|By Mr_Rabbit on Sunday, September 09, 2001 - 05:06 pm: Edit|
It might have been because it is a hell of a lot easier to give someone a gun or a crossbow and get him to proficiency than it is a longbow... which means you can train and deploy your troops faster.
That, and crossbow bolts and bullets go through heavy armor and any soft cover very, very easily, rendering opposing troops almost as vulnerable whether they brought their iron underwear or not. Very attractive... but I think you are right about the longbow being a better technology.
In addition to the range and (potential) accuracy, you can arc your shots to get over cover too, which you cannot do with a gun or a crossbow.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, September 08, 2001 - 06:05 am: Edit|
I've never fired a gun (excluding a couple of times shooting tin cans off a fence with a farmer's shotgun). However a crossbow has got to be one of the easiest weapons for almost anyone to pick up and use with reasonable accuracy. You just point and press the trigger. If you want a weapon that requires skill and craft then the traditional Longbow beats all. It is deadly accurate in the hands of someone who can use it properly.
Technology is not always the answer. The French rued the day they decided to abandon the Longbow in favour of the more technologically advanced Crossbow. In fact the Longbow in skilled hands was a more effective and accurate weapon than guns used up to and including WW1. Why was it abandoned hundreds of years before? Because man is obsessed with technology for the sake of technology. Technological superiority doesn't always mean a better weapon (or a better world).
|By _Blackjack on Saturday, September 08, 2001 - 04:06 am: Edit|
As far as that stunt with the beer can... Dude, we really try to discourage that type of thing, ya know?
|By Etienne on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 07:30 pm: Edit|
You're quite right about Alvin York and his 1911, and about combat shooting in general. One ragged hole or five, if they're where you need them, you get to live to tell the story.
One of the owners of the store where I work is on the U.S. National Team, and also knows Terry Anderson. He also refers to him as an ex-friend.
|By Artemis on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 08:16 am: Edit|
When I asked Ted about his "granddads", I was of course not referring to his father or mother's fathers but the veterans of the War Between the States he mentioned. I just didn't know how many "greats" to tack on, so I left them off, and I'm sure Ted understood that.
But if you check out his profile picture, you're left with some doubt - maybe he was around in 1865.
|By Mr_Rabbit on Friday, September 07, 2001 - 03:48 am: Edit|
"I seem to recall my research showing that my immediate descendents (Breaux) were either too young or too old to enter the conflict. "
Ted, if I might say, you look quite young for your age.
|By Tabreaux on Thursday, September 06, 2001 - 06:07 am: Edit|
"Ted, there's a lot of CSA veterans buried in the graveyard behind the Catholic church in Lockport - I remember one "Braux" for sure. Is one or more of them your granddads?"
I seem to recall my research showing that my immediate descendents (Breaux) were either too young or too old to enter the conflict. Meanwhile, my other relatives were slugging it out at Vicksburg and Mansfield.
"How lucky you are to have such a piece of family history! Is the pistol and holster identifiable in the photo?"
Unfortunately, no. It's the real deal however. It's been passed down through the generations.
|By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 08:08 pm: Edit|
Alvin York did alright with his as-issued 1911. That wasn't a National Match model, and accurizing hadn't been invented yet. In pistol fighting, the difference between holding all your shots on a pie plate at 25 yards and putting them all in one ragged hole is largely meaningless. Most of the time, if you're willing, the other guy won't be.
By the way, some of the best shots (including guys on the US national shooting team (Olympics) are quite nearsighted. (Terry Anderson, an ex friend, used to be their coach.)
|By Pataphysician on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 06:52 pm: Edit|
"I've honestly never understood why Willie Mosconi was considered such a good pool player. If your eyes are good and your hand doesn't shake, how could you miss?"
And taking into account that you're coordinating both hands to move the stick to hit a certain spot on the ball with a certain amount of power so it hits another ball (or more) at a certain angle with a certain amount of power so that a chosen ball rolls into a hole slightly larger than itself, while keeping the first ball (and possibly others) out of the hole and leaving it in a good position for your next shot.
As opposed to shooting a pistol where you level it with your eye and squeeze the trigger.
|By Zman7 on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 06:28 pm: Edit|
Having a great weapon, superior technology if you prefer, is great. But when it comes to handguns and shoulder fired weapons nothing beats practice and skill. I have seen people with inferior firearms shoot almost perfect scores. Also I have seen assholes with the newest, best weapons make total asses of themselves. Practice makes perfect (or damn close).
|By Artemis on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 06:20 pm: Edit|
"Right. That's why everybody on earth shoots free throws as well as Michael Jordan."
"The analogy would work if everything was dependant on the quality of the basketball."
I've honestly never understood why Willie Mosconi was considered such a good pool player. If your eyes are good and your hand doesn't shake, how could you miss?
You want to spout some gibberish about the quality of the pool stick now?
No analogy here:
What you said about shooting was IGNORANT!!
|By Etienne on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 05:58 pm: Edit|
Very little depends on the quality of the basketball. Good equipment does help, but it's up to the person using it. Again talent, skill, practice.
|By Etienne on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 05:52 pm: Edit|
I see you're taking a few shots of your own tognight.
|By Pataphysician on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 05:35 pm: Edit|
"Right. That's why everybody on earth shoots free throws as well as Michael Jordan."
The analogy would work if everything was dependant on the quality of the basketball.
|By Etienne on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 05:26 pm: Edit|
Right on reply. Shooting well, like any other talent is all skill and practice. There are a thousand things, so small you'll never notice, that could go wrong. The Michael Jordan comparison works for me. I wish I was a better shot with a handgun.
