001 - 06:20 am: Edit|
I made no judgement about "technical" superiority; I didn't even read anything on Ackland's site.
I was referring to the *quantity* and *scope* of the information presented, when I said it was impressive. But I would be surprised if there are many errors; I've read Tony's posts on the DBD and he obviously knows what he's tallking about.
|By Grimbergen on Sunday, March 25, 2001 - 10:08 pm: Edit|
How exactly do you figure that Don? Partyman is just a commercial site. It's only good for info on their turbo yeast. Tony's site on the other hand gives a complete guide to home distilling. If you check the home distilling news groups, you'll find that Tony, through his posts and his web page, is the single most reliable and important source of information for the home distilling community. I really don't see where you are coming from with that comment.
|By Don_Walsh on Sunday, March 25, 2001 - 09:01 pm: Edit|
That site isn't all that impressive...the Gert Strand information is technically far superior (www.partyman.se).
|By Artemis on Sunday, March 25, 2001 - 04:54 pm: Edit|
Wow. Very impressive site. I've found most of this info on the Internet previously, but not all in one place.
Tony Ackland posts to the Distilled Beverage Digest on occasion, and I think he's written a book or two, but I didn't know he was *that* much into it.
|By Grimbergen on Sunday, March 25, 2001 - 04:13 pm: Edit|
Go to http://www.geocities.com/kiwi_distiller/ to answer all of your distilling questions.
|By Celithrand on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 01:10 pm: Edit|
Kill me now!
|By Mr_Rabbit on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 12:09 pm: Edit|
Don't be dissing Solar Babies, dammit.
A finer example of post-apocalyptic rollerskating cinema is not to be found. The pathos of a group of teenage rollerskaters against a Mad Max background is not to be sniffed at. Why, I haven't seen a finer performance since Tootie from the Facts of Life, and she's like the Anthony Hopkins of roller skating theatre.
|By Don_Walsh on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 11:46 am: Edit|
At standard temperature and pressure environment, ethanol 95% vol/vol azeotrope with water distills at 78 C. You can't get 100% ethanol from an ethanol/water mixture without playing some very sophisticated games to break the azeotrope. To even get 95% out, you have to be using an efficient fractionating column and a reflux head with a ratio of maybe 10:1; otherwise you will have to distill 2 or 3 times.
Ted is perfectly correct. All feedstocks can and do produce methanol and other cogeners (esters, aldehydes, acids, higher alcohols, diacetyl, etc.) The feedstocks are grain, corn, fruit, cane (molasses), rice, tapioca/casava, fruit, whey (requiring a special yeast), potatoes, etc. Some produce more of some cogeners and some produce less. National and commercial standards for potable ethanol vary enormously. The EU standard for example is terrible but the European distillers hold to a much tighter standard for methanol which is in line with other major alcohol producing countries. Some less industrialized (or centrally planned) nations have piss poor standards (many Latin American nations and former Warsaw Pact nations for example. China on the other hand has one of the tightest standards for potable ethanol in the world. However having tasted some Chinese booze I am not sure they enforce it...
100% anhydrous ethanol is usually dehydrated these days by a molecular sieve, although there are other processes such as tertiary azeotropes with benzene and acetone, however those results are NOT potable. 100% anhydrous ethanol is not relevant to any discussion of liquor. It is an industrial and laboraory reagent. Anyway if you open a bottle of 100% ethanol it will immediately start to absord water from the air until the mixture reached 95% once again. Just like a sponge!
|By Tabreaux on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 08:10 am: Edit|
Blindness can be caused by methanol, and methanol is present in many fermentations. Distilled liquors have virtually no methanol, so unless you fermenting your own alcohol, you have nothing to worry about.
|By Celithrand on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 07:59 am: Edit|
I couldn't get 100% alcohol from the way I'm distilling maybe 60% at the most. I'm talking, my still is stupid, stupid, Giligans island professor stupid. I was kind of experimenting with ideas in the kitchen. I'm in Tampa so we have alot of Botanicas. They are shops that sell candles,herbs and Mary saint dolls for people that practice saintaria, "I don't practice I just know they sell herbs there." I bought a few bags of Artemisia Absinthium and added 40 grams of it to a bottle of Pernod. Let it steep for about a week, strained it. What I got was something like green Czech ass butter or worse "I expected this I just wanted to see what it would taste like." So I decided to distill it. I looked around the kitchen and had everything I needed. A Stainless steel pot A smaller Pyrex bowl to fit inside. and a larger glass bowl that sit on top of the pot, filled it with ice. You turn on the heat and the vapors condense on the bottom of the bowl of ice that cover the pot and drip into the Pyrex bowl in the pot. Ted and Don forgive me, I've been reading the forum for a long time,I just never post anything. I know what I made isn't absinthe I'm not even going to imply that, I'm not looking for secondary effects. Consider it a culinary experiment. I know my methods are laughable but this is what happens when your marriage hits that 7 year point and your wife invites friends over and they pop "Solar Babies" into the dvd player. If your not familiar, it's really bad movie, about a post-apocalyptic teens roller skating in the waste land.
|By Heiko on Monday, March 19, 2001 - 07:17 am: Edit|
I'm for sure not the one who knows best (Don and Ted know much more about this matter, I'm very sure!), but:
You can only become blind from alcohol distilled from wine or macerated fruit. This contains methanol and you have to watch the temperature of distilling very carefully to get only good ethanol from it.
If you distill schnaps/vodka/liquor, there should be nothing in it but ethanol and water.
If you distill at the temperature where alcohol evaporates (ask the experts please, it's somewhere around 68° Celsius - but I'm not sure anymore...) you will get 100% alcohol (theoretically) from any source, no matter if it was 20, 40, or 80% before.
Please correct me if I'm wrong - this is only what I know from chemistry lessons in school (back then our very cool teacher showed us how to distill brandy from wine...)
|By Tabreaux on Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 09:20 pm: Edit|
There is no definite answer to that question. The results depend entirely on the setup. More sophisticated setups will do far better than simple ones.
|By Celithrand on Sunday, March 18, 2001 - 07:16 pm: Edit|
When you distill 40% alcohol what percentage do you get? I know this post is very stupid but I just want to make sure I don't go blind
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation