On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 08:06:56 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

> You must have been skipping a lot of posts.

I have a big kill file.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

sf wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 08:06:56 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> You must have been skipping a lot of posts.
>
> I have a big kill file.
>

....and often a very limited intellect.

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote
> I think it should
> be illegal for anyone in a vehicle to be drinking alcohol, even if the
> vehicle is parked, eventually it's gonna move. Should be no alcohol
> inside a vehicle except in the trunk... I see nothing wrong with
> transporting beer in the back of a pick up, so long as there's none in
> the cab.

The last go-around here was knocked down because it would be considered
racist. Seem that some ethnic people in the big cities like to socialize by
sitting in their cars with friends drinking. It would be wrong to deny that
group of people that privilege.

On 2011-08-09, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> The last go-around here was knocked down because it would be considered
> racist. Seem that some ethnic people in the big cities like to socialize by
> sitting in their cars with friends drinking. It would be wrong to deny that
> group of people that privilege.

Seems like it would be just as racist to allow something potentially
dangerous because of one ethnic group's customs. Wherever I've lived,
it was illegal for everyone.

nb

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2011-08-09, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>> The last go-around here was knocked down because it would be considered
>> racist. Seem that some ethnic people in the big cities like to socialize
>> by
>> sitting in their cars with friends drinking. It would be wrong to deny
>> that
>> group of people that privilege.
>
> Seems like it would be just as racist to allow something potentially
> dangerous because of one ethnic group's customs. Wherever I've lived,
> it was illegal for everyone.
>
> nb

I have to wonder if it really matters. Is there much difference between
having a few drinks in the house and then driving? Is it more of a danger
to have one beer while driving or have six in a bar and then get in your car
and drive? Still comes down to being responsible for your actions.

notbob > wrote:

>On 2011-08-09, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>> The last go-around here was knocked down because it would be considered
>> racist. Seem that some ethnic people in the big cities like to socialize by
>> sitting in their cars with friends drinking. It would be wrong to deny that
>> group of people that privilege.

>Seems like it would be just as racist to allow something potentially
>dangerous because of one ethnic group's customs. Wherever I've lived,
>it was illegal for everyone.

Speaking only about the U.S., DUI laws (among many other laws) are
de-facto racist due to selective enforcement. "Illegal for everyone"
is a joke.



S.

On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:39:29 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" >
wrote:
>
> "Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote
> > I think it should
> > be illegal for anyone in a vehicle to be drinking alcohol, even if the
> > vehicle is parked, eventually it's gonna move. Should be no alcohol
> > inside a vehicle except in the trunk... I see nothing wrong with
> > transporting beer in the back of a pick up, so long as there's none in
> > the cab.
>
> The last go-around here was knocked down because it would be considered
> racist. Seem that some ethnic people in the big cities like to socialize by
> sitting in their cars with friends drinking. It would be wrong to deny that
> group of people that privilege.

Cars are for sissy's. Back in the day when I lived out in the
"woods".... *white* people did that under a tree (or in the
graveyard).

Sheesh. Those "ethnics" simply aren't acting like good, old fashioned
*Americans*. Are you going to let your son or daughter associate with
people like that? H*ll NO - sic the cops on them.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 03:30:40 +0000 (UTC), (Steve
Pope) wrote:

> "Illegal for everyone" is a joke.

Much agreement with that and it doesn't even have to be racial, but
profiling definitely does (hopefully *did*) abound.


--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

"sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:39:29 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" >
> wrote:
>>
>> "Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote
>> > I think it should
>> > be illegal for anyone in a vehicle to be drinking alcohol, even if the
>> > vehicle is parked, eventually it's gonna move.
>>
>> The last go-around here was knocked down because it would be considered
>> racist. Seem that some ethnic people in the big cities like to socialize
>> by
>> sitting in their cars with friends drinking. It would be wrong to deny
>> that
>> group of people that privilege.
>
> Cars are for sissy's. Back in the day when I lived out in the
> "woods".... *white* people did that under a tree (or in the
> graveyard).
>
> Sheesh. Those "ethnics" simply aren't acting like good, old fashioned
> *Americans*. Are you going to let your son or daughter associate with
> people like that? H*ll NO - sic the cops on them.

They sit in cars because often they have no place else. If you are living
14 to an apartment, it's the car or the park and the park is illegal and may
be full of druggies.

On 08/08/2011 11:22 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>
> I have to wonder if it really matters. Is there much difference between
> having a few drinks in the house and then driving? Is it more of a
> danger to have one beer while driving or have six in a bar and then get
> in your car and drive? Still comes down to being responsible for your
> actions.

It could be a matter of the law makers being so straight laced that they
just don't want you to have any fun. I used to work with a straight
laced non drinker. He once talked about some guy being an alcoholic
because he has two beers at an evening function.

One reason for banning drinking while driving or having open alcohol
containers in vehicles is to facilitate the enforcement of impaired
driving law. They don't have to prove that you are drunk or to have a
breathalyzer reading to get a conviction. It also discourages people
from having that one, that might lead to two, that might lead to a third....


I certainly don't advocate drinking and driving, but things are getting
ridiculous with decreasing allowable BAC. Having a drink or two does
not necessarily make you impaired. There are a lot of other things that
impair driving ability; illness, medications, age, stress, injuries.
The people with the highest rates of accident for distance driven are
the elderly. If he have a one drink limit or zero tolerance, it is
perfectly reasonable to ban the elderly from driving. And then there
are cell phones, a distraction that makes drivers as bad as drunks.

On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 03:30:40 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

> notbob > wrote:
>
>>On 2011-08-09, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>>> The last go-around here was knocked down because it would be considered
>>> racist. Seem that some ethnic people in the big cities like to socialize by
>>> sitting in their cars with friends drinking. It would be wrong to deny that
>>> group of people that privilege.
>
>>Seems like it would be just as racist to allow something potentially
>>dangerous because of one ethnic group's customs. Wherever I've lived,
>>it was illegal for everyone.
>
> Speaking only about the U.S., DUI laws (among many other laws) are
> de-facto racist due to selective enforcement. "Illegal for everyone"
> is a joke.
>
> S.

maybe you've heard of The War on (Certain People Using Some) Drugs?

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:39:29 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote
>> I think it should
>> be illegal for anyone in a vehicle to be drinking alcohol, even if the
>> vehicle is parked, eventually it's gonna move. Should be no alcohol
>> inside a vehicle except in the trunk... I see nothing wrong with
>> transporting beer in the back of a pick up, so long as there's none in
>> the cab.
>
>The last go-around here was knocked down because it would be considered
>racist. Seem that some ethnic people in the big cities like to socialize by
>sitting in their cars with friends drinking. It would be wrong to deny that
>group of people that privilege.

Porch monkeys came in all ethnicities and live everywhere... but drunk
is drunk and if the vehicle is on public property it's public
intoxication. Let them drink in their vehicles while parked in their
own garage... hopefully they'll close the garage door and let the
motor run.

sf wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 22:42:21 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:54:42 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps I should look for it the next time I am in
>>>> Connecticut or New York--maybe this October.
>>> Why?
>>>
>> For experiments. I want to replicate old formulae but not start
>> absolutely from scratch.
>
> What old formulae? For getting drunk fast?
>
No. I am curious about archaic flavorings and also liqueurs that
could be used in cooking.

--
Jean B.

Giusi wrote:
> "sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>>> jesus. can't you get some more than decent booze at that price? not
>>> paint
>>> remover?
>>>
>> My sentiments too. They're lucky not to end up with alcohol
>> poisoning. I haven't ever seen it and have only read about it here in
>> rfc. What's the point? It always sounds to me like it's a bunch of
>> stupid science students getting as drunk as possible as fast as
>> possible. Now they're bragging about pickling their livers? They're
>> still as immature as when they were in college.
>
> But the original post is about alcohol used to make things. If you use 95%
> pure alcohol, then to get to an 80 proof or 100 proof finished product, you
> have more latitude. I keep carefulk track of what I have added and how it
> affected the proof and when it is balanced in tatse, I add mineral water to
> bring it to final proof. Meantime, you can dilute with juices, syrups,
> spices, solids, whatever.
>
>
Erm, you are soooo ahead of me, Giusi!

--
Jean B.

Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:43:46 +0200, "Giusi" > wrote:
>>
>>> "sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>>>>> jesus. can't you get some more than decent booze at that price? not
>>>>> paint
>>>>> remover?
>>>>>
>>>> My sentiments too. They're lucky not to end up with alcohol
>>>> poisoning. I haven't ever seen it and have only read about it here in
>>>> rfc. What's the point? It always sounds to me like it's a bunch of
>>>> stupid science students getting as drunk as possible as fast as
>>>> possible. Now they're bragging about pickling their livers? They're
>>>> still as immature as when they were in college.
>>> But the original post is about alcohol used to make things. If you use 95%
>>> pure alcohol, then to get to an 80 proof or 100 proof finished product, you
>>> have more latitude. I keep carefulk track of what I have added and how it
>>> affected the proof and when it is balanced in tatse, I add mineral water to
>>> bring it to final proof. Meantime, you can dilute with juices, syrups,
>>> spices, solids, whatever.
>>>
>> So far that part of the conversation hasn't happened. It's only a few
>> people reminiscing about their college days and Everclear.
>
> You must have been skipping a lot of posts.
>
> In addition, there have been a lot of threads in this group over the
> years about limoncello, which I remember you participating in. A big
> part of that discussion was about what kind of alchohol to use in making
> it, whether you needed something with the strength of Everclear, or
> whether an ordinary (in the US) 80 proof flavorless cheap vodka worked
> as well.
>
I clearly need to find old threads. I know people here and
elsewhere have spoken of making liqueurs and such--yes, usually
with vodka.

--
Jean B.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:24:14 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:

> No. I am curious about archaic flavorings and also liqueurs that
> could be used in cooking.

I forgot you participate in rec.food.historic too.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:27:05 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
> > In article >,
> > sf > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:43:46 +0200, "Giusi" > wrote:
> >>
> >>> "sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> >>>>> jesus. can't you get some more than decent booze at that price? not
> >>>>> paint
> >>>>> remover?
> >>>>>
> >>>> My sentiments too. They're lucky not to end up with alcohol
> >>>> poisoning. I haven't ever seen it and have only read about it here in
> >>>> rfc. What's the point? It always sounds to me like it's a bunch of
> >>>> stupid science students getting as drunk as possible as fast as
> >>>> possible. Now they're bragging about pickling their livers? They're
> >>>> still as immature as when they were in college.
> >>> But the original post is about alcohol used to make things. If you use 95%
> >>> pure alcohol, then to get to an 80 proof or 100 proof finished product, you
> >>> have more latitude. I keep carefulk track of what I have added and how it
> >>> affected the proof and when it is balanced in tatse, I add mineral water to
> >>> bring it to final proof. Meantime, you can dilute with juices, syrups,
> >>> spices, solids, whatever.
> >>>
> >> So far that part of the conversation hasn't happened. It's only a few
> >> people reminiscing about their college days and Everclear.
> >
> > You must have been skipping a lot of posts.
> >
> > In addition, there have been a lot of threads in this group over the
> > years about limoncello, which I remember you participating in. A big
> > part of that discussion was about what kind of alchohol to use in making
> > it, whether you needed something with the strength of Everclear, or
> > whether an ordinary (in the US) 80 proof flavorless cheap vodka worked
> > as well.
> >
> I clearly need to find old threads. I know people here and
> elsewhere have spoken of making liqueurs and such--yes, usually
> with vodka.

As far as I can tell, limoncello and any other liqueur will work just
fine with the 151.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

"sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio

> As far as I can tell, limoncello and any other liqueur will work just
> fine with the 151.

Yes, and the stronger it is, the shorter the macerating time.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:37:26 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 08:06:56 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
>>> You must have been skipping a lot of posts.
>>
>> I have a big kill file.
>>
>
>...and often a very limited intellect.

This is very true.

Lou

Jean B. wrote:
> sf wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 22:42:21 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>
>>> sf wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:54:42 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps I should look for it the next time I am in Connecticut or
>>>>> New York--maybe this October.
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>> For experiments. I want to replicate old formulae but not start
>>> absolutely from scratch.
>>
>> What old formulae? For getting drunk fast?
>>
> No. I am curious about archaic flavorings and also liqueurs that could
> be used in cooking.


There are plenty of trendy bars and cocktail lounges that specialize in
making their own liqueurs and such.
Here is a favorite place of Michael Ruhlman-
http://ruhlman.com/2007/08/the-best-bar-in/

Giusi wrote:
> "sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>
>> As far as I can tell, limoncello and any other liqueur will work just
>> fine with the 151.
>
> Yes, and the stronger it is, the shorter the macerating time.
>
I've done it with grain alcohol and found it scary strong and kinda
harsh, yet with 100 proof vodka it isn't. I know y'all use pure grain
alcohol in Italy, but I personally prefer the vodka. I always macerate
with 100 proof, and usually cut it with 100 proof also, but have been
known to use 80 proof to cut it with on odd occasion. Its all good

On Aug 4, 6:54*am, "ViLco" > wrote:
> Paul M. Cook wrote:
> >>> OK, but if you really want to nitpick, aquavit is made from a lot of
> >>> ingredients one of which is pre-distilled wine.
> >> Distillation of pre-distilled wine? If it's distilled then it's no
> >> more wine.
> > Nonetheless that is an ingredient.
>
> "OK, but if you really want to nitpick", we're talking about *spirit of
> wine*
>
> > Actually the ingredient is grappa
>
> Wrong, you never heard about double distillation: it is used in lots of
> liquors, brandy included, not just grappa.
> --
> ViLco
> Let the liquor do the thinking

I just got back from a 12 day trip from Italy, and I brought back a
giant bottle of Grappa, along with 2 bottles of Trentino Marzimeno,
400 grams of polenta, a box of arborio, and a sack of 00 flour. I
can't believe we ate & drank like we did, and lost weight to boot!

sf wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:24:14 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> No. I am curious about archaic flavorings and also liqueurs that
>> could be used in cooking.
>
> I forgot you participate in rec.food.historic too.
>
I would do so more just to keep it alive, but I don't want to bore
people.

--
Jean B.

sf wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:27:05 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> sf > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 09:43:46 +0200, "Giusi" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>>>>>>> jesus. can't you get some more than decent booze at that price? not
>>>>>>> paint
>>>>>>> remover?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> My sentiments too. They're lucky not to end up with alcohol
>>>>>> poisoning. I haven't ever seen it and have only read about it here in
>>>>>> rfc. What's the point? It always sounds to me like it's a bunch of
>>>>>> stupid science students getting as drunk as possible as fast as
>>>>>> possible. Now they're bragging about pickling their livers? They're
>>>>>> still as immature as when they were in college.
>>>>> But the original post is about alcohol used to make things. If you use 95%
>>>>> pure alcohol, then to get to an 80 proof or 100 proof finished product, you
>>>>> have more latitude. I keep carefulk track of what I have added and how it
>>>>> affected the proof and when it is balanced in tatse, I add mineral water to
>>>>> bring it to final proof. Meantime, you can dilute with juices, syrups,
>>>>> spices, solids, whatever.
>>>>>
>>>> So far that part of the conversation hasn't happened. It's only a few
>>>> people reminiscing about their college days and Everclear.
>>> You must have been skipping a lot of posts.
>>>
>>> In addition, there have been a lot of threads in this group over the
>>> years about limoncello, which I remember you participating in. A big
>>> part of that discussion was about what kind of alchohol to use in making
>>> it, whether you needed something with the strength of Everclear, or
>>> whether an ordinary (in the US) 80 proof flavorless cheap vodka worked
>>> as well.
>>>
>> I clearly need to find old threads. I know people here and
>> elsewhere have spoken of making liqueurs and such--yes, usually
>> with vodka.
>
> As far as I can tell, limoncello and any other liqueur will work just
> fine with the 151.
>
?151? See my knowledge can be written on the head, er, point, of
a pin.

--
Jean B.

Goomba wrote:
> Jean B. wrote:
>> sf wrote:
>>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 22:42:21 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>>
>>>> sf wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:54:42 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps I should look for it the next time I am in Connecticut or
>>>>>> New York--maybe this October.
>>>>> Why?
>>>>>
>>>> For experiments. I want to replicate old formulae but not start
>>>> absolutely from scratch.
>>>
>>> What old formulae? For getting drunk fast?
>>>
>> No. I am curious about archaic flavorings and also liqueurs that
>> could be used in cooking.
>
>
> There are plenty of trendy bars and cocktail lounges that specialize in
> making their own liqueurs and such.
> Here is a favorite place of Michael Ruhlman-
> http://ruhlman.com/2007/08/the-best-bar-in/
>

Oh, that's very interesting. I bet Ruhlman is exploring some of
the same tomes and ideas that I am. I need to spend some time on
that site. Thanks.

--
Jean B.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:58:27 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:

> sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:24:14 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
> >
> >> No. I am curious about archaic flavorings and also liqueurs that
> >> could be used in cooking.
> >
> > I forgot you participate in rec.food.historic too.
> >
> I would do so more just to keep it alive, but I don't want to bore
> people.

You should mention it in conversation occasionally because you never
know when someone here may have a question that's appropriate for that
group.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:59:14 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:

> ?151? See my knowledge can be written on the head, er, point, of
> a pin.

151 proof. I only knew it came in 151 (the highest proof that can be
sold in Calif) because I looked it up. I only knew about 151 rum up
to that point. Legal or not, I still have never seen Everclear.
Nobody talks about it here either. I think it must be a Southern (or
maybe just Texas) thing.

When I finally get off the dime and attempt to make limoncello, I'll
go to BevMo and ask specifically for it because I think it's as close
as it gets to what I was told (by the Italians I spoke to) that they
use.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

Giusi > wrote:

>"sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio

>> As far as I can tell, limoncello and any other liqueur will work just
>> fine with the 151.

>Yes, and the stronger it is, the shorter the macerating time.

I would be disinclined to use 151... you don't want limoncello that
tastes of rum. At least not typically.

The 151 can go into the baba however.


Steve

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 05:15:39 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Giusi > wrote:
>
> >"sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>
> >> As far as I can tell, limoncello and any other liqueur will work just
> >> fine with the 151.
>
> >Yes, and the stronger it is, the shorter the macerating time.
>
> I would be disinclined to use 151... you don't want limoncello that
> tastes of rum. At least not typically.
>
> The 151 can go into the baba however.
>
I don't know if you're joking or serious, Steve!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evercle...l%29#151-proof

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

sf > wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 05:15:39 +0000 (UTC),

>> I would be disinclined to use 151... you don't want limoncello that
>> tastes of rum. At least not typically.
>>
>> The 151 can go into the baba however.
>>
> I don't know if you're joking or serious, Steve!
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evercle...l%29#151-proof

I didn't realize there was 151 proof everclear. To me, "151"
means Bacardi rum of that proof.

Steve

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 05:41:06 +0000 (UTC),
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> sf > wrote:
> >On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 05:15:39 +0000 (UTC),
>
> >> I would be disinclined to use 151... you don't want limoncello that
> >> tastes of rum. At least not typically.
> >>
> >> The 151 can go into the baba however.
> >>
> > I don't know if you're joking or serious, Steve!
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evercle...l%29#151-proof
>
> I didn't realize there was 151 proof everclear. To me, "151"
> means Bacardi rum of that proof.
>
Don't feel bad. I used to associate 151 with rum too. I only knew
about Everclear 151 because I looked it up a couple of days ago.


--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

"merryb" > ha scritto nel messaggio

I just got back from a 12 day trip from Italy, and I brought back a
giant bottle of Grappa, along with 2 bottles of Trentino Marzimeno,
400 grams of polenta, a box of arborio, and a sack of 00 flour. I
can't believe we ate & drank like we did, and lost weight to boot!

Odd list that.
I cannot think how we managed to let you leave without at least 5 pounds
extra.

merryb wrote:

> I just got back from a 12 day trip from Italy, and I brought back a
> giant bottle of Grappa, along with 2 bottles of Trentino Marzimeno,

I love marzemino, it's smoothness is hardly equalled

> 400 grams of polenta, a box of arborio, and a sack of 00 flour. I
> can't believe we ate & drank like we did, and lost weight to boot!

Arborio, along with carnaroli, is my favorite rice.
Happy for your fitness
--
ViLco
Let the liquor do the thinking

sf wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:58:27 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:24:14 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>>>
>>>> No. I am curious about archaic flavorings and also liqueurs that
>>>> could be used in cooking.
>>> I forgot you participate in rec.food.historic too.
>>>
>> I would do so more just to keep it alive, but I don't want to bore
>> people.
>
> You should mention it in conversation occasionally because you never
> know when someone here may have a question that's appropriate for that
> group.
>
You just did!

--
Jean B.

sf wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:59:14 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> ?151? See my knowledge can be written on the head, er, point, of
>> a pin.
>
> 151 proof. I only knew it came in 151 (the highest proof that can be
> sold in Calif) because I looked it up. I only knew about 151 rum up
> to that point. Legal or not, I still have never seen Everclear.
> Nobody talks about it here either. I think it must be a Southern (or
> maybe just Texas) thing.
>
> When I finally get off the dime and attempt to make limoncello, I'll
> go to BevMo and ask specifically for it because I think it's as close
> as it gets to what I was told (by the Italians I spoke to) that they
> use.
>
I remember mentions of Everclear because the name reminds me of
prepping for a... you know.

--
Jean B.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:32:38 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:

> I remember mentions of Everclear because the name reminds me of
> prepping for a... you know.

I still don't know.... OH! <thud> Laugh! DUH.... feeling stupid.
My mind is Everclear.

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:31:26 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:

> sf wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:58:27 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
> >
> >> sf wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:24:14 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> No. I am curious about archaic flavorings and also liqueurs that
> >>>> could be used in cooking.
> >>> I forgot you participate in rec.food.historic too.
> >>>
> >> I would do so more just to keep it alive, but I don't want to bore
> >> people.
> >
> > You should mention it in conversation occasionally because you never
> > know when someone here may have a question that's appropriate for that
> > group.
> >
> You just did!

You meant to say: "*I* (meaning you) just did.... yeah-but, do it more
often - silly!

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila.

sf wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:32:38 -0400, "Jean B." > wrote:
>
>> I remember mentions of Everclear because the name reminds me of
>> prepping for a... you know.
>
> I still don't know.... OH! <thud> Laugh! DUH.... feeling stupid.
> My mind is Everclear.
>
No, that's MY mind when it comes to computers....

--
Jean B.