Military issue 1911's aren't known for accuracy anyway. They shot those things till they were as loose as a goose. As far as that stunt with the beer can... Dude, we really try to discourage that type of thing, ya know?
|By Melinelly on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 05:15 pm: Edit|
"I exploded in white foam, so when Zoom opened his eyes, all he saw was white."
did you get that on tape? i know some gay porn buffs who might want a copy ;)
sorry couldn't help but jump on that slip, bj. funny story.
|By _Blackjack on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 05:04 pm: Edit|
Well, the first time I ever picked up a gun (a Winchester 94AE carbine in .44 mag), I was making 2" groups at 100 feet. I didn't realize that this was impressive for a beginner until my pal (and instructor) Johnny started running around showing the target to everyone at the range.
My dad did some pistol instruction when he was in the Navy (shit, I just realized he and I never got to go shooting togeter...), and he said that most of the students would come pretty close to the bullseye with their first shot, but after that one shot, they knew how hard those M1911's kicked, so they tensed up and threw off their aim.
An awful lot of shooting (especially handguns, since the range is shorter) really is instinct, and the harder you TRY to hold your hand still, the harder it gets. Some people may have better instincts for it, but there is a lot of learning and practice between good and great.
This same pal, Johnny, is a complete gun nut, but in a fun way. He organized occasional outings for my friends where we would go out to somebody's uncles property and blow stuff up. On top of lots of guns, he'd bring crossbows and tomahawks (he dis trick axe throwing demos at Mt. Vernon at some point) and the occasional pipe-bomb, and a good time was had by all. One one occasion, he brought his dad along. His dad, half Leni Lanappe Indian, half Irish, looks like a statue of Iggy Pop carved out of beef jerky.
Johnny had, on a few occasions, joked about shooting beercans off of people's heads. I had seen him shoot a can out of someone's hand with a crossbow once. Anyway, he talked this guy, Zoom (so named because he is one of those hyperkinetic geeky guys who will do anything if he thinks it will make him cool) into playing William Tell/Burroughs. Zoom took his position about 50 yards away, and Johnny played like he was taking aim, assuming that his father would talk him out of it. Instead, his father checked the wind and said:
"You'd better take this one prone."
So Johnny, his bluff called, got down on the ground, sniper-style, took aim and hit the can dead center. I exploded in white foam, so when Zoom opened his eyes, all he saw was white. He thought he was dead...
|By Artemis on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 04:14 pm: Edit|
"I've honestly never understood why "being a good shot" is considered such a talent. If your eyes are good and your hand doesn't shake, how could you miss?"
Right. That's why everybody on earth shoots free throws as well as Michael Jordan.
|By Pataphysician on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 03:08 pm: Edit|
I've got a New Model 1861 Navy, Italian made repro. Loads of fun. Once you start shooting blackpowder, everything else is just a bore (no pun intended). And it's horribly inaccurate, which adds to the challenge.
I've honestly never understood why "being a good shot" is considered such a talent. If your eyes are good and your hand doesn't shake, how could you miss?
|By Etienne on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 03:08 pm: Edit|
How strange. Do you think that the two cylinders are manufactured by different methods, or are they just finished differently? A kit would probably be in the white, with no finish at all. If you're not a re-enactor of some sort and authenticity is not an issue my advice about the Ruger Old Army stands. A fine quality revolver at a very realistic price.
How lucky you are to have such a piece of family history! Is the pistol and holster identifiable in the photo? My father's family is from Kentucky. His mothers family fought for the north, his fathers for the south in the Orphan Brigade. A not uncommon situation in that state.
|By Tavarua on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 01:22 pm: Edit|
I figured the action would not really change. The only reason why I wondered if this was a possibility, is due to fact that the bp cylinder was cast steel and the conversion cylinder is polished steel and that this would make the rotation a little smoother. Not to mention the .45 Colt Cylinder is of a much higher quality and have to imagine that it is ground to a much smother internal finish.
|By Artemis on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 12:21 pm: Edit|
Ted, there's a lot of CSA veterans buried in the graveyard behind the Catholic church in Lockport - I've noted that from the inscriptions, some of them in French. I've often paid my respects while I lingered there even though I didn't know them. I remember one "Braux" for sure.
Is one or more of them your granddads?
|By Tabreaux on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 11:46 am: Edit|
Of the three great-great grandfathers I had that served in the Confederate forces, one was in a cavalry unit which was known in this region for their guerilla tactics. I have a photo of him in uniform, and I also have his old cap and ball Remington .44 revolver and leather holster. The pistol is in fine shape, and has his initials eloquently carved in the butt. I am too chicken to shoot this family heirloom, although I did pop off my old .69 cal M1842 Springfield musket just for a thrill.
|By Etienne on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 11:17 am: Edit|
Black powder revolvers are a hell of a lot of fun to shoot, and fairly cheap. If you look around you can find a completed gun for the same money (or cheaper) that what you say you'll pay for the kit. Be sure you get one with a steel frame, (not brass), although the thought of a cast frame is a little questionable. Ruger does a fine job with investment casting on all their guns, but they know what they're doing. Almost all of the BP revolvers are made in Italy or Spain and the quality varies a lot.
It's a good idea to get something with the Remington solid-frame design. The BP Colts look really cool, but the barrel attachment isn't all that positive.You'll notice that as soon as the Remington patent ran out Colt stole the idea when they introduced the 1873 SAA. If you want a really solid BP revolver, save up for a bit and get a Ruger Old Army, the best black powder revolver on the market. Remember; gun control means hitting what you're aiming at.
The conversion cyl. would add nothing to the action, the trigger pull would still be shit, and the increased pressure could cause a weak frame to split.
Of course, the .454 Casull is a whole different ballgame. I'll save that tirade for another time.
|By Tavarua on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 08:02 am: Edit|
I have been thinking about picking up one of the Remington black powder .45ís. I would actually love to get a .454 Casual by Freedom Arms, but that is a little out of range. Anyway, these old shooters really appeal to me. The kit gun that I am thinking about is only 2 bills. The kicker is, you can pick up a cylinder, that actually costs nearly twice as much as the pistol, that converts it from a black powder charge to a .45 Colt factory load. The action sucks with the powder cylinder, the frame is cast steal, and the pound pull is ridiculous. In short, it is no show piece, but it looks like a fun toy. I wonder if the addition of the conversion cylinder would add anything to the action
|By Artemis on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 07:35 am: Edit|
"However, while I am a very good shot with modern DA revolvers, and autos, I never could hit fuck-all with a single action Colt. My hat is off to those who could."
Thanks for the tip of the hat. I could hit a pineapple at 50 yards with mine almost every time.
Once my friend (with his Ruger Super Blackhawk, .44 Mag of course) and I with my .45 SAA, (7-1/2 inch barrel) went out to a canal in LA to shoot. My Colt had just a groove on the backstrap and a front sight, in other words no sights to speak of.
We decided to shoot at a willow tree about as big around as a man's leg, about fifty yards away. I hit it with six shots, as did he. Then we switched guns. My first shot with his gun went high, then I hit it five times. He hit it six times with my gun. Hell, even two guys who heard all the ruckus and walked up hit it once each with each gun. We kept shooting until we cut the tree down and the only miss was my first shot with the .44 Mag. I guess this proves nothing other than that they are both damned fine weapons and it's an expensive way to cut down a tree.
|By Artemis on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 07:22 am: Edit|
"BTW...1873 Single Action Army"
That's right. Typo on my part, sorry.
"Ack! TOMBSTONE blew chunks."
One of my favorite movies of all time.
"Do the Colt's in question have any relation to the Colt Dragoon?"
They're both Colts I guess. I exagerated the size of the SA Army, but the Dragoon is a REALLY big gun.
"I'd like to see a much more cynical version, where the Earps came off as tyrants ... "
Not likely from Hollywood, but there are books which tell the other side of the story, including one by an Earp wife (the laudanum addict in the movie, I think, but I'm not sure) which claims the Earps were nothing but opportunists and criminals and that Doc Holliday was *with* certain of the Clanton bunch when the stage was robbed that started all the trouble, and that Holliday himself killed the shotgun rider on the stage.
The Earps were by no means all popular in Tombstone and if you follow the accounts of the time, it seems they only escaped hanging because of a friendly judge on their side.
|By Etienne on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 07:18 am: Edit|
Thanks for filling in the holes in my post. As always, you are an endless source of information.
There are actually folks who do load for the two Colt double actions. Some of the guys who do cowboy action shooting have taken to carrying these as backup guns. CAS is a fairly new sport which you may not be familiar with in the Far East. These guys are bringing back into use a number of calibers that no one has had any interest in for sixty years.
Right on target about the Bisley..one of Colt's best efforts. But a straight-up target pistol, not one for any kind of holster quick-draw stuff. That sharply curved grip wants time and concentration.
We still get a number of people looking for 38 S&W. Either grandpa's old cop gun or something that we sent to the Brits on lend-lease. Why anyone wants to bother with a punk round like that today is beyond me.
|By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 06:44 am: Edit|
The .41 Long Colt cartridge actually has a .38 bore. The .38 Long Colt cartidge actually has a .35 not quite .36 bore. Both started out as black powder loadings, and are in same class as the .38 S&W (not Special!) In other words these are the sorts or cartridges that the US Army found (Spanish American War, when we took the P.I.) wouldn't stop 80 lb Moros with machetes from cutting one's head off, hence the adoption of the .45 Automatic.
Old joke: Why do we use .45s?
Reply: Nobody makes a .46!
BTW the reason for overstating the calibers was because these old black powder cartridges had oversized hollow bases on their lead projos, and these were swaged down to the true bore diameter in the barrel. I doubt anyone loads .38 or .41 LC anymore, although you can get dies for them and bullet moulds if you really need to shoot an old Lightning or Thunderer. Usually though the lockwork is shot (worn) abd the cylinder is out of time and won't index right. Those pistols are wall-hangers. The really classy Colt single action is the Bisley target version of the SAA, and it was made in a number of calibers, has better sights than the standard Colt, a nicer trigger and grip, and is a pleasure to shoot. However, while I am a very good shot with modern DA revolvers, and autos, I never could hit fuck-all with a single action Colt. My hat is off to those who could.
|By Etienne on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 06:31 am: Edit|
Oops, almost forgot;
The pistol in True Grit was a Colt Walker, bigger yet than any of the Dragoon models. They were meant to be carried in pistol buckets hanging on either side of a saddle bow, not as a holster pistol as you see in the movies. At a little over five pounds, they're the largest American revolver ever produced, and a handfull to play with. Quite a gun for a little girl!
|By Etienne on Wednesday, September 05, 2001 - 06:24 am: Edit|
I completely agree with you about the Lightnings. The same basic pistol came in two versions, the Thunderer and the Lightning. The Thunderer was in .41 cal. and might have had some chance of becoming a useful carry gun if it weren't for the terminally overcomplicated action. I don't recall the caliber of the Lightning, but, as you said, it was simply an underpowered popgun. Despite all this, they seemed to have been quite popular. I see them on a regular basis, usually beat to hell and inoperative. My gunsmith tells me that they are God's own bitch to work on.
I Think you're right on about Quaid. He added a certain quality to the role that made the movie for me. The tarnished southern gentleman. No matter how he tried, I think Kilmer comes across as too squeaky clean to do a character like Holliday.
|By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 08:30 pm: Edit|
Colt Lightnings were underpowered, double action pieces of shit popular with storekeepers and bumboys like Billy the Kid.
The Dragoon was a humongous .44 percussion model used by cavalry. See TRUE GRIT. I suppose cartridge conversions of this double handful were possible but I've never seen one.
Single Action Army .45, is the classic Colt frontier revolver. Just don't carry a round under the hammer - prone to go off -- and remember do NOT shoot at Lily Langtry's poster when in Judge Roy Bean's courthouse/saloon.
|By Frater_Carfax on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 08:23 pm: Edit|
"Even when you could wear one openly on your leg, it streched from hip almost to knee, and that's on a BIG man (see Matt Dillon), which I'm not. In short, it's impossible to conceal,"
I'm trying REALLY REALLY hard not to read subtext into this...bloody hell, first it was Monty Python, now the forum is becoming all "Carry On..."
Artemis..our very own Sid James
|By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 08:13 pm: Edit|
Ack! TOMBSTONE blew chunks. Dennis Quaid did a much more convincing Doc in WYATT EARP, and the movie at least made a stab at adding some ambiguity to the story... though I saw it before I had permanently OD'ed on Costner's meglomania. TOMBSTONE was cardboard 2D crap for the mouthbreathers, where at least Costner's film was failed art. I'd like to see a much more cynical version, where the Earps came off as tyrants or it was a true toss up as to who were the villains... maybe a version from the POV of the Clanton gang.
Do the Colt's in question have any relation to the Colt Dragoon? McMurtry's Gus McCrae (one of my heros, fiction or not) carried one, and used to say it was nigh as big as his leg. Sometimes he was forced to whack drunks with it, which I gather could be nearly fatal.
|By Etienne on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 07:53 pm: Edit|
I think the nickle plated jobs were Colt Lightnings but I could be wrong, been a long time since I saw the movie. I'll have to check.
BTW...1873 Single Action Army
|By Artemis on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 05:07 pm: Edit|
"There is no more flaming of newbies, because we scared most of them off with the flaming, you are second generation newbies if you want to call yourself newbies. Thats why you havent seen the flaming."
More like they are the UMPTEENTH generation, but I see TimK's point. Flamin' newbies is hard work (or as Mr. Natural said in the famous Robert Crumb comic, "Kickin' asses is hard work"). Beautiful comic, Mr. Natural kicking the asses of would-be spiritual inquirers, and them smiling and liking it.
"You'll probably never meet anyone on this forum, let alone have Artemis pull a Colt 45 on you in the alley behind his local pub."
No you won't because it weighs eight or twelve pounds. Have you ever hefted one of those suckers (1871 Single Action Army)? Even when you could wear one openly on your leg, it streched from hip almost to knee, and that's on a BIG man (see Matt Dillon), which I'm not. In short, it's impossible to conceal, which is why I don't carry one. In my fantasy of random killing, I had more in mind Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone (best role he ever played) where he has those nickel-plated jobs under his coat, in chest holsters. I'm not sure they were Colts, to tell the truth, and I got the idea they were well less than .45 caliber, more like .32.
|By Chevalier on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 04:01 pm: Edit|
Ain't nobody gonna scare off J J Kristy J J !!!
|By Timk on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 03:55 pm: Edit|
There is no more flaming of newbies, because we scared most of them off with the flaming, you are second generation newbies if you want to call yourself newbies. Thats why you havent seen the flaming.
|By Bob_Chong on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 01:36 pm: Edit|
In regards to your "If you're out drinking down in your local pub" example, imagine someone going into the Ol' Cheshire Cheese and saying, "What's so great about Johnson?" I think flaming stupid questions is just a longwinded way to say "RTFM."
|By Chevalier on Tuesday, September 04, 2001 - 07:53 am: Edit|
Geoff, if new guys like you didn't appear, this forum would be anemic from ennui and a lack of gene pool diversity.
|By Geoffk on Monday, September 03, 2001 - 07:44 pm: Edit|
As effectively a newbie here, I'll second that. People don't get flamed here for expressing intelligent, civil opinions. They MAY get flamed if they are stupid, rude, fail to read the FAQ, blatently troll or do other flame-baiting things. I have to conclude that someone who does that either WANTS to get flamed or is too dumb to avoid it.
In any case, the overall tone here is more friendly than hostile, so people shouldn't feel excessively apologetic about it.
-- Geoff K.
|By Chevalier on Monday, September 03, 2001 - 07:31 pm: Edit|
"Where is all this flaming of newbies? I don't see it, much less are they being flamed just for being newbies."
True. I've seen some fine examples of newbies (new blood?) being welcomed. Ted pops in to answer certain newbie-esque questions, and just about all of you old timers have, at one time or another, responded positively to new folks who have caught your attention.
The absinthe forum is a dense mix of chemistry, history, accounts, anecdotes and gonzo humor, for starters. Egos get bruised and forumites hurl well-aimed boulders at each other. Newbies are rarely their targets; it's the old timers who are limping around and sterilizing their wounds with Hill's.
If you've never posted and are scared to, let me offer some counsel: Overcome your fear. You'll probably never meet anyone on this forum, let alone have Artemis pull a Colt 45 on you in the alley behind his local pub. In the end, why should you care whether or not you're Artemis's (or Don's, or whoever's) hero or asshole-of-the-week? As far as your life is concerned, the rest of us are simply a collection of words on your computer screen. Nothing to worry about. Concentrate on the friends you have a beer with.
Of course, if you choose to go to a NOLA or Vegas-type gathering, ignore the above and bring your own Colt ...
|By Head_Prosthesis on Monday, September 03, 2001 - 01:39 pm: Edit|
PUH RUMPUH PUH PHAHRRTTTT!!!
enters the Hall...
|By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, September 03, 2001 - 01:18 pm: Edit|
"I haven't killed anybody recently."
Glad to hear it Artemis.
As long as you hand your Colts over the bar before buying a drink you'll be welcome at my local pub any time.
