On 6/17/2015 11:14 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 1:10:08 PM UTC-4, La Mirada wrote:
>> On 6/17/2015 10:56 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 12:09:55 PM UTC-4, La Mirada wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where do you think laws all came from?
>>>
>>> In the U.S., derived mainly from English law (except
>>> for Louisiana, which uses the Napoleonic Code), which has its
>>> roots in pre-Christian Celtic and Germanic law.
>>> Plus we have a gob of influence from Roman law that was
>>> deemed advisable by the Founding Fathers.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>>
>> There were5 a host of influences yes, even Roman.
>>
>> But the root derivations of our laws are largely Biblical:
>>
>> http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and...and-government
>
> Could you offer a more objective source?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>

I'm not really sure their objectivity or lack thereof is pertinent.

The flow chart of scripture to law is rather unambiguous.

That said:

http://lonang.com/commentaries/conla...d-natures-god/

http://lonang.com/about-us/

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...om/Natural+Law

(speaks to both divine and secular natural law)

On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 1:29:07 PM UTC-4, La Mirada wrote:
> On 6/17/2015 11:14 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 1:10:08 PM UTC-4, La Mirada wrote:
> >> On 6/17/2015 10:56 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 12:09:55 PM UTC-4, La Mirada wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Where do you think laws all came from?
> >>>
> >>> In the U.S., derived mainly from English law (except
> >>> for Louisiana, which uses the Napoleonic Code), which has its
> >>> roots in pre-Christian Celtic and Germanic law.
> >>> Plus we have a gob of influence from Roman law that was
> >>> deemed advisable by the Founding Fathers.
> >>>
> >>> Cindy Hamilton
> >>
> >>
> >> There were5 a host of influences yes, even Roman.
> >>
> >> But the root derivations of our laws are largely Biblical:
> >>
> >> http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and...and-government
> >
> > Could you offer a more objective source?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
> >
>
> I'm not really sure their objectivity or lack thereof is pertinent.
>
> The flow chart of scripture to law is rather unambiguous.
>
> That said:
>
> http://lonang.com/commentaries/conla...d-natures-god/
>
> http://lonang.com/about-us/
>
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...om/Natural+Law
>
> (speaks to both divine and secular natural law)

Thanks for that third citation.

I don't recognize divine natural law. You're perfectly
welcome to do so.

Cindy Hamilton

On 6/17/2015 11:45 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 1:29:07 PM UTC-4, La Mirada wrote:
>> On 6/17/2015 11:14 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 1:10:08 PM UTC-4, La Mirada wrote:
>>>> On 6/17/2015 10:56 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 12:09:55 PM UTC-4, La Mirada wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where do you think laws all came from?
>>>>>
>>>>> In the U.S., derived mainly from English law (except
>>>>> for Louisiana, which uses the Napoleonic Code), which has its
>>>>> roots in pre-Christian Celtic and Germanic law.
>>>>> Plus we have a gob of influence from Roman law that was
>>>>> deemed advisable by the Founding Fathers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There were5 a host of influences yes, even Roman.
>>>>
>>>> But the root derivations of our laws are largely Biblical:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and...and-government
>>>
>>> Could you offer a more objective source?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>>
>> I'm not really sure their objectivity or lack thereof is pertinent.
>>
>> The flow chart of scripture to law is rather unambiguous.
>>
>> That said:
>>
>> http://lonang.com/commentaries/conla...d-natures-god/
>>
>> http://lonang.com/about-us/
>>
>> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...om/Natural+Law
>>
>> (speaks to both divine and secular natural law)
>
> Thanks for that third citation.

You're welcome, the legal spectrum is broad enough to and does comprise
a host of interpretations.

Prior to Christian Biblical law the Code of Hammurabai is oft times
cited, and accurately so.

http://www.history.com/news/history-...ammurabis-code

http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/hammurabi

The 1935 U.S. Supreme Court building features Hammurabi on the marble
bas relief of historic lawgivers that lines the south wall of the courtroom.

You may find the following rough timeline to be useful:

http://candst.tripod.com/histlaw.htm

The Timetable of World Legal History
2350 BC: Urukagina's Code
2050 BC: Ur-Nammu's Code
1850 BC: The Earliest Known Legal Decision
1700 BC: Hammurabi's Code
1300 BC: The Ten Commandments
1280 BC: The Laws of Manu
621 BC: Draco's Law
600 BC: Lycergus' Law
550 BC: Solon's Laws
536 BC: The Book of Punishments
450 BC: The Twelve Tables
350 BC: The Chinese Code of Li k'vei
399 BC: The Trial of Socrates
529 AD: Justinian's Code
604 AD: The Seventeen Article Constitution of Japan
653 AD: T'ang Code
1215 AD: Magna Carta
1689 AD: The English Bill of Rights
1740 AD: South Carolina Slave Code
1765 AD: Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
1787 AD: The Constitution of the United States of America
1788 AD: Through the Operation of Penal Law, A Country Is Formed
1791 AD: The American Bill of Rights
1803 AD: Marbury versus Madison
1804 AD: Napoleonic Code
1864 AD: The Geneva Convention
1865 AD: The Thirteenth Amendment
1945-46 AD: The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial

> I don't recognize divine natural law. You're perfectly
> welcome to do so.

I think however that it is an error not to admit that divine law was
cited by our framers:

"The influence of divine natural law pervaded the colonial period of
U.S. law. In 1690 English philosopher John Locke wrote that all people
are born with the inherent rights to life, liberty, and estate. These
rights are not unlimited, Locke said, and may only be appropriated
according to the fair share earned by the labor of each person. Gluttony
and waste of individual liberty are not permitted, Locke argued, because
"[n]othing is made by God for man to spoil or destroy."
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, borrowing from
Locke, wrote that "all men are created equal … and are endowed by their
creator with certain inalienable rights … [including] life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson identified the freedom of thought
as one of the inalienable rights when he said, "Almighty God has created
the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain
by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint." In Powell v.
Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678, 8 S. Ct. 1257, 32 L. Ed. 253 (1888), the
Supreme Court recognized the importance of the divine influence in early
U.S. law, stating that the "right to pursue happiness is placed by the
Declaration of Independence among the inalienable rights of man, not by
the grace of emperors or kings, or by the force of legislative or
constitutional enactments, but by the Creator."

> Cindy Hamilton

So how is it that you do not recognize that which was directly quoted by
Jefferson and ruled upon by the SCOTUS?

On 6/17/2015 12:20 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 09:59:58 -0600, La Mirada > wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/2015 6:35 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>
>>> Yes Bryan, this is where you and I always agreed, that the law is not
>>> the be-all and end-all of human ethics/morals guidance.
>>
>> Of course not, that would place it above its progenitor - the Holy Bible.
>
> I hear a banjo.

And Hammurabai too?

On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 2:00:53 PM UTC-4, La Mirada wrote:

> So how is it that you do not recognize that which was directly quoted by
> Jefferson and ruled upon by the SCOTUS?

Atheist. "Divine Law" was made up by humans.


Cindy Hamilton

On 6/17/2015 12:25 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 2:00:53 PM UTC-4, La Mirada wrote:
>
>> So how is it that you do not recognize that which was directly quoted by
>> Jefferson and ruled upon by the SCOTUS?
>
> Atheist.

That doesn't change what is codified by law and the SCOTUS.

> "Divine Law" was made up by humans.

Then how would it differ from any other law, Roman, Babylonian, etc?

Humans have been parsing the nature of God since the dawn of time.

Christians end prayer with "Amen", not realizing that it is a direct
reference to Amen Ra the Egyptian sun god.

All these theologies and laws are written and voiced by man, whether
they are divinely inspired is up to one to determine for oneself.

Living apart from our laws however is unlawful.

Going back to Bryan's insolent riff on the law that is unacceptable.

Having a secular preference is neither unlawful nor unthoughtful. It's
just inaccurate as to the root source of our laws.

Iow, disbelief in any Creator is a purely personal matter.

Oddly enough, divinely-inspired laws protect the free speech aspect of
that disbelief and that is a good thing.

