Jump to content
Brooks

New Yorker piece

Recommended Posts

Just picked up the issue, have yet to read the article, but it looks good. Most of those who read it probably won't know anything about absinthe and the New Yorker reaches a good number of people. An article like this can only be helpful, especially since it puts a lot of the bullshit to bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem is that many of the morons who buy into the the thujone/fire ritual hype aren't likely to read the New Yorker.

 

Still, it's definitely a great piece of publicity for our much abused Green Lady.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I read it the other day, forgot to mention it. It's extremely thorough, well written and gives a nice insight to the distillation process which most people are ignorant of. One of my co-workers read it on their own without my prodding, mentioned it to me and it seemed that it effectively convinced them Absinthe was good, intriguing and worth legalizing, so I say mission accomplished.

It even had one high falootin word from Oxy which I had never heard before and had to look it up:

"coelacanth"

 

I'd rather have Ted be the mouthpiece than most other commercial distillers out there, regardless of whether he stands to profit from it. I've also had three other people mention to me that they'd seen the Wired article or the G4 show and all came away with distinctly positive impressions of Absinthe and were eager to learn more and even buy some (in two cases their choice was not Jade due to the price, so I suppose Ted is doing other distillers a favour too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It even had one high falootin word from Oxy which I had never heard before and had to look it up:

"coelacanth"

 

 

 

As your resident geologist I can state that a coelacanth is a lobed fin fish. It was thought to be exstinct - known only from fossils - until one was caught off South Africa. I think that was in the the early 1950s. The fish is significant because it is a missing link between fish and amphibians.

 

Nice analogy by Oxy.

 

:cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Gatsby thought that we needed to be told what a coelacanth is, I expect that he would have included that information in his post.

 

Thanks so much for the learned exegesis.

 

By the way. . .The year was 1938, not "in the early 50's".

 

 

And I'm fine, thanks for asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't wait to read this article, and see what it has to say. I would like to think I am already a good way through the learning curve, just by spending some time on this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I was a little kid, I wanted to grow up to be a paleontologist. Not a fireman, a paleontologist.

Same here. But hey, at least you got to do Winnie the Pooh plates. Something like that would have been second on my list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Gatsby thought that we needed to be told what a coelacanth is, I expect that he would have included that information in his post.

 

Thanks so much for the learned exegesis.

 

By the way. . .The year was 1938, not "in the early 50's".

 

 

And I'm fine, thanks for asking.

 

You're under no obligation to read my posts. But you did. And in the future don't truncate quotes to fit your arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Gatsby thought that we needed to be told what a coelacanth is, I expect that he would have included that information in his post.

 

Thanks so much for the learned exegesis.

 

By the way. . .The year was 1938, not "in the early 50's".

 

 

And I'm fine, thanks for asking.

 

Your under no obligation to read my posts. But you did. And in the future don't truncate quotes to fit your arguments.

 

 

I rarely "cut and paste", as I learned to type long before Mr.Gore invented the Internet. I quoted you exactly. Perhaps you were just startled to see your own words bracketed by mere quotation marks.

 

It could cause you to think about what you said. It could cause you to review the actual words you used and, (God forfend) manually compare your original remark to the accurate quotation.

 

If it caused you to do any of these things, then it was a refreshing pause for us all and my mission was accomplished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:laf:

 

It's always hard to tell how serious someone is in forum remarks, or whether there's just lighthearted parrying going on.

 

Reminds me of my cousin and I... I'm the "runt" of the family at 6'2" and 260; he's 6'8" and 310 (most of the males in my family are 6'4" to 6'9", and built like a defensive line.) He plays a lot of pool (billiards); when we'd run into one another at a bar or pool hall, we always had a fun way to scare the hell out of our friends, who usually didn't know one another... pretend to pick a fight, get it just escalated enough inside of thirty seconds to make our friends (generally a peaceful group, like us) worried they were going to see a deathmatch between the two biggest guys in the place, then grin and give each other a big bear hug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×