Marc too would be welcome so long as he kept his trousers zipped whilst (excluding the lavatory of course) in public areas of the bar.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, September 03, 2001 - 01:11 pm: Edit|
"Can't there be a party for people who don't mind saying they have their suspicions but they really don't know and what's more, aren't that heated up about it?"
Of course there can. In the UK we have a 3 party system. In the past the Liberal party sat in between Conservative and Labour, didn't hold firm views and tried to be nice and agree with everyone. (The sad reality today is that although the political stance of the Liberal Party hasn't changed, they are now, thanks to good old Tony Blair, the most 'left-wing' of the 3 parties.)
(Apologies for this deviation into politics.)
|By Artemis on Monday, September 03, 2001 - 09:08 am: Edit|
Newbies are not flamed here for being newbies.
Old timers don't have the time or the inclination to answer every question posted here. That's why there's a FAQ. Sometimes newbies are pointed toward the FAQ. Where is all this flaming of newbies? I don't see it, much less are they being flamed just for being newbies. If newbies are intimidated by the tone they perceive in here among regulars, that's a different story and I don't see how it can be helped.
|By Mr_Rabbit on Sunday, September 02, 2001 - 08:00 pm: Edit|
We all used to ask the same questions newbies ask.
I tried the wormwood in Pernod thing, before I found the forum, and the people here (if my faulty memory is serving me) were very nice in answering my stupid questions.
But then, they weren't stupid questions then, cause there was no FAQ and the only other source of easily obtainable information was that Gumbo Pages site. That and articles that were utterly sensationalistic.
But keep in mind, aside from right here, most of what is on the web about absinthe is still bullshit. Someone who has done their research may well come here and not read the FAQ (feeling themselves to know the answers,) or may read it and ask a steep-in-vodka question because most of their source material sucks. Most sources on absinthe I have seen have been bad (unintentionally.)
Why attack someone armed with an unloaded fact?
Be nice. Spread the truth. Flaming newbies for being newbies is dumb.
|By Perruche_Verte on Sunday, September 02, 2001 - 12:12 pm: Edit|
Oops, that didn't work. But read the URL I tried to embed in there and you'll find it, I know you will.
|By Perruche_Verte on Sunday, September 02, 2001 - 12:10 pm: Edit|
And here's a link to it (in English translation):
Jarry and Ballard
...along with a modern reworking by J.G. Ballard on the JFK assassination.
|By Artemis on Sunday, September 02, 2001 - 11:14 am: Edit|
I misnamed Jarry's short story in my earlier post.
It is actually:
The Passion Considered as an Uphill Bicycle Race - shortstory, correcting a grave historical inaccuracy
|By Artemis on Sunday, September 02, 2001 - 10:59 am: Edit|
"As to the view of esteemed forumites on thujone. Woe betide if we deviate from the official Party line, we certainly cannot tolerate any dissent in the ranks."
Dissension is healthy as long as it's based upon *reason* and not sensationalism or urban legend. I don't like this talk of party lines or cliques - that's not what it's about, at least not for me.
There is only one member in my clique, and that's Artemis.
"Personally if I feel that a Party line exists I tend to oppose it on principle."
I think that's dangerous, because if your premise is faulty (that a party line exists) your conclusion, or action in this case (opposition) is without merit, to say the least. I perceive no party line here with regard to thujone. I see people who have considered it thoroughly and people who haven't bothered.
"I'm sure as hell glad you don't drink in my local pub either, we like to keep it a killing-free zone."
I haven't killed anybody recently. If Marc can wave his meat sword around in here with impunity, I, like Doc Holliday, can wave my nickel-plated Colts. Do I really have to add a smile face here?
|By Perruche_Verte on Sunday, September 02, 2001 - 10:50 am: Edit|
Can't there be a party for people who don't mind saying they have their suspicions but they really don't know and what's more, aren't that heated up about it? I suppose not.
They say in Absinthe county
there are no neutrals there
You're either on Segarra's side
or a thug for Cusenier
|By Artemis on Sunday, September 02, 2001 - 10:50 am: Edit|
"Artemis, my man, you must have had a bad day."
No, my days have been way better than average lately.
"I said I was going to WRITE an ending to the story, not that Jarry actually died that way. The part about the thujone was firmly tongue in cheek, if anything I was making fun of myself."
I know. The extent to which I'm taken seriously in this forum sometimes makes me belch with consternation.
"I'm fully aware that this is not the PC opinion in this Forum."
It's got nothing to do with politics. I don't see how thujone can get into distilled absinthe, and you yourself discovered the reason early on, and posted it here. I'm no scientist, but Ted has caused some of us to think critically in this area (a far better example than Dr. Arnold - I just read both of his articles and the extent to which he bought into 19th century sensationalism is disgusting). I'm fully confident that when Ted's research is published, some people here are going to be eating that "PC" line along with their crow. If I'm wrong, I'll be man enough to say so.
"I think it's excellent and I thought you were the author."
Thank you. To be honest, I think I could write a better one at this stage, but many of us here are more knowledgable now than when that FAQ was written, and the absinthe scene has evolved considerably as well. Is it time to revise the FAQ? My answer to Kallisti's orginal poll question: "What does absinthe taste like?" was "pretty much licorice". Well, it doesn't.
"As far as killing Jarry, that's what the frog in my story did."
I would have done the same if he had been stupid enough to pull a gun on me and not kill me instantly. I wasn't kidding about that part.
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Sunday, September 02, 2001 - 10:34 am: Edit|
If there is going to be violence, let's start wooing Marc to our side...
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, September 02, 2001 - 04:55 am: Edit|
And if the pro-thujone party don't like the way the vote goes then we (or rather our military wing as naturally we wouldn't condone such actions) can always blow up Congress.
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Sunday, September 02, 2001 - 01:02 am: Edit|
"As to the view of esteemed forumites on thujone. Woe betide if we deviate from the official Party line, we certainly cannot tolerate any dissent in the ranks."
Since we have Party lines, maybe we should have Parties (or is it Partys?). The Pro-thujone Party and the Anti-thujone Party.
This way we can do like Congress: when an issue comes up, we don't think. We just vote.
Of course, Pro-thujone and Anti-thujone, as names, are too... "raw", so we will disguise them, as the Pro-life and Pro-choice people do.
So...any suggestions for naming the Pro-thujone and the Anti-thujone Partys?
|By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, September 02, 2001 - 12:37 am: Edit|
It's the "red" that goes to your head!!!
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, September 02, 2001 - 12:32 am: Edit|
"...he was a drunken bastard and very unlikely to be as good a shot or as ready to kill an asshole as I am."
I'm sure as hell glad you don't drink in my local pub either, we like to keep it a killing-free zone.
As to the view of esteemed forumites on thujone. Woe betide if we deviate from the official Party line, we certainly cannot tolerate any dissent in the ranks.
This is exactly why we should encourage newcomers to ask away. Personally if I feel that a Party line exists I tend to oppose it on principle.
I for one am not at all convinced that thujone is not the main psychoactive ingredient responsible for absinthe's secondary effects. I don't care who has said so and whether or not there are many posts to this effect in the archives.
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 10:28 pm: Edit|
Artemis, my man, you must have had a bad day.
I said I was going to WRITE an ending to the story, not that Jarry actually died that way.
The part about the thujone was firmly tongue in cheek, if anything I was making fun of myself. I'm fully aware that this is not the PC opinion in this Forum.
The part about the FAQ I meant. I think it's excellent and I thought you were the author. I always give you credit for your excellent translations, this was no different.
As far as killing Jarry, that's what the frog in my story did.
|By Artemis on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 06:45 pm: Edit|
And Jarry does post on this forum, only he's been reincarnated as Head Prosthesis. Although I have to say, I've seen nothing quite as good as "The Crucifixion Considered as a Bicycle Race". Almost a hundred years in the void have mellowed him somewhat.
|By Artemis on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 03:36 pm: Edit|
"The story ends with Jarry's encephalic mass decorating the wall behind him, a fate he amply deserved for being such a bad judge of character."
Jarry died in bed.
"On the other hand, how many times do we want to have to explain to a newbie that, yes, thujone IS the main psychoactive component in absinthe?"
Nobody here has every "explained" that to a newbie other than people who are as ignorant as the theoretical newbie, because that's bullshit. Alcohol is the main psychoactive component in absinthe and thujone, as has been explained here ad nauseum, is for the most part a non-component.
" ... just refer him/her to Artemis' excellent FAQ"
Maybe this is a joke that went over my head, but I don't have any sort of FAQ and have nothing to do with Kallisti's FAQ other than she solicited my opinion for it and used some (very little actually) of my response.
Personally, I would have been delighted to meet Jarry, and if he had pulled his pistol on me I would have killed him, as he was a drunken bastard and very unlikely to be as good a shot or as ready to kill an asshole as I am.
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 02:12 pm: Edit|
"Far from ignoring newbies and naive questions, we should welcome them and help keep their thread alive. We should encourage all sorts to join us, we are not the font of all knowledge and we have as much to learn from newbies as they have from us. Let's welcome a diverse range of views on absinthe, not just those towing the 'Party line'. Just because someone in the forum said something and it exists in the forum archives doesn't make it fact."
Mylord, you got me wrong. What I'm opposed to is slamming someone for being ignorant. On the other hand, how many times do we want to have to explain to a newbie that, yes, thujone IS the main psychoactive component in absinthe?
Let's take the middle road. Someone asks a really, really ignorant question we just refer him/her to Artemis' excellent FAQ. If he/her comes back with a good follow up question, we answer it.
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 02:07 pm: Edit|
Alfred Jarry was confronted on the street once by a stranger asking a question - Jarry drew his pistol, pointed it at the newbie and told him to pose his question again, from the other side of the street.
Can I write an ending to this story? Thanks.
The stranger who obediently walked across the street was the crack shot of the anti-terrorist branch of the Surete and, on this particular day, his Harley-Davidson had been stolen and his wife had left him.
The story ends with Jarry's encephalic mass decorating the wall behind him, a fate he amply deserved for being such a bad judge of character.
|By Zman7 on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 02:06 pm: Edit|
I agree with the idea that this is an "Absinthe Bar," and that discussions can range over a whole gamut of topics. That makes this and interesting to visit and post. As a long time lurker, and newbie poster I am also here for the discussion of absinthe and related topics. As our vererable Kallisti mentioned, I too would like to see more discussion of individuals making their own green fairy. I have often followed a thread and hesitated to post an opinion for the fear of being flamed. I would like to thank those who have emailed me with advice and words of encouragement regarding the homemaking of absinthe. Maybe after the Las Vegas gathering I will be less hesitant to post.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 01:34 pm: Edit|
"I'm sure astute forumites realize that the more they slam a newbie's question, the more that thread stays in our view. We have a very recent example of how quickly a thread dissapears from view when we ignore it."
Far from ignoring newbies and naive questions, we should welcome them and help keep their thread alive. We should encourage all sorts to join us, we are not the font of all knowledge and we have as much to learn from newbies as they have from us. Let's welcome a diverse range of views on absinthe, not just those towing the 'Party line'. Just because someone in the forum said something and it exists in the forum archives doesn't make it fact. The forum has become too cliquey and too many people here take too much of what others say as gospel.
To any potential newbies lurking out there, come and join us and ask whatever the hell you like.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 01:23 pm: Edit|
I'm glad Alfred Jarry doesn't post on this forum and I'm sure as hell glad he doesn't go drinking in my local pub. I bet if he wasn't carrying a gun he wouldn't be so fucking rude.
|By Admin on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 12:37 pm: Edit|
There's much less slamming of newbies these days.
In the old days, perhaps by being inundated, people were really, really raked over the coals. So I added the FAQ, and then the registration process, and I *firmly* believe we are much nicer and more welcoming now that people have to make an effort to post (i.e. register) than when they could use the forum to circumnavigate the rest of the site or the FAQ. And I agree, as I've said, even so, we should treat people with respect, and either answer their questions or point them in the right direction.
As for the discussions about 2ndry effects etc ... most of us have all done it. And the FAQ more or less stated our opinions. Even so, we can occasionally be drawn in to a discussion about it.
I'd like to see more homebrew discussion, but there are so very few people that even approach this with any amount of seriousness or dedication. 99% is the vodka steep (and they have been boo'd out of the arena here before), but the 1% of lovingly distilled brews I've had have been enlightening, and even if not accurate, interesting and educational.
Alfred Jarry was confronted on the street once by a stranger asking a question - Jarry drew his pistol, pointed it at the newbie and told him to pose his question again, from the other side of the street. Newbies in this forum get off easy by comparison.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 12:22 pm: Edit|
Oh Sweet Wencherita, are you trying to say I'm making this up?
I'd hate to shatter your mental image of the Great Woofie Bonderosi but anyway...
He looks like a short, scruffy, Ron Perlman. Those big neanderthal facial features highlighted by the rosiest cheeks I've ever seen. Wavy hair that won't seem to style in any manner, sort of "Baroque helmet hair". He has a short mustache and when his beard grows in it's patchy as if he's got Mongolian or Native American genes mixed in with the Anglo.
|By Verawench on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 11:49 am: Edit|
Your search - Bonderosi - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "bonderosi".
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
|By Dr_Ordinaire on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 11:46 am: Edit|
"Aaaand, the temper does run short when oft asked questions are posed."
So I have seen. But where is it written that "oft asked questions" have to be answered at all?
I'm sure astute forumites realize that the more they slam a newbie's question, the more that thread stays in our view. We have a very recent example of how quickly a thread dissapears from view when we ignore it.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 11:28 am: Edit|
That could explain allot, if he was. Woofie has never left the states as far as I know. The endearing quality of a Woofie answer is this...
He doesn't know the phrase "I don't know". If Woofie hasn't got the answer to a question his brain kicks into reverse searching with fictitious zeal to create an answer based on loosely related topics and hearsay. Once the information has been duct taped together with obscure media references and faulty logic you get what those of us in the know refer to as "another chapter from the Book of Woofie".
The Book, ah! the book. As mysterious as the legendary Necronomicon. When backed up against the wall and challenged to defend and prove his answer Woofie exclaims "AH'M TELLIN' YAH I READ IT IN A BOOK GAHDAMMIT!!!" It's at this point the veins pop out of his forehead, with hands reciprocating in a clenching/stretching motion, he stalks off rocking back and forth with tongue flickering at imaginary flys buzzing around his head.
End of argument...
|By Artemis on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 10:47 am: Edit|
Has Woofie ever been to Okinawa?
He's got the Okinawan response to an American GI's question down pat. The constipated grimace (in French, gree-mahss) is perfect. Only instead of "eh?" they would suck in their breath, bearing the front teeth. Visualize a tire leaking air, but in reverse. This could mean anything from "I don't understand English", to "I don't want to be bothered with you" to "Fuck you". In any case, you knew it was pointless to repeat the question.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 09:41 am: Edit|
I have an idea, let's have Woofie Bonderosi answer all newcomers questions.
Woofie will answer all "naive" questions with a friendly "heh? Waddayahtewkin'aboot?" and a "grimace as if he's trying to shit out a watermelon".
No one get's hurt...
|By Artemis on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 09:34 am: Edit|
"If you're out drinking down in your local pub and someone, in a friendly manner, asks you a question about something without him having researched extensively beforehand, do you attack him for having the audacity to waste your time with such a naive question?"
If the answer was already written on the wall above the bar I might. If the question was really stupid, such as speculating about the effects of a chemical, the presence of which in the drink he's drinking is mere speculation itself, I might. If I was pissed off for whatever reason, I might.
Alfred Jarry was confronted on the street once by a stranger asking a question - Jarry drew his pistol, pointed it at the newbie and told him to pose his question again, from the other side of the street. Newbies in this forum get off easy by comparison.
And speaking for myself, I AM here to discuss absinthe. Often I get involved in other discussions, but I rarely start them. And again, speaking strictly for myself, if this were not the ABSINTHE forum, I would not be here at all.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, September 01, 2001 - 04:10 am: Edit|
I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect people to do their research before posting.
Do we regard this forum as the academic font of all wisdom whose members are too worthy to be bothered with trivial unresearched questions? Or do we regard this forum as a friendly meeting point for people who drink absinthe but don't necessarily know (or be expected to know) much about it?
If you're out drinking down in your local pub and someone, in a friendly manner, asks you a question about something without him having researched extensively beforehand, do you attack him for having the audacity to waste your time with such a naive question?
Timk is right, in the days before registration all sorts of things were discussed here such as steeping wormwood in alcohol and adding wormwood oil to pastis. There was also much more discussion of 2ndry effects and thujone etc. It's sometimes it's as if nowadays there's a 'Party Line' on these things.
The forum is meant to be the equivalent of an online absinthe bar not the Absinthe Department of Oxford University. If a newcomer asks a naive question without researching it first then he certainly doesn't deserve the flaming that often happens here. As for topics of discussion, we're not principally here to discuss absinthe, how much discussion of wine goes on at a wine bar?
|By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 11:51 pm: Edit|
I like to help... nitey nite! (for me anyway)
Good afternoon to you.
|By Missthing on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 11:46 pm: Edit|
Yes, that's got to be the one, very distinctive hairstly, thought it might have been the first one you mentioned but with a haircut...
Just looked at a site with huge variety of silent stars http://silent-movies.com and that's definitely Louise Brooks. Thanks!
|By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 11:39 pm: Edit|
Louise Brooks oops!
|By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 11:39 pm: Edit|Clara Bow
|By Missthing on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 11:37 pm: Edit|
Don't know - she looks like this - that her?
There was a postcard of her featuring prominently in a movie I saw last night "He Died witha Felafel in his Hand" which is a new Aussie fillum which I found quite entertaining. Which I guess is why it came to mind.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 11:29 pm: Edit|
|By Missthing on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 11:25 pm: Edit|
I agree with Kallisti in regard to doing one's research before posting. I've always been one to refer to actual live human assistance only after I have exhausted all possible avenues - it's either a very strong desire to be as self-sufficient as possible or the desire not to bother people with tedious questions (ie selfishly take up their time). Either way this site and messageboard has been and I'm sure will continue to be the definitive resource for Absinthe culture on the net, and as far as I'm concerned it's a matter of politeness to read as much of what has been offered as possible before posing questions. The only trouble I've had is that the archives are *huge* and it can be hard to find info when someone says "check the archives" - I found one picture of a gorgeous 20'a or so movie star in there which I downloaded and subsequently wanted to remember the name of but damned if I could find it again!!!
|By Don_Walsh on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 08:25 pm: Edit|
Mike Iavarone's Absinthe Portal changed URLs in July when the hosting service went commercial. The forum is still up, the URL has simply changed. I don't post there because the place is so soporific I doze off before completing a post. Ted, who drinks a lot of coffee, posts there fairly frequently.
|By Admin on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 04:21 pm: Edit|
I think because of the saturation and barrage of questions, we grow a thin skin after it is asked 8347545 times. But also, we were all of us educating ourselves earlier as well. No one arrives in this world fully formed. And I have mostly Ted & Absintheur to thank for that. But forumites, despite those that have abandoned ship, are relatively long lived.
The registration process was instituted because of trolling, incidentally by the same person we've been plagued with recently. Just over a year ago now ...
|By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 04:18 pm: Edit|
Sorry. It looks like those threads may have dissappeared when the upgrade occurred.
|By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 04:14 pm: Edit|
Hey, does anybody have a recipe for bell pepper liquor? I'm also looking for a nice cucumber apertif.
"What was it that sparked off the registration thing?"
The arrival of the anti-christ. "With this password I thee wed..."
It's there in the archives if you care to find it.
|By Timk on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 03:40 pm: Edit|
"Trust me, when it was an open forum, we got our fair share of silly questions."
Yes, those were the days, I doubt I had made but 5 posts before the registration was upon us, and yes, there were some damned stupid questions. But farther back, it just seemed a bit friendlier, even though you had people asking how to steep wormwood in pernod, they didnt get the immediate flaming they would do now.
What was it that sparked off the registration thing? I cant for the life of me remember
|By Admin on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 01:15 pm: Edit|
Yes, I agree, there is a bit of absinthe culture elitism around here. But it is not entirely unworthy of its guff. There are certainly still people out there with something to offer, this is not the be all and end all of absinthe culture/knowledge, even online. But we have amassed a tight, knowledgable group ...
Aaaand, the temper does run short when oft asked questions are posed. I mean, if I didn't know smack about absinthe and was curious and ran across this site, I would read it end to end, sucking it down like a slerpis slurpee. I know, I do this all the time when researching. But people want the easy answer and the easy out for getting that, and they certainly don't want to read to get it.
The forum is for folks to learn and discuss absinthe and related topics, but because this has become a community of people in the know, we are sometimes short tempered with folks who do not bother to do the same amount of research that we did ourselves.
Not that I condone treating naive questions belligerantly, people should always be treated with respect and patience, but I am not saying I don't sit here biting my tongue.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 12:24 pm: Edit|
This forum is alright for new people, although it can be a bit cliquey. Let's face it most of us on this forum know sod all about absinthe anyway and threads discussing absinthe (let alone anything technical) are in the minority. Despite what we may think us forumites are all just 'Joe-average' anyway.
Where the forum falls down is blistering attacks when a newcomer dares to even mention thujone or 2ndry effects or something like that. In such cases we would do well to remember that the forum isn't the font of all knowledge or the authority on absinthe. Sometimes there's an attitude as if people who don't post on this forum can't possibly be as knowledgable as those on the forum.
|By Admin on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 08:44 am: Edit|
A little, but mainly I think the registration process deters the random uninformed question. Folk who post here *usually* take the time to read a bit before they decide to register and post. And this is a good thing.
Trust me, when it was an open forum, we got our fair share of silly questions.
Aaaand, we are much more friendly to newbies, despite our inside bickering, than I think we used to be.
|By Timk on Friday, August 31, 2001 - 06:27 am: Edit|
"utterly clueless newbies--ones too intimidated to post here"
Kallisti, dont you find that sad, instead of feeling welcome, asking questions and learning from this forum, there weree many people too intimidated to post here
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, August 30, 2001 - 07:09 pm: Edit|
Yeah, but I was busy on the message board telling off some pre-med student who told me that I was "grossly misinformed" when I said that thujone may act as a GABA-antagonist...
Mike's board was kinda entertaining because you got a lot of the utterly clueless newbies--ones too intimidated to post here--asking how much wormwood oil to mix with water to make absinthe and stuff like that.
|By Malhomme on Thursday, August 30, 2001 - 06:19 pm: Edit|
The last I heard he closed the absinthe shop and started a poster shop, Masters of the Poster, me thinks.
|By Absinthesque on Thursday, August 30, 2001 - 05:02 pm: Edit|
I don't get to post much these days, though I do check in every now and again to keep up. I'm wondering what's happened to Mike's site. The URL no longer works. Has he closed up shop?
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation