From Washington where lives Bill Gates

Arrives the news the world awaits.

The end of alcohol abuse

Because to drink would be no use.



For potables lose potency

When placed in kegs at your brewery.

The alcohol's sucked in by wood

So proof declines, and that is good.



Go crush the grape and let ferment,

Cellar 'til the booze is spent.

Intoxicate the charred white oak

Leave water for the drinking bloke.



Bid bourbon, vodka, scotch farewell

You'll not distill them, for to tell

The water leaves the mash right quick

When ethanol is mixed in thick.



No more the e'er more potent vapor

Rewards the hidden moonshine maker

No richer now for all his toil

The liquid dripping from the coil.



No spouse abuse, no drunken driver

Might as well drink from the river.

No rehab or intoximeter

How could life become much better.



You can't store it or distill it

Take your plastic tub and fill it

With the last of high per cent

There'll be no more once it's spent.



Bid good-bye to everclear

Say hello to three-two beer

Aged in glass instead of beech wood

High in **** and low in feel good.



Thanks to Dave in Washington

All the alcohol is gone.

George wrote:
From Washington where lives Bill Gates

Arrives the news the world awaits.
High in **** and low in feel good.


* SNIP of cutesy OT post *


Thanks to Dave in Washington

All the alcohol is gone.


Nice on topic post. Was there a woodworking point to this?

Robert

Good one, George. A bitter dose for some, an acquired taste for others,
but temperance rules for all. "In Doggerel, Veritas" sung to the tune
of "How Dry I Am". 'Three point two Near Beer' was the original light,
not home brew with the heavy crud in the bottom of the bottle. I've
often wondered why we never turn booze cask staves. Now I know...too
dry! I await our laureate's next opus on turning slowly with a soft
touch.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

wrote in message
oups.com...

George wrote:
From Washington where lives Bill Gates

Arrives the news the world awaits.
High in **** and low in feel good.


* SNIP of cutesy OT post *


Thanks to Dave in Washington

All the alcohol is gone.


Nice on topic post. Was there a woodworking point to this?


Only to people who can think.

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 07:20:49 -0400, "George" George@least wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

Nice on topic post. Was there a woodworking point to this?

No, it was satirical list point he was making. Wasn't about turning,
just about flaming.


Only to people who can think.

You know, George- it was almost amusing. What I can't figure out is
why the discussion of an aspiring amateur making a study of something
is so threatening to you that you have to apply such single-minded
devotion to panning his efforts.

You may or may not have raised valid points- I don't have the training
to evaluate your assertions regarding acceptable sample sizes,
statistical calculations or chemical bonding and dillution, and would
merely expose my own ignorance in an attempt to do so.

But regardless of this, it is apparent to those "who can think" that
comparing two samples, one as a control and one as a test subject is
the most rudimentary frame of scientific inquiry. All the *truths*
that you hold so tightly were derived by someone observing an effect
first, and then applying a systematic approach to uncovering the
cause. When something fits the bill well enough that one can no
longer disprove the theory with the available instruments, it becomes
accepted- but that does not make it true, it simply makes it valid and
useful, at least for a time.

Many useful things have been discovered by talented and devoted
amateurs who have ignored the impossible in favor of their gut
feeling- men tried to fly for millenium, until a pair of bicycle
repairmen turned the impossible on it's ear. And that is only one
example- and unlikely to be even the best or most important.

Now, it sounds as though you've had some training, and possibly even
work in the field you're so positive about- but there are cases
without number of mechanics in lab settings who lack the inspiration
to challenge the assertions handed them by their superiors. Sometimes
that is required to make an organization function properly, but it is
also a glass ceiling on innovation.

You may *know* that alcohol cannot dry wood. The OP doesn't *know*
that, and is willing to put some effort towards finding out- for that,
he is to be commended. To compose satirical doggerel for the sake of
attempting to stifle not only a possible innovation, but (and I see
this as the root of what you are about in this case) as an attempt to
cow another into meekly accepting the idea that they are unable to
innovate or create any object or idea which has not been handed them
from the tressleboards of some unknown and distant experts as a weak
and contemptable act of cowardice.

So what is it you fear from this man? If his attempts at scientific
inquiry are so simple-minded that they deserve your scorn, then it
should be easy enough for you to dismiss them out of hand- rather than
resorting to character assasination from afar. He's using his wood
and his alcohol on his own time- and he even had the character to
publicly post and display his inconclusive results when they did not
reinforce his theory without attempting to color the results to show
them in a more favorable light. Nothing about that harms you, and his
data seems even to help your argument.

Now the corporate statistics and techniques (which you would appear to
advocate) on the other hand... Just how many designer drugs have been
yanked off the shelves in the past few years because someone in the
R&D department used skewed statistics to show how safe they were, and
then paid the FDA to accelerate the process of approving them? How
many products have been developed and installed into homes, only to be
removed by men in respirators and sealed tents because they are later
found to be toxic? Are these the sciences you hold in such high
esteem?

There is a deep and abiding virtue that is inherant in simplicity. A
simple test performed properly is transparent and can be evaluated by
many- it is within the reach of most to attempt and reproduce or
refute the results in their turnery or garage, and thus allows for the
most important principle of scientific discovery- peer review. You
could do innumerable tests with electron microscopes and
climate-controled vacuum chambers to come up with a result which you
could then hand to the rest of us in the form of a 500 page stack of
charts and numbers, and the great majority of turners would have to
simply accept or ignore your conclusions. But what would those
conclusions tell us? How a piece of wood responds in lab conditions-
I don't know about you, but my turnery in the basement isn't a lab.
To me, information on how a hunk of something soaked in a 5-gallon
bucket out in the shed turns out is a whole lot more useful.

So get off your high horse. I have read and enjoyed many of your
posts- just enough of them are of a quality that keeps me from tossing
you in the bit bucket, but then things like this keep coming out of
you. Everyone has bad days, to be sure- and there are many posts I
have made over the years that have made my ears burn with shame upon
further review because they were composed in ignorance, irritation or
drunkeness, but there is rarely an excuse for senseless antagonism or
hatred of the kind you vomit up here on a regular basis.

I'm not saying you're a bad guy, I just wish you'd cool off a bit
before you start ****ing in the pool. Like I said, we all do it once
in a while- but it shouldn't be the first resort.

Prometheus wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 07:20:49 -0400, "George" George@least wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...


Nice on topic post. Was there a woodworking point to this?


No, it was satirical list point he was making. Wasn't about turning,
just about flaming.


Only to people who can think.


You know, George- it was almost amusing. What I can't figure out is
why the discussion of an aspiring amateur making a study of something
is so threatening to you that you have to apply such single-minded
devotion to panning his efforts.

You may or may not have raised valid points- I don't have the training
to evaluate your assertions regarding acceptable sample sizes,
statistical calculations or chemical bonding and dillution, and would
merely expose my own ignorance in an attempt to do so.

But regardless of this, it is apparent to those "who can think" that
comparing two samples, one as a control and one as a test subject is
the most rudimentary frame of scientific inquiry. All the *truths*
that you hold so tightly were derived by someone observing an effect
first, and then applying a systematic approach to uncovering the
cause. When something fits the bill well enough that one can no
longer disprove the theory with the available instruments, it becomes
accepted- but that does not make it true, it simply makes it valid and
useful, at least for a time.

Many useful things have been discovered by talented and devoted
amateurs who have ignored the impossible in favor of their gut
feeling- men tried to fly for millenium, until a pair of bicycle
repairmen turned the impossible on it's ear. And that is only one
example- and unlikely to be even the best or most important.

Now, it sounds as though you've had some training, and possibly even
work in the field you're so positive about- but there are cases
without number of mechanics in lab settings who lack the inspiration
to challenge the assertions handed them by their superiors. Sometimes
that is required to make an organization function properly, but it is
also a glass ceiling on innovation.

You may *know* that alcohol cannot dry wood. The OP doesn't *know*
that, and is willing to put some effort towards finding out- for that,
he is to be commended. To compose satirical doggerel for the sake of
attempting to stifle not only a possible innovation, but (and I see
this as the root of what you are about in this case) as an attempt to
cow another into meekly accepting the idea that they are unable to
innovate or create any object or idea which has not been handed them
from the tressleboards of some unknown and distant experts as a weak
and contemptable act of cowardice.

So what is it you fear from this man? If his attempts at scientific
inquiry are so simple-minded that they deserve your scorn, then it
should be easy enough for you to dismiss them out of hand- rather than
resorting to character assasination from afar. He's using his wood
and his alcohol on his own time- and he even had the character to
publicly post and display his inconclusive results when they did not
reinforce his theory without attempting to color the results to show
them in a more favorable light. Nothing about that harms you, and his
data seems even to help your argument.

Now the corporate statistics and techniques (which you would appear to
advocate) on the other hand... Just how many designer drugs have been
yanked off the shelves in the past few years because someone in the
R&D department used skewed statistics to show how safe they were, and
then paid the FDA to accelerate the process of approving them? How
many products have been developed and installed into homes, only to be
removed by men in respirators and sealed tents because they are later
found to be toxic? Are these the sciences you hold in such high
esteem?

There is a deep and abiding virtue that is inherant in simplicity. A
simple test performed properly is transparent and can be evaluated by
many- it is within the reach of most to attempt and reproduce or
refute the results in their turnery or garage, and thus allows for the
most important principle of scientific discovery- peer review. You
could do innumerable tests with electron microscopes and
climate-controled vacuum chambers to come up with a result which you
could then hand to the rest of us in the form of a 500 page stack of
charts and numbers, and the great majority of turners would have to
simply accept or ignore your conclusions. But what would those
conclusions tell us? How a piece of wood responds in lab conditions-
I don't know about you, but my turnery in the basement isn't a lab.
To me, information on how a hunk of something soaked in a 5-gallon
bucket out in the shed turns out is a whole lot more useful.

So get off your high horse. I have read and enjoyed many of your
posts- just enough of them are of a quality that keeps me from tossing
you in the bit bucket, but then things like this keep coming out of
you. Everyone has bad days, to be sure- and there are many posts I
have made over the years that have made my ears burn with shame upon
further review because they were composed in ignorance, irritation or
drunkeness, but there is rarely an excuse for senseless antagonism or
hatred of the kind you vomit up here on a regular basis.

I'm not saying you're a bad guy, I just wish you'd cool off a bit
before you start ****ing in the pool. Like I said, we all do it once
in a while- but it shouldn't be the first resort.

Well Said.

Prometheus wrote in
:

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 07:20:49 -0400, "George" George@least wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...

Nice on topic post. Was there a woodworking point to this?

No, it was satirical list point he was making. Wasn't about turning,
just about flaming.


Only to people who can think.

You know, George- it was almost amusing. What I can't figure out is
why the discussion of an aspiring amateur making a study of something
is so threatening to you that you have to apply such single-minded
devotion to panning his efforts.

You may or may not have raised valid points- I don't have the training
to evaluate your assertions regarding acceptable sample sizes,
statistical calculations or chemical bonding and dillution, and would
merely expose my own ignorance in an attempt to do so.

But regardless of this, it is apparent to those "who can think" that
comparing two samples, one as a control and one as a test subject is
the most rudimentary frame of scientific inquiry. All the *truths*
that you hold so tightly were derived by someone observing an effect
first, and then applying a systematic approach to uncovering the
cause. When something fits the bill well enough that one can no
longer disprove the theory with the available instruments, it becomes
accepted- but that does not make it true, it simply makes it valid and
useful, at least for a time.

Many useful things have been discovered by talented and devoted
amateurs who have ignored the impossible in favor of their gut
feeling- men tried to fly for millenium, until a pair of bicycle
repairmen turned the impossible on it's ear. And that is only one
example- and unlikely to be even the best or most important.

Now, it sounds as though you've had some training, and possibly even
work in the field you're so positive about- but there are cases
without number of mechanics in lab settings who lack the inspiration
to challenge the assertions handed them by their superiors. Sometimes
that is required to make an organization function properly, but it is
also a glass ceiling on innovation.

You may *know* that alcohol cannot dry wood. The OP doesn't *know*
that, and is willing to put some effort towards finding out- for that,
he is to be commended. To compose satirical doggerel for the sake of
attempting to stifle not only a possible innovation, but (and I see
this as the root of what you are about in this case) as an attempt to
cow another into meekly accepting the idea that they are unable to
innovate or create any object or idea which has not been handed them
from the tressleboards of some unknown and distant experts as a weak
and contemptable act of cowardice.

So what is it you fear from this man? If his attempts at scientific
inquiry are so simple-minded that they deserve your scorn, then it
should be easy enough for you to dismiss them out of hand- rather than
resorting to character assasination from afar. He's using his wood
and his alcohol on his own time- and he even had the character to
publicly post and display his inconclusive results when they did not
reinforce his theory without attempting to color the results to show
them in a more favorable light. Nothing about that harms you, and his
data seems even to help your argument.

Now the corporate statistics and techniques (which you would appear to
advocate) on the other hand... Just how many designer drugs have been
yanked off the shelves in the past few years because someone in the
R&D department used skewed statistics to show how safe they were, and
then paid the FDA to accelerate the process of approving them? How
many products have been developed and installed into homes, only to be
removed by men in respirators and sealed tents because they are later
found to be toxic? Are these the sciences you hold in such high
esteem?

There is a deep and abiding virtue that is inherant in simplicity. A
simple test performed properly is transparent and can be evaluated by
many- it is within the reach of most to attempt and reproduce or
refute the results in their turnery or garage, and thus allows for the
most important principle of scientific discovery- peer review. You
could do innumerable tests with electron microscopes and
climate-controled vacuum chambers to come up with a result which you
could then hand to the rest of us in the form of a 500 page stack of
charts and numbers, and the great majority of turners would have to
simply accept or ignore your conclusions. But what would those
conclusions tell us? How a piece of wood responds in lab conditions-
I don't know about you, but my turnery in the basement isn't a lab.
To me, information on how a hunk of something soaked in a 5-gallon
bucket out in the shed turns out is a whole lot more useful.

So get off your high horse. I have read and enjoyed many of your
posts- just enough of them are of a quality that keeps me from tossing
you in the bit bucket, but then things like this keep coming out of
you. Everyone has bad days, to be sure- and there are many posts I
have made over the years that have made my ears burn with shame upon
further review because they were composed in ignorance, irritation or
drunkeness, but there is rarely an excuse for senseless antagonism or
hatred of the kind you vomit up here on a regular basis.

I'm not saying you're a bad guy, I just wish you'd cool off a bit
before you start ****ing in the pool. Like I said, we all do it once
in a while- but it shouldn't be the first resort.

I was with you until the "designer drugs" and paying off the FDA. You and
George don't differ by a whole lot; just in scope.
Hank

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...

You know, George- it was almost amusing. What I can't figure out is
why the discussion of an aspiring amateur making a study of something
is so threatening to you that you have to apply such single-minded
devotion to panning his efforts.

Are you thinking, or just panning?

I'm writing slowly so it can sink in. Read slowly.

IF we are to accept that the boys in the upper left have rewritten the laws
of physical chemistry, we have more than just "drying" to thank them for.

IF alcohol in aqueous solution causes more rapid water loss, distillation
becomes impossible.
Some people might consider that odd, given the alcohol for the process has
been produced by distillation, but it is a boon to society, because booze is
a curse. Concentrated booze is an abomination.

IF alcohol is selectively taken up by wood to "displace" water, then all the
vintners,brewers and distillers who continue to foolishly put their faith
and product in wood for storage will weaken it, taking the punch out of the
punch, and many a Saturday night fight. So let's not tell them the rules
have been changed, OK? Though no longer in the business, I thank the new
promulgators on behalf of everyone who's ever booked a drunk.

I thought I'd celebrate the end of intoxication in verse.

My couplets aren't as heroic as the man who said it, but you might want to
apply a touch of knowledge to the problem and lighten up.

IF alcohol in aqueous solution causes more rapid water loss, distillation
becomes impossible.

WHAT????????

My couplets aren't as heroic as the man who said it, but you might want to
apply a touch of knowledge to the problem and lighten up.

If only you would take your own advice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Henry St.Pierre wrote:

I was with you until the "designer drugs" and paying off the FDA. You and
George don't differ by a whole lot; just in scope.

Not so. The point was clear. Statistics are the last resort of weak
science. The point is that the drug industry, and indeed virtually all
of bio-merdical research, has become suspect and is rife with outright
fraud. Inconclusive and negative results are hidden and data points
are shaved to exclude "outliers" in order to get the desired result.
All this is statistical manipulation to produce a result rather than
elucidate the truth. Take a look at the book "How to Lie With
Statistics" by Darrell Huff to get a good overview of how numbers and
statistics are used in real life examples to obscure the truth or to
support outright lies. Follow the scientific literature for a while
and you will see author after author being caught in fraud. I've been
doing that for over 30 years in my career and having trained long and
hard as a scientist I find it extremely disgusting.

On 5 Jun 2006 06:02:23 -0700, "ebd" wrote:


Henry St.Pierre wrote:

I was with you until the "designer drugs" and paying off the FDA. You and
George don't differ by a whole lot; just in scope.

Not so. The point was clear. Statistics are the last resort of weak
science. The point is that the drug industry, and indeed virtually all
of bio-merdical research, has become suspect and is rife with outright
fraud. Inconclusive and negative results are hidden and data points
are shaved to exclude "outliers" in order to get the desired result.
All this is statistical manipulation to produce a result rather than
elucidate the truth. Take a look at the book "How to Lie With
Statistics" by Darrell Huff to get a good overview of how numbers and
statistics are used in real life examples to obscure the truth or to
support outright lies. Follow the scientific literature for a while
and you will see author after author being caught in fraud. I've been
doing that for over 30 years in my career and having trained long and
hard as a scientist I find it extremely disgusting.

Thanks, that's what I was getting at- not trying to set myself up as
an expert. I'd try not to be so verbose, but it takes a lot of words
to say something in an unambigous fashion, and even then it can still
be taken the wrong way.

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 08:04:41 -0400, "George" George@least wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message
.. .

You know, George- it was almost amusing. What I can't figure out is
why the discussion of an aspiring amateur making a study of something
is so threatening to you that you have to apply such single-minded
devotion to panning his efforts.

Are you thinking, or just panning?

I'd say I was thinking, but it's almost certain you'd disagree.

I'm writing slowly so it can sink in. Read slowly.

How's that work, exactly?- go on and write fast if you like.

IF we are to accept that the boys in the upper left have rewritten the laws
of physical chemistry, we have more than just "drying" to thank them for.

IF alcohol in aqueous solution causes more rapid water loss, distillation
becomes impossible.

Sure George. Give yourself that pat on the back you're looking for-
you're going for absurdity, and you've achieved it admirably. Here's
a gold star for sophistry.

Some people might consider that odd, given the alcohol for the process has
been produced by distillation, but it is a boon to society, because booze is
a curse. Concentrated booze is an abomination.

IF alcohol is selectively taken up by wood to "displace" water, then all the
vintners,brewers and distillers who continue to foolishly put their faith
and product in wood for storage will weaken it, taking the punch out of the
punch, and many a Saturday night fight. So let's not tell them the rules
have been changed, OK? Though no longer in the business, I thank the new
promulgators on behalf of everyone who's ever booked a drunk.

I thought I'd celebrate the end of intoxication in verse.

I know- I got it. It was even sort of funny, in a mean spirited way.

My couplets aren't as heroic as the man who said it, but you might want to
apply a touch of knowledge to the problem and lighten up.

Sometimes I'm light enough, generally not- but my level of gravitas is
neither here nor there. The problem is not with the science- it's
almost certainly flawed like any other magic bullet. The problem is
your insistance that you are the authority to whom all others must
bow. As stated previously, you may "know" something to be certain-
but that means nothing to the rest of us, and it is not your place to
jump up, wave your hands and call everyone in the room a pack of fools
and liars because you claim a source of wisdom which we are not
entitled to prove or disprove via personal observation. You seek to
command -not convince- independant minds, and that is not within your
rights.

The argument as I laid it was not related to the actual chemical
reactions and scientific parameters of alcohol as a drying agent- nor
was it a statement that I did not understand your *art*. It was an
exposition of sophistry and bellicose contention used by one person to
browbeat another who did not choose to pick a fight, but rather chose
to work with the means at his disposal to determine the truth or
falsehood of a phenomenon in which he was interested- and was kind
enough to share the results of his investigations with the group.

One would have thought your crowing was complete when the set of
results showing no signifigant difference between the control and test
subjects, but instead you take the time not only to simply say "I told
you so" (which would have been immature at best), but to compose a
long poem indirectly ridiculing the very idea of amateur scientific
inquiry. Even that was acceptable to my eye (though only by the
slimmest of margins)- but then you followed it with the reply to
Robert that the post was on-topic "Only to those who can think."

With that, you stepped out of the arena of simple contentiousness, and
into broader insult directed to not only a person who chose to
investigate an hypothesis and share his results in an honest fashion,
but also to any who did not immediately applaud the revelation of your
superior wit- and I find it revolting. It was that which moved me to
speak my mind, not a lack of understanding of your poetry or a refusal
to consider the scientific argument you advocate.

I had hoped that taking the time to make a case rather than simply
saying "George, you're an ass." might appeal to your better nature,
but it appears I was wrong.

"ebd" wrote in message
oups.com...


IF alcohol in aqueous solution causes more rapid water loss, distillation
becomes impossible.

WHAT????????

My couplets aren't as heroic as the man who said it, but you might want
to
apply a touch of knowledge to the problem and lighten up.

If only you would take your own advice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Though I couldn't think up a rhyme for azeotrope, you might find it
interesting to read up on it. It's the reason you can't distill past 95%.

Of course, if you knew this, you'd have realized that any other azeotrope
would have stopped the enrichment there. Differential distillation
(Raoult's Law) is a good thing to plug into your search, though I have given
many other scientific references in hope that people would learn and avoid
wasting their money. Look at them.

Prometheus,

Excellent!!! Extremely well said. Though from now on I plan to take
the advice of the wise person who said "Don't feed the trolls." I
believe George is a special case of the set of all Trolls.

Larry

Prometheus,

I'm reaching the conclusion based on observation here on RCW and yesterday's
google review of George's profile that his prolific (2,444 in '05, 840 YTD)
& often arrogant posts to a variety of newsgroups provides him the feeling
of superiority not found in his life otherwise.

Simply, though your posts (and OP's in the past) are accurate and your
efforts to communicate with him are admirable, it looks like you're barking
at a dog with ear muffs.

Personally, I'm reaching the point that any value in his posts is more than
offset by the crap that comes along with them. His compulsive behavior tones
down briefly and then comes back as intensely as ever. And that's the end of
my part in this ****ing contest.

TomNie

I had hoped that taking the time to make a case rather than simply
saying "George, you're an ass." might appeal to your better nature,
but it appears I was wrong.

Very well said, Tom and Prometheus. Accurate to a fault in your
observations.

No doubt George has a mark by your names in his book for some future
nasty sarcasm in the future.

Or maybe not. He may just be bitter, rude and sanctimonious by nature
and no mark is needed.

And like Tom, time to go on to things more worthwhile.

Robert