It's me again...
IceBlueO0o
one more. How much does the average apprenticeship cost in Texas? more
specifically East Texas? Any and all answers are greatly appreciated.
IceBlue/Dia
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
"I like persons, its the people I hate" ICQ# 1777038
http://members.aol.com/IceBlueO0o/sadist.html
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Keith Alexander
wrote:
>Hey, I've already asked some questions concerning apprenticeship, but I have
>one more. How much does the average apprenticeship cost in Texas? more
>specifically East Texas?
*** Don't you think that a better idea is to call the shops
you are interested in? Usenet is kinda big.
How can we tell you what an apprenticeship
in someone else's shop would cost?
Think about it.
k e i t h a l e x a n d e r
a p p n y c
- e n d o f t r a n s m i s s i o n -
Nafwaq666
fakid.net and everything you ever wanted to know about bongs, LSD and pot?
Tattooing is a serious industry that certainly doesnt need another drugged out
artist
abraxas
Maaaannn you have NO idea what you're talking about, do you.
:)
-----yttrx
Geoff
abraxas <lur...@wwa.com> wrote in message
news:7lnmvf$rvv$1...@eve.enteract.com...
Scamp and I talked to a guy down at "Marked for Life", a really nice artist
who was one of the judges there and a member of the HA. He tolds us that he
has mandatory drug testing in his shop. He wants to make sure that his
guys are using at least two illicit drugs at all times so they do not rat
out his customers. I think he was quite serious.
Even if they are druggy, An artist likes to know that employees can keep
appointments, show up on time and stuff like that. I would say our friend
with the drug testing is not an exception to that rule. In fact, I think
his Human Resources management technique could be harsh for someone who does
not know how to manage their lives.
So, that is why the person who originally posted might have employment
difficulty in the industry. I just did not get the impression of a person
in level flight. I would not care why he was not, just that he was not.
The crazy stuff is often (not always) for show. If there is crazy stuff,
nobody likes to be upstaged by a lousy stinking apprentice.
Geoffrey
abraxas
> I must say that many tattoo artists do like to run a straight edge shop.
Make no mistake on this one:
*ALL* of the worlds most loved tattoo artist, the ones that everyone thinks
are the best, every last goddamned one of them, no exceptions, smoke dope.
Sorry about that.
Except for the ones that dont, but they're in the minority on this one. :)
> Scamp and I talked to a guy down at "Marked for Life", a really nice artist
> who was one of the judges there and a member of the HA. He tolds us that he
> has mandatory drug testing in his shop. He wants to make sure that his
> guys are using at least two illicit drugs at all times so they do not rat
> out his customers. I think he was quite serious.
I despise drug tests. I also truly believe that if a shop decides to only
hire "straight" tattoo artists, they will very quickly drop permanently
into mediocrity.
> Even if they are druggy, An artist likes to know that employees can keep
> appointments, show up on time and stuff like that. I would say our friend
> with the drug testing is not an exception to that rule. In fact, I think
> his Human Resources management technique could be harsh for someone who does
> not know how to manage their lives.
Of course. I am not saying that every single incredible artist is a pothead;
quite the contrary. All of the ones that ive seen people on this group
constantly raving about smoke dope at least "now and then".
I wont name names for obvious reasons. But like the music industry,
tattooing would still be two dimentional and 4 color if it werent for
drugs. :)
> So, that is why the person who originally posted might have employment
> difficulty in the industry. I just did not get the impression of a person
> in level flight. I would not care why he was not, just that he was not.
> The crazy stuff is often (not always) for show. If there is crazy stuff,
> nobody likes to be upstaged by a lousy stinking apprentice.
True enough.
-----yttrx
Geoff
artist
: > who was one of the judges there and a member of the HA. He tolds us
that he
: > has mandatory drug testing in his shop. He wants to make sure that his
: > guys are using at least two illicit drugs at all times so they do not
rat
: > out his customers. I think he was quite serious.
:
: I despise drug tests. I also truly believe that if a shop decides to only
: hire "straight" tattoo artists, they will very quickly drop permanently
: into mediocrity.
Did you read what I wrote carefully?
Geoffrey
abraxas
Am I not allowed to agree with you?
:P
Alright I take it all back. To wit:
It is an impossibility of coupling to consider the essensial production of
innovation in this or any creative field as a multiplicitous summation
anything other than surely the most distilled form of sobriety and the
utter lack of clientelle expectations, when historically no recording of
such a relationship has ever been validated by anything other than smelly
hippies.
-----yttrx
RAYMOND PEARSON
> Geoff <geof...@no.uce.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
> *ALL* of the worlds most loved tattoo artist, the ones that everyone
thinks
> are the best, every last goddamned one of them, no exceptions, smoke dope.
>
> Sorry about that.
FLAT WRONG, Many of "the most loved" used to smoke dope, like myself(smoke
dope I mean, not the most loved part) operstive part being "used"to. Your
statement *ALL* is wrong. My statement "Many" is correct. "MANY" have been
to meetings of friends at tattoo conventions with me.
> hire "straight" tattoo artists, they will very quickly drop permanently
> into mediocrity.
I also won't get into "naming names" we have this tradirion called
anonimity, but I will guarantee you that there are at least 6 "Names" that
read this group that would "beg to differ"
ont name names for obvious reasons. But like the music industry,
> tattooing would still be two dimentional and 4 color if it werent for
> drugs. :)
ARE you out of your efn mind? the absolutely last person I want working on
me is some toked up "artist"
>
My $.02
Push my buttons and I WILL rant
Ray
Nafwaq666
=P
holly
abraxas
> abraxas <lur...@wwa.com> wrote in message
> news:7lodvn$fb7$3...@eve.enteract.com...
>> Geoff <geof...@no.uce.mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> *ALL* of the worlds most loved tattoo artist, the ones that everyone
> thinks
>> are the best, every last goddamned one of them, no exceptions, smoke dope.
>>
>> Sorry about that.
> FLAT WRONG, Many of "the most loved" used to smoke dope, like myself(smoke
> dope I mean, not the most loved part) operstive part being "used"to. Your
> statement *ALL* is wrong. My statement "Many" is correct. "MANY" have been
> to meetings of friends at tattoo conventions with me.
"Except for the ones that dont".
Let me be much more specific:
Ive noticed that the majority (not the VAST majority, but the majority
none the less) of tattoo artists that are deemed 'world class' fall into
one of the following three catagories:
1. they smoke dope
2. they used to smoke dope, but they stopped and they dont care who does.
3. they do more than just smoke dope
I'm completely convinced that the majority of the tattoo artist community
cringes when they hear the term 'straight edge' and would laugh their
nutsacks/labia off if a shop owner asked them to take a drug test.
> ont name names for obvious reasons. But like the music industry,
>> tattooing would still be two dimentional and 4 color if it werent for
>> drugs. :)
> ARE you out of your efn mind? the absolutely last person I want working on
> me is some toked up "artist"
>>
New Skool (falsely so-called) is absolutely the result of much toking on
the part of many, many people. DISAGREE with me. I dare ya.
:P
-----yttrx
i'll teach you to turn away.
RP> abraxas <lur...@wwa.com> wrote in message
> tattooing would still be two dimentional and 4 color if it werent for
> drugs. :)
RP> me is some toked up "artist"
what an artist does in his free time is up to him. even *i* don't
care if my artist uses drugs, so long as he's sober when working on me.
lish
cr...@ice.net
32.1% / 32
iniquity
<tat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>FLAT WRONG, Many of "the most loved" used to smoke dope, like myself(smoke
>dope I mean, not the most loved part) operstive part being "used"to. Your
>statement *ALL* is wrong. My statement "Many" is correct. "MANY" have been
>to meetings of friends at tattoo conventions with me.
Just my two cents' worth, but i don't smoke dope because it makes me
eat a bag of Cheetos and fall asleep. Hell, i can do that without
spending money on dope ;>
iniquity
"Her vocabulary was bad, like, whatever..."
iniquity
>Geoff <geof...@no.uce.mediaone.net> wrote:
>> Did you read what I wrote carefully?
>Am I not allowed to agree with you?
Well shit, where's the fun in that? ;>
RAYMOND PEARSON
problem with written communication Vs oral. i assumed you were talking in a
"current mode" I.E. they are toked up while working on you Really bad idea,
I'm sure you would agree on that. And I agree that many , and perhaps a
"vast majority" of "names" did in fact smoke and use, but it is my
contention that most do not now.
Now i can argue your side of this discussion as well, It was maybe 5 years
ago in San Francisco on the Sunday evening after the close of the NTA
convention. There was the "first tattoo" roast, Tuttle was the roastee. the
head table was loaded with "names" after a few hours of hilarity and
obscenity one of the members of the dais fires up a joint and the party went
down hill from there. No names mentioned, but if you want to see it there is
a complete and uncut 2 video set of the festivities. I have one around here
someplace.
Ray
abraxas <lur...@wwa.com> wrote in message
news:7lpdsb$at3$3...@eve.enteract.com...
Geoff
: 1. they smoke dope
: 2. they used to smoke dope, but they stopped and they dont care who does.
: 3. they do more than just smoke dope
One of these statements is probably true for 75% of the adult population.
You left out Hash eaters who don't inhale.
Geoffrey
abraxas
> I just came to me, I think were talking about two different things here. the
> problem with written communication Vs oral. i assumed you were talking in a
> "current mode" I.E. they are toked up while working on you Really bad idea,
> I'm sure you would agree on that. And I agree that many , and perhaps a
> "vast majority" of "names" did in fact smoke and use, but it is my
> contention that most do not now.
Maybe not most of the older crowd, say 40+? I havent come into contact with
a whole lot of them (Though the ones I have completely support my side
of the story...:P)
I still disagree. I believe that tattoo artists have a wrap for being
drinkin/smokin/fuckin fools because well...
They ARE.
> Now i can argue your side of this discussion as well, It was maybe 5 years
> ago in San Francisco on the Sunday evening after the close of the NTA
> convention. There was the "first tattoo" roast, Tuttle was the roastee. the
> head table was loaded with "names" after a few hours of hilarity and
> obscenity one of the members of the dais fires up a joint and the party went
> down hill from there. No names mentioned, but if you want to see it there is
> a complete and uncut 2 video set of the festivities. I have one around here
> someplace.
I swear to god I wont say anything. Gimme. 8D
-----yttrx
abraxas
> :
> : 1. they smoke dope
> : 2. they used to smoke dope, but they stopped and they dont care who does.
> : 3. they do more than just smoke dope
> One of these statements is probably true for 75% of the adult population.
Yep. Can you imagine how much more true it is for those damn ruffians that
your mother warned you about?
> You left out Hash eaters who don't inhale.
Stop that. I shall not squander my severance package on a trip to amsterdam.
Nope.
Baital, put your shoes on. We gotta go...
-----yttrx
Geoff
: Yep. Can you imagine how much more true it is for those damn ruffians
that
: your mother warned you about?
Oh yeah... She said, "Don't crush them heedlessly nor suck their blood."
:
: > You left out Hash eaters who don't inhale.
:
: Stop that. I shall not squander my severance package on a trip to
amsterdam.
How did Amsterdam get into this? I was talking about the '60s.
Geoffrey
abraxas
> : Stop that. I shall not squander my severance package on a trip to
> amsterdam.
> How did Amsterdam get into this? I was talking about the '60s.
You brought it up. Its not my fault.
:P
-----yttrx
bai...@pinkiesenteract.com
> Just my two cents' worth, but i don't smoke dope because it makes me
> eat a bag of Cheetos and fall asleep. Hell, i can do that without
> spending money on dope ;>
Same here. I get hungry and tired and my eyes dry out enough without dope.
I will say though that I have done many more hallucinogens than pot, and
would probably not be an even mediocre artist without them. Or be able to
see the abstract goat figures in my favorite tattoo artist's tiles.
b@|+/-\1
--
"I got War Tattooed on this 'and, and I got Peace tatooed on this 'and,
and I've got the Brothers Karamozov tattooed down me spine, cept like you
can't see that, y'know, cause I've got me shirt on, y'know."
"Well isn't it painful?"
"Nah, it's polyester and cotton."
*Amputate the 'pinkies' to respond.*
Ray Shea
IceBlueO0o <icebl...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>Hey, I've already asked some questions concerning apprenticeship, but I have
>one more. How much does the average apprenticeship cost in Texas? more
East Texas? As in, like Vidor? Big Thicket? Jasper? That East
Texas?
It would probably depend on what color your skin is and how many teeth
you have.
--
Ray Shea
Austin, TX
"I think 49 Guinnesses is piggish." -- dylan thomas
Tim Hockin
: would probably not be an even mediocre artist without them. Or be able to
drugs do not make good art. In fact (you touched a nerver here, sorry :) I
tend to hold artists who claim their art comes from dope in much lower
regard than the work would warrant. I consider Dali to being the biggest
poser artist of our era. He may have been a good artist, or even a GREAT
artist. But there is absolutely nothing IN his art that is his. It is all
drug inspired hooey.
Good art says something, and not "Wow man, am I tripping...". This is reason
#2 that I got out of being an Art Student. #1 being that profs are so full
of shit, it is ridiculous.
I could go for pages, but I won't ;)
--
Tim Hockin
tho...@ais.net
tho...@isunix.it.ilstu.edu
This program has been brought to you by the language C and the number F.
Meghan
<<East Texas? As in, like Vidor? Big Thicket? Jasper? That East
Texas?>>
I'd think an East Texas tattoo artist specializing in protraits of
lynching scenes and Aryan Pride designs would make a mint there. (For
the non-Texans, Vidor is a hotbed of KKK activity. And Jasper is the
site of the James Byrd lynching that got national attention.)
<<It would probably depend on what color your skin is and how many teeth
you have.>>
Don't forget the requisite red-colored neck and mouthful of chew!
-Meghan (I used to date a guy from East Texas ... then decided to try
being a lesbian for a while so I could feel clean again)
WyrdWoman
>I'd think an East Texas tattoo artist specializing in protraits of
>lynching scenes and Aryan Pride designs would make a mint there. (For
>the non-Texans, Vidor is a hotbed of KKK activity. And Jasper is the
>site of the James Byrd lynching that got national attention.)
Why is it that the KKK and other "organizations" of this sort only
publish pamphlets? Maybe they actually do some hard-cover work, but all
I ever hear is, "Come on & order this here new pamphlet..." Like Daniel
Carver, the racist on Howard Stern. He always has a new pamphlet to
sell. Do they not have enough to say to fill more than four flaps?
~*~*~*~*~*~
WyrdWoman
abraxas
> bai...@PINKIESenteract.com wrote:
> : would probably not be an even mediocre artist without them. Or be able to
> drugs do not make good art. In fact (you touched a nerver here, sorry :) I
> tend to hold artists who claim their art comes from dope in much lower
> regard than the work would warrant.
Sorry to hear you say that. You've just discredited more than half of the
artworld. :)
> I consider Dali to being the biggest
> poser artist of our era. He may have been a good artist, or even a GREAT
> artist. But there is absolutely nothing IN his art that is his. It is all
> drug inspired hooey.
I wont get into a Dali debate here, but one thing thats painfully obvious is
that youve never taken an art history course...or if you did, you werent
listening...:)
> Good art says something, and not "Wow man, am I tripping...". This is reason
> #2 that I got out of being an Art Student. #1 being that profs are so full
> of shit, it is ridiculous.
You didnt listen hard enough. Dali's paintings dont say 'wow man, im
tripping' at all.
I had an incredibly argument with an art prof that I had in college that
went on for two semesters. It was born with him saying something like "to
say 'I dont know about art, but I know what I like' is sacreligious. In order
to appreciate art one must learn about its nuances and history. If you do not
understand its nuances and history, any enjoyment you get from a peace will be
greatly diminished. You dont know what you're missing". I disagreed with that
intensely.......until I became a music major.
Then I learned all about music and how to make it---how fugues are developed
and put together, why oboes are used for what theyre used for...pythagorean
theories of octave and tone, etc. And I really didnt realize what I was
missing. Now I can enjoy music to a far greater degree than I ever could
before, even music made by drugged out motherfuckers...(like hendrix, the
beatles, tool, paul simon) and drunks (like mozart, beethoven, the doors,
etc.). If you apply the same point of view to art, it really doesnt matter
if someone takes alot of drugs and then paints under the influence. Whats
good is good, period.
And that just happens to be, in my opinion, that which comes from people
who are not so much tightasses as hippies. As much as it pains me to admit.
> I could go for pages, but I won't ;)
I think that your point of view likely stems from (and correct me if im
wrong) a vehement dislike of drugs. Except alchohol of course, cause that
isnt really a drug. If it was a drug, youd have to call James Joyce a lousy
hack....:)
Disagreeingly,
-----yttrx
Feynman
lur...@wwa.com (abraxas) wrote:
> If you apply the same point of view to art, it really doesnt matter
> if someone takes alot of drugs and then paints under the influence.
> Whats good is good, period.
Of course, a beautiful painting will be beautifil even if it was painted
by someone on drugs. But that painting won't have a very profound
meaning to that artist if he was under the influence, and unable to
think straight. Not much nuance about the history of the painting if its
simply a representation of a hallucination the artist had.
> I think that your point of view likely stems from (and correct me if
> im wrong) a vehement dislike of drugs. Except alchohol of course,
> cause that isnt really a drug. If it was a drug, youd have to call
> James Joyce a lousy hack....:)
>
I do hope you are kidding about alcohol not being a drug, right...?
Because its obviously the most dangerous drug in the world today (simply
because so many people use it without even thinking about it).
-feynman
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
abraxas
> In article <7m0vk2$7pf$1...@eve.enteract.com>,
> lur...@wwa.com (abraxas) wrote:
>> If you apply the same point of view to art, it really doesnt matter
>> if someone takes alot of drugs and then paints under the influence.
>> Whats good is good, period.
> Of course, a beautiful painting will be beautifil even if it was painted
> by someone on drugs. But that painting won't have a very profound
> meaning to that artist if he was under the influence, and unable to
> think straight. Not much nuance about the history of the painting if its
> simply a representation of a hallucination the artist had.
I must admit that im a bit subjective (objective?) in this subject
because I grew up with an artist and surrounded by tons and tons of
people in the art world.
"Unable to think straight" is generally hardly the type of description
that one would give oneself under the influence of *all* drugs.
Just *some*.
I think there is a tendency to catagorize drug use in this extremely
efficient and incorrect manner. There is a very large difference
between someone painting under the influence of morphine (if its even
possible) and someone painting under the influence of opium. Or
even schitzophrenia...(some of the greatest works there are were
painted in this manner)
To disregard a piece of art because the artist was 'nuts', be it
drug induced or 'natural' is STUPID.
>> I think that your point of view likely stems from (and correct me if
>> im wrong) a vehement dislike of drugs. Except alchohol of course,
>> cause that isnt really a drug. If it was a drug, youd have to call
>> James Joyce a lousy hack....:)
>>
> I do hope you are kidding about alcohol not being a drug, right...?
> Because its obviously the most dangerous drug in the world today (simply
> because so many people use it without even thinking about it).
I was kidding in a wide variety of ways. Joyce is my favorite writer.
-----yttrx
Tim Hockin
: Sorry to hear you say that. You've just discredited more than half of the
: artworld. :)
agreed.
: I wont get into a Dali debate here, but one thing thats painfully obvious is
: that youve never taken an art history course...or if you did, you werent
: listening...:)
I've taken many semester of art history. Just cuz I don't LIKE it, doesn't
mean I didn't study it.
I don't think that it is quite the same. Music is not representational in
the same way that art often is. And besides that, I can appreciate it. I
can appreciate the pure talent that people like Dali have (had). I can
understand how people view them. My point is that I can't respect these
artists, when there are equally talented people who WORK and THINK about
their art. Art is as much a neural activity as an aesthetic activity, to
me.
: I think that your point of view likely stems from (and correct me if im
: wrong) a vehement dislike of drugs. Except alchohol of course, cause that
: isnt really a drug. If it was a drug, youd have to call James Joyce a lousy
: hack....:)
while I don't use drugs, it is not that I have a vehement dislike for them.
A better word is distaste. I don't agree with it, but I don't care if you
do. And booze is a drug. I just don't object to that one so much ;)
: -----yttrx
yttrx is back?
bai...@pinkiesenteract.com
> artist. But there is absolutely nothing IN his art that is his. It is all
> drug inspired hooey.
If there's nothing there to be brought out by the drugs, or mental
instability, or sleep deprivation, the world's greatest artists wouldn't
have done jack. There are plenty of drug users, crazy people, and
insomiacs who are not artists. There has to be something there to begin
with. Given the large number of artists who do go through some period of
their life where they do drugs leads me to believe that there is some part
of their brain that is seeking whatever it is that drugs give them.
Ironically, I once got in a big argument with a Christian friend of mine
who adored Dali and insisted that he was sober his whole life. I've still
yet to see proof one way or the other.
Personally, I like Klimt. I don't know if he did drugs, but given his
friends and the one picture I've seen of him (wearing a robe and with wild
eyes) I'd say "Fuck yeah, he was on something."
> Good art says something, and not "Wow man, am I tripping...".
Maybe to you.
"Good art" is completely subjective. Some people think Picasso is "Good
art." I think those people are more drunk than he was.
Some people think Marie Cassat produced "Good art." I tend to start
falling asleep looking at her shit. I'm pretty sure she was mostly sober.
Lots of people with big wallets think Van Gogh is "Good art".
Then again, lots of people don't.
I feel very sorry for you that you can sum up the entire works of an
artist in a simple sentence. It says to me that you haven't really looked
at the piece, or that maybe you can't. Even bad art should inspire
something more than such a shallow, pallid response.
Tim Hockin
: with. Given the large number of artists who do go through some period of
: their life where they do drugs leads me to believe that there is some part
: of their brain that is seeking whatever it is that drugs give them.
thisis a very good point, and one not to be taken lightly. The art world
has always been seen as "slightly askew" to start with.
:> Good art says something, and not "Wow man, am I tripping...".
: Maybe to you.
I didn't disclaim, but of course, to me. :) I can't propose to speak for
anyone else, especially on a subject as completely subject as art. Art
education on the other hand...:)
: I feel very sorry for you that you can sum up the entire works of an
: artist in a simple sentence. It says to me that you haven't really looked
: at the piece, or that maybe you can't. Even bad art should inspire
: something more than such a shallow, pallid response.
now, please note what I said. I never said I didn't think his work was
good, just that it is circumstantial - a by product of drugs. Dali had a
formidible hand, and his technique was excellent - to so some people of
course. I just find little to chew on when I view work of that nature.
of course, no offense was meant to you. I've seen (some of) your work,
and I would not classify them them same way, knowing you. Perhaps if I had
known Dali...
It is easy to comment from this distance. If he had been a co-worker, or
neighbor, who knows.
bai...@pinkiesenteract.com
> I didn't disclaim, but of course, to me. :) I can't propose to speak for
> anyone else, especially on a subject as completely subject as art. Art
> education on the other hand...:)
Is a big fucking mistake. I can't even compare being taught about art with
dancing about architecture, because I know how to do that now.
> : I feel very sorry for you that you can sum up the entire works of an
> : artist in a simple sentence. It says to me that you haven't really looked
> : at the piece, or that maybe you can't. Even bad art should inspire
> : something more than such a shallow, pallid response.
> now, please note what I said. I never said I didn't think his work was
> good, just that it is circumstantial - a by product of drugs. Dali had a
> formidible hand, and his technique was excellent - to so some people of
> course. I just find little to chew on when I view work of that nature.
Whereas I think his drug use was a by-product of his creative
inclinations.
Our lives are so full of little, everyday issues that often people/artists
find that the only time they can remove such things from their mind and
let their creativity flow is when they have turned off those little
worries through drugs or insanity or whatever. Sure, meditation might be
better for your health, but fuck...I've tried it, and it was a fuck of a
lot more work than getting my hands on some hallucinogens.
> of course, no offense was meant to you. I've seen (some of) your work,
> and I would not classify them them same way, knowing you. Perhaps if I had
> known Dali...
...you could tell me whether or not he actually did drugs. And what kind
they were. And if he was actually high when he painted.
Me, I don't do drugs...ANYMORE. I still can draw, and paint, and write,
etc. But I really do feel that having done drugs in the past has enabled
me to get into the spaced-out fugue state that it takes to put my daily
worries away and let whatever's in my head come out.
It also keeps me from killing Yttrx, but hey...Lots of people might argue
that this is a bad thing. :)
michelle
[snip]
> Why is it that the KKK and other "organizations" of this sort only
> publish pamphlets? Maybe they actually do some hard-cover work, but all
> I ever hear is, "Come on & order this here new pamphlet..." Like Daniel
> Carver, the racist on Howard Stern. He always has a new pamphlet to
> sell. Do they not have enough to say to fill more than four flaps?
Maybe their target audience doesn't have the attention span for more
than a few pages at a time.
-michelle
Alec Horgan
Larisa> Well, my viewpoint on this is that either someone has it
Larisa> in him/her to make art, or they don't. If they do, no
Larisa> amount of drugs will change that - the drugs might change
Larisa> the way the feeling is expressed, but not very much.
That rather depends on the feeling, doesn't it? In
particular, drugs can give rise to certain feelings --
namely, feelings about the drugs themselves -- that
one would have no cause to express otherwise.
Alec
abraxas
> Well, but a boring person who takes LSD will have boring hallucinations.
> If a person is capable of deep, interesting feeling, it will come through
> with or without drugs. (though drugs might remove inhibitions somewhat).
> If he isn't, no drugs will give it to him. Mozart would have written
> great music even if he weren't drunk while writing it. I, on the other
> hand, can drink any amount of alcoholic substances and still not write any
> good music.
LSD Psychotherapy Stanislov Grof
Info Psychology Timothy Leary
Quantum Psychology Robert Anton Wilson
Doors of Perception Aldous Huxley
LSD-My Problem Child Albert Hoffman
The Book of Lies Aleister Crowley
Guide to Kulchur Ezra Pound
James Joyce
Peter Schaffer
Richard Alpert
Various Works Ken Kesey
C.G. Jung
Wilhelm Reich
Manly P. Hall
www.lycaeum.org
-----yttrx
Alec Horgan
Larisa> Well, but a boring person who takes LSD will have boring
Larisa> hallucinations. If a person is capable of deep,
Larisa> interesting feeling, it will come through with or without
Larisa> drugs. (though drugs might remove inhibitions somewhat).
Larisa> If he isn't, no drugs will give it to him. Mozart would
Larisa> have written great music even if he weren't drunk while
Larisa> writing it.
No doubt, but earlier you said you didn't think
drugs would significantly alter the nature of the
feelings being expressed, and that's more what I
take issue with. For everyone I know, myself
included, who is or was a drug addict, drugs
feature so prominently in their perceptions of the
world and themselves that I can't imagine it not
affecting the character of their artistic output.
Of course, my artistic inclinations tend toward
things that have words, where the differences may
be more pronounced than in visual art or
instrumental music. I.e., maybe sober Mozart would
have written much the same music, but sober Charles
Bukowski would certainly have been a very different
poet, which is not to say that he wouldn't have been
as good.
Alec
Clay Young
> > poser artist of our era. He may have been a good artist, or even a GREAT
> > drug inspired hooey.
>
> that youve never taken an art history course...or if you did, you werent
> listening...:)
Indeed (or I could be wrong again). Everything I've read or been told
about Dali indicated that he did not use drugs, or at least not more
than trying a few on a couple occasions and not being terribly
impressed. Have I been mislead?
----Clay
Clay Young
>
> bai...@PINKIESenteract.com wrote:
> : with. Given the large number of artists who do go through some period of
> : their life where they do drugs leads me to believe that there is some part
> : of their brain that is seeking whatever it is that drugs give them.
>
> thisis a very good point, and one not to be taken lightly. The art world
> has always been seen as "slightly askew" to start with.
Not at all. It's