On 2015-06-17, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> On 6/17/2015 10:41 AM, John Kuthe wrote:

>> Jack Daniels is a fine Tennessee whiskey, but it is NOT a bourbon!

Jack Daniels is "sour mash" or Tennessee whiskey. It makes no claim
to be a Bourbon whiskey.

> How do you account for bourbon made in Colorado?

Simple. They are stealing the name.

You notice no one in CO is claiming to make Scotch. I suspect the
legal framework in place for naming Bourbon is not quite as strong as
that which is in place for naming a whiskey, Scotch, or a sparkling
wine, Champagne. Hopefully, KY Bourbon makers will rectify this
oversight. NAFTA has somehow managed to classify Tennessee
whiskey as a Bourbon, but I don't put much stock in this slimey WTO
trade agreement.

nb

On 2015-06-17, > wrote:

>>There are also 500ml Bota Boxes which for cheap wine is not bad.

Swill ina box!

On 6/17/2015 12:45 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2015-06-17, > wrote:
>
>>> There are also 500ml Bota Boxes which for cheap wine is not bad.
>
> Swill ina box!
>

Troll juice!

On 6/17/2015 12:42 PM, notbob wrote:
> You notice no one in CO is claiming to make Scotch.


This is because they are all growing bud and distilling THC resins.

On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 2:39:48 PM UTC-4, La Mirada wrote:
> On 6/17/2015 12:25 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 2:00:53 PM UTC-4, La Mirada wrote:
> >
> >> So how is it that you do not recognize that which was directly quoted by
> >> Jefferson and ruled upon by the SCOTUS?
> >
> > Atheist.
>
> That doesn't change what is codified by law and the SCOTUS.
>
> > "Divine Law" was made up by humans.
>
> Then how would it differ from any other law, Roman, Babylonian, etc?

It doesn't. I don't care what SCOTUS says about it.

> Humans have been parsing the nature of God since the dawn of time.

Humans have been engaging in many pointless pastimes since the dawn
of time.

Cindy Hamilton

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:05:18 -0600, La Mirada > wrote:

> On 6/17/2015 10:54 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> > On 6/17/2015 12:51 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 06:47:01 -0400, Dave Smith
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2015-06-16 8:37 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I like vodka but I think gin is fairly neutral too...
> >>>
> >>> Gin is neutral????
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> makes a great
> >>>> light warm weather bevrage with tonic. Some whiskeys are okay for
> >>>> occasional sipping but to my taste none are something I'd want to sip
> >>>> all night.
> >>>
> >>> Whiskey and other liquors are not really for sipping all night....
> >>> unless a person is setting out to get drunk.
> >>
> >> Depends on ones definition of sipping... I can sip scotch for several
> >> hours and not get drunk... anyone looking to get loaded is not going
> >> to sip, they will guzzle.
> >>
> > Is that when you were "sipping" vodka and calling me several times a day?
> >
> > Jill
>
> Well now, so you two were once an item?
>
> Heavens.

That's what she got for being nice to him. No good deed goes
unpunished.

--

sf

On 6/17/2015 2:06 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 2:39:48 PM UTC-4, La Mirada wrote:
>> On 6/17/2015 12:25 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 2:00:53 PM UTC-4, La Mirada wrote:
>>>
>>>> So how is it that you do not recognize that which was directly quoted by
>>>> Jefferson and ruled upon by the SCOTUS?
>>>
>>> Atheist.
>>
>> That doesn't change what is codified by law and the SCOTUS.
>>
>>> "Divine Law" was made up by humans.
>>
>> Then how would it differ from any other law, Roman, Babylonian, etc?
>
> It doesn't. I don't care what SCOTUS says about it.

Well you kind of have to, given that's how our laws are affirmed.

Feel free to disallow the divinity of the origins if you wish, just hew
to the letter of the law.

>> Humans have been parsing the nature of God since the dawn of time.
>
> Humans have been engaging in many pointless pastimes since the dawn
> of time.

You're no doubt correct there.

But in this instance the development of laws was not pointless.

It was what defines how we interact with each other today.

On 6/17/2015 2:13 PM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:05:18 -0600, La Mirada > wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/2015 10:54 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 6/17/2015 12:51 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 06:47:01 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2015-06-16 8:37 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I like vodka but I think gin is fairly neutral too...
>>>>>
>>>>> Gin is neutral????
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> makes a great
>>>>>> light warm weather bevrage with tonic. Some whiskeys are okay for
>>>>>> occasional sipping but to my taste none are something I'd want to sip
>>>>>> all night.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whiskey and other liquors are not really for sipping all night....
>>>>> unless a person is setting out to get drunk.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on ones definition of sipping... I can sip scotch for several
>>>> hours and not get drunk... anyone looking to get loaded is not going
>>>> to sip, they will guzzle.
>>>>
>>> Is that when you were "sipping" vodka and calling me several times a day?
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> Well now, so you two were once an item?
>>
>> Heavens.
>
> That's what she got for being nice to him. No good deed goes
> unpunished.

Boy I'll guess so!

I wonder if that episode enhanced hey cynicism more than a bit.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:47:06 -0600, La Mirada > wrote:

> On 6/17/2015 12:45 PM, notbob wrote:
> > On 2015-06-17, > wrote:
> >
> >>> There are also 500ml Bota Boxes which for cheap wine is not bad.
> >
> > Swill ina box!
> >
>
> Troll juice!

From a beer drinker who hasn't met the modern age.
http://www.winemag.com/August-2014/D...nside-the-Box/


--

sf

On 6/17/2015 2:26 PM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:47:06 -0600, La Mirada > wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/2015 12:45 PM, notbob wrote:
>>> On 2015-06-17, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There are also 500ml Bota Boxes which for cheap wine is not bad.
>>>
>>> Swill ina box!
>>>
>>
>> Troll juice!
>
> From a beer drinker who hasn't met the modern age.
> http://www.winemag.com/August-2014/D...nside-the-Box/
>
>
Lol, quite the variety out there!

The trolls won't have to get plonk'd on Franzia any more.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2015-06-16 8:37 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> > I like vodka but I think gin is fairly neutral too...
>
> Gin is neutral????

Gin is what I would imagine insecticide to taste like. Drank some one
night when I was 17 and never again.

>
> > makes a great
> > light warm weather bevrage with tonic. Some whiskeys are okay for
> > occasional sipping but to my taste none are something I'd want to sip
> > all night.
>
> Whiskey and other liquors are not really for sipping all night....
> unless a person is setting out to get drunk.

No adult beverage is for sipping all night unless you want to get
drunk.

Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>
> I argue that it is more patriotic to wipe one's ass on a flag made in one's
> own country than to proudly wave a flag that is imported.

Rebel without a cause. Time to grow up and move on, Bryan.

Bruce wrote:
>
> Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
> >
> >I argue that it is more patriotic to wipe one's ass on a flag made in one's
> >own country than to proudly wave a flag that is imported.
>
> Someone should introduce you to toilet paper.

Seriously!

On 6/17/2015 2:54 PM, Gary wrote:
> Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>>
>> I argue that it is more patriotic to wipe one's ass on a flag made in one's
>> own country than to proudly wave a flag that is imported.
>
> Rebel without a cause. Time to grow up and move on, Bryan.
>
Luck with dat!

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 19:31:08 -0500, John Kuthe >
wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:00:18 +1000, Jeßus
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 09:53:31 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:49:11 -0700 (PDT), Bryan-TGWWW
> wrote:
>>>>Whiskey is repulsive tasting to lots of folks. The only liquor that I
>>>>find inoffensive (except neutral vodka of course) is tequila, and then
>>>>only in light concentrations.
>>>
>>>It took me many years, but I like whiskey these days.
>>
>>Same here. Never liked it in my younger days, now I do. Whiskey and
>>bourbon are the only spirits I enjoy drinking straight (don't like
>>coke, etc.).
>
>Bourbon is my poison of choice! Best I ever had was Pappy Van Winkle's
>15 year old reserve, which was amazing!
>
>Maker's Mark is my go-to bourbon of choice. I tried Maker's Mark Cask
>Strength recently, it's like 120.2 proof or something, but stupidly
>expensive. I'll never buy it again. Not worth the $$ IMHO. Regular
>Maker's is almost getting prohibitively expensive.

IMO most affordable bourbons are very overrated. I make my own bourbon
these days. If I read or somebody told me that, I would expect it not
to be very good at all but how I make it is resulting in bourbon that
is very good just after 9 months. In fact, as good, if not better than
commonly available bourbons like Jacks or Jim Beam. I make the ethanol
(or moonshine, whiskey - call it what you want) and age it in used oak
barrels previously used for red wine. I have around 200 litres put
away to age for as many years as is possible. Periodically I make a
new batch to add to the stockpile, so it's always topped up.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:33:48 +1000, Bruce > wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:00:18 +1000, Jeßus
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 09:53:31 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:49:11 -0700 (PDT), Bryan-TGWWW
> wrote:
>>>>Whiskey is repulsive tasting to lots of folks. The only liquor that I
>>>>find inoffensive (except neutral vodka of course) is tequila, and then
>>>>only in light concentrations.
>>>
>>>It took me many years, but I like whiskey these days.
>>
>>Same here. Never liked it in my younger days, now I do. Whiskey and
>>bourbon are the only spirits I enjoy drinking straight (don't like
>>coke, etc.).
>
>I only ever add ice to whiskey. With bourbon, I haven't had enough
>practice to learn to like it.

I'd add ice if I had it, but I don't go to the trouble of making ice.
I just drink it straight, it's usually cold here anyway.

I had some Johnny Walker the other day for the first time in years, I
thought it was bloody awful - it had that harsh, crude taste I dislike
about rum, which is something I wasn't expecting in a whiskey.

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:47:12 -0500, John Kuthe >
wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:40:33 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>>On 6/17/2015 10:41 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>>
>>> Jack Daniels is a fine Tennessee whiskey, but it is NOT a bourbon!
>>> Because it's not made in Kentucky!
>>>
>>How do you account for bourbon made in Colorado?
>>https://www.breckenridgedistillery.com/hooch/products/
>
>It's much like the rule that Champagne can only be made in the
>Champagne region of France.
>
>Made to be broken!

These regional rules have no validity and are essentially B.S.

On 6/17/2015 4:19 PM, wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:47:12 -0500, John Kuthe >
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:40:33 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/17/2015 10:41 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jack Daniels is a fine Tennessee whiskey, but it is NOT a bourbon!
>>>> Because it's not made in Kentucky!
>>>>
>>> How do you account for bourbon made in Colorado?
>>> https://www.breckenridgedistillery.com/hooch/products/
>>
>> It's much like the rule that Champagne can only be made in the
>> Champagne region of France.
>>
>> Made to be broken!
>
> These regional rules have no validity and are essentially B.S.

That's a lie - it's call trademarking your brand.

Look it up.

Sound legal precept.

On 6/17/2015 4:13 PM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:05:18 -0600, La Mirada > wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/2015 10:54 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 6/17/2015 12:51 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 06:47:01 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2015-06-16 8:37 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I like vodka but I think gin is fairly neutral too...
>>>>>
>>>>> Gin is neutral????
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> makes a great
>>>>>> light warm weather bevrage with tonic. Some whiskeys are okay for
>>>>>> occasional sipping but to my taste none are something I'd want to sip
>>>>>> all night.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whiskey and other liquors are not really for sipping all night....
>>>>> unless a person is setting out to get drunk.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on ones definition of sipping... I can sip scotch for several
>>>> hours and not get drunk... anyone looking to get loaded is not going
>>>> to sip, they will guzzle.
>>>>
>>> Is that when you were "sipping" vodka and calling me several times a day?
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> Well now, so you two were once an item?
>>
>> Heavens.
>
> That's what she got for being nice to him. No good deed goes
> unpunished.
>
I didn't have a problem with being nice to him. Still don't, although
he's getting more petulant as time goes on. He was actually very nice
on the phone. I had a problem with the constant phone calls. When I
say I don't like to talk on the phone, I really mean it.

Jill

On 6/17/2015 5:50 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:54:32 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
>> Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
>>>
>>> I argue that it is more patriotic to wipe one's ass on a flag made in one's
>>> own country than to proudly wave a flag that is imported.
>>
>> Rebel without a cause. Time to grow up and move on, Bryan.
>
> It must be a midlife thing. He tries to stay young by pretending that
> he still believes in his old ideas. In reality, he's been assimilated
> and complies with everything establishment wants from him.
>
Hey, you got one right!

On 2015-06-17, Jeßus > wrote:

> commonly available bourbons like Jacks or Jim Beam.

Jack is NOT a Bourbon and Jim Beam is the nastiest Bourbon on the
planet! I almost blew chunks over Denver when given a highball made
with Jim Beam. I was gonna say, it's even worse than Evan Williams,
but then realized the folly of such a statement. I usta drink Wild
Turkey. That's as low as I go.

nb

On 2015-06-17, Jeßus > wrote:

> These regional rules have no validity and are essentially B.S.

Oh yeah!?

Try naming yer whiskey, Scotch, and see how long you can get away with
that nonsense.

nb

On 18 Jun 2015 00:12:54 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2015-06-17, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> commonly available bourbons like Jacks or Jim Beam.
>
>Jack is NOT a Bourbon and Jim Beam is the nastiest Bourbon on the
>planet!

Yes yes yes... sigh. So what? I'm not obsessed with my whiskeys and
bourbons to that degree.

>I almost blew chunks over Denver when given a highball made
>with Jim Beam. I was gonna say, it's even worse than Evan Williams,
>but then realized the folly of such a statement.

I'm not a big fan of Beam myself, but I only mention it as it's so
ubiquitous.

>I usta drink Wild Turkey. That's as low as I go.

Too sweet for me now, although I did drink it in my younger days as it
was exotic in Aus at the time and I was also a Hunter S Thompson
fan...

On 18 Jun 2015 00:15:37 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2015-06-17, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> These regional rules have no validity and are essentially B.S.
>
>Oh yeah!?

Yeah.

>Try naming yer whiskey, Scotch, and see how long you can get away with
>that nonsense.

Whiskey and scotch is commercially produced here in Tasmania, amongst
countless other places around the world. Does it not exist because of
'the rules'?

On 2015-06-18, Jeßus > wrote:

> Whiskey and scotch is commercially produced here in Tasmania, amongst
> countless other places around the world. Does it not exist because of
> 'the rules'?

You can call McDonalds food or shit Shinola, but that doesn't make it
so.

nb

On 18 Jun 2015 00:40:54 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2015-06-18, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> Whiskey and scotch is commercially produced here in Tasmania, amongst
>> countless other places around the world. Does it not exist because of
>> 'the rules'?
>
>You can call McDonalds food or shit Shinola, but that doesn't make it
>so.

<Today, you seem to want to steer discussions into other areas and
then argue about it. But anyway...>

Is there some mystical phenomenon related to geography that influences
quality in whiskey and bourbon? Really?? As a long time
brewer/distiller, I can appreciate regional differences in traditional
brewing, using local ingredients - but not in brewing the wash/mash
and then distilling. Would there be differences? Yes. But does that
automatically imply an inferior product? No, it doesnt.

I'd love to see you do some blind tasting tests...

I hope I never become so overzealous over spirits (I'm already bad
enough with coffee). I just know what I like, and that's good enough
for me. And I'll say it again, I make my own bourbon - I don't buy it
I was only making comparisons in my previous posts, not making
judgemental on what is 'authentic' or superior.

On 2015-06-18, Jeßus > wrote:

> Is there some mystical phenomenon related to geography that influences
> quality in whiskey and bourbon?

Yes. The peat in Scotland and the limestone water in Bourbon County KY.

> Really??

Would I lie?

http://wfpl.org/kentucky-limestone-w...sible-bourbon/

> I'd love to see you do some blind tasting tests...

Been there, wore out that t-shirt.

> And I'll say it again, I make my own bourbon....

I notice you do not capitalize Bourbon or even mrkt yer "bourbon".

nb --no longer drinks spirits

On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 11:09:38 AM UTC-5, La Mirada wrote:
> On 6/17/2015 5:44 AM, Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 6:16:06 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 04:12:07 -0700 (PDT), Bryan-TGWWW
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 8:43:15 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:08:33 -0700 (PDT), Bryan-TGWWW
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 6:53:33 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:49:11 -0700 (PDT), Bryan-TGWWW
> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 3:47:39 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:34:53 -0400, Gary > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Bryan-TGWWW wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Bruce wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Wine used as an intoxicating beverage, rather than purely for flavor,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can be cut some slack (...)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Only a wino would think like that.
> >>>>>>>>>> Hear that, Gary? He's calling you a wino.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Nah. No self respecting wino would mix his wine with diet coke.
> >>>>>>>>> Only *I* sunk to that level.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But did you only add the wine because you wanted the intoxicating
> >>>>>>>> effect? (If so, have you heard of whiskey?)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Whiskey is repulsive tasting to lots of folks. The only liquor that I
> >>>>>>> find inoffensive (except neutral vodka of course) is tequila, and then
> >>>>>>> only in light concentrations.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It took me many years, but I like whiskey these days.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I used to drink whiskey in my early/mid teens because it was easier for us
> >>>>> to procure than other alcohol. It is the only thing that I ever bought that
> >>>>> I *knew* was stolen. We chugged the stuff straight back in 8th and 9th grades.
> >>>>> Not surprising that I now have an aversion to even the smell of the stuff.
> >>>>
> >>>> I had to overcome something similar. That took about 30 years.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I would have happily paid significantly more for alcohol that was not tainted
> >>>>> by theft if I'd had the option, but unjust laws took away that option.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unjust laws made you do something unjust and unlawful and therefore it
> >>>> was ok. I need a lot of whiskey to think like that.
> >>>>
> >>> "Unlawful" meant zero to me as far as ethics went. Nixon had just resigned
> >>> in disgrace, the biggest pig, but only the biggest. The pig existed to prop
> >>> up a culture that I had contempt for. The pig busted you for weed. After
> >>> McCarthyism, Viet Nam and Kent State, I saw anyone who respected, rather than
> >>> merely feared the law, as at best a fool.
> >>
> >> Sounds like beat the assholes by becoming one.
> >>
> > One who takes a knife to a gunfight is likely to lose. I'm not stupid. I do
> > *fear* the law, but I don't respect it.
>
> Oh?
>
> So you don't respect the laws that protect against domestic violence?
>
> Nice.
>
Thinking of, and treating women as second class human beings is part of
*YOUR* culture, not mine. Conservative Americans had to be brought along
kicking and screaming to acceptance of empowering non-Whites, women and
non-heterosexuals.
>
> > There is one way, however, that I am like the pig. The pig places loyalty
> > to capitalism above loyalty to nation every time, and I place socialism
> > above loyalty to nation every time.
>
> Then you are un-American, every time.
>
Agreed. I stand with these folks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
>
> > I argue that it is more patriotic to wipe one's ass on a flag made in one's
> > own country than to proudly wave a flag that is imported.
>
> I submit that to fantasize such crass behavior makes you out to be a
> wreck of a human turd.

Yeah, the idea of waving an American flag made in China is pretty damned
offensive.

--Bryan

On 6/17/15 10:31 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 6/17/2015 9:00 AM, pltrgyst wrote:
>> On 6/17/15 12:46 AM, Cheryl wrote:
>>> ....Same with the small
>>> single glass sized bottles of good wine....
>>
>> But there are no such things.
>>
>> The smallest bottles produced by decent wineries are halves - 375 ml -
>> and those very rarely.
>
> How about the indecent ones? 187 ml (about 6 oz)
> Not fine wine, but good for cooking
>
> Sutter Home is one, but I've seen others in the "jug wine" category.

No "good" wine there, Ed.

-- Larry

On 6/17/15 11:40 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 6/17/2015 10:41 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>
> How do you account for bourbon made in Colorado?
> https://www.breckenridgedistillery.com/hooch/products/

It's not bourbon, which is why they don't use the term.

Stranahan's Colorado whiskey is quite decent, as well, but they're
careful to not call it "Scotch" -- or "whisky."

-- Larry

On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:30:34 -0400, pltrgyst > wrote:

> On 6/17/15 11:40 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 6/17/2015 10:41 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
> >
> > How do you account for bourbon made in Colorado?
> > https://www.breckenridgedistillery.com/hooch/products/
>
> It's not bourbon, which is why they don't use the term.
>
> Stranahan's Colorado whiskey is quite decent, as well, but they're
> careful to not call it "Scotch" -- or "whisky."
>
So which one is it copying? I'd hate to buy it if I wanted Scotch and
got Bourbon.


--

sf

On Thu, 18 Jun 2015 22:26:37 -0400, pltrgyst > wrote:

> On 6/17/15 10:31 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 6/17/2015 9:00 AM, pltrgyst wrote:
> >> On 6/17/15 12:46 AM, Cheryl wrote:
> >>> ....Same with the small
> >>> single glass sized bottles of good wine....
> >>
> >> But there are no such things.
> >>
> >> The smallest bottles produced by decent wineries are halves - 375 ml -
> >> and those very rarely.
> >
> > How about the indecent ones? 187 ml (about 6 oz)
> > Not fine wine, but good for cooking
> >
> > Sutter Home is one, but I've seen others in the "jug wine" category.
>
> No "good" wine there, Ed.
>

I like the Woodbridge brand (by Mondavi), but it's getting harder to
find.

--

sf

On 2015-06-19, pltrgyst > wrote:
> On 6/17/15 11:40 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>> How do you account for bourbon made in Colorado?
>> https://www.breckenridgedistillery.com/hooch/products/

> It's not bourbon, which is why they don't use the term.
>
> Stranahan's Colorado whiskey is quite decent, as well, but they're
> careful to not call it "Scotch" -- or "whisky."

Seems everyone is getting into the distilling game. Even Buena Vista,
CO, my closest small town (8mi, pop 2,500), has both a micro-brewery
and a micro-distillery.

http://www.deerhammer.com/contact.html

All kindsa brands, from CO micro-distilleries, are offered at our
local liquor stores. Everything from vodkas to whisky's. I had some
locally distilled vodka, last night. First time I ever drank straight
vodka on the rocks. Surprisingly good.

nb

On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 11:14:40 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 7:53:09 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > Our local seafood store had dry pack sea scallops so I picked up a
> > pound of them for dinner. The supermarket had a bag of small
> > potatoes, yellow, red, purple that just looked good. In the end, they
> > don't taste any different than the big ones, but they do look good on
> > the plate.
> >
> > We had:
> > sea scallops with orange butter sauce
> > potatoes
> > garden salad with local lettuces
> > naan bread (heated over the flame on the stove)
> > sauvignon blanc wine
> >
> > For the two of us, this would have been easily a $100 meal for two at
> > a fancy restaurant.
> >
> > The orange butter sauce I've made often. Sear the scallops in a pan
> > with a generous helping of butter. When cooked, plate the scallops. To
> > the pan, add a bit more butter if needed. Add a tablespoon of frozen
> > orange juice concentrate and a big splash of your favorite orange
> > liquor. Deglaze the pan, reduce a bit, and pour over the scallops.
> >
> > At dinner time is was about 75 degrees on the deck. Nice evening.
>
> Sounds good, Ed!
>
> I always keep a (small) can of frozen orange juice concentrate in the
> freezer as a "staple" for applications like yours. Ditto with frozen
> apple juice concentrate. I never actually make orange or apple juice
> from them :-).
>
> --
> Silvar Beitel

What do you do with the rest? Or do you just slice off what you need and stick the rest back in the freezer?

I buy those small six packs of apple juice, meant for kids to take to school, for my supply of apple juice. Ditto on tomato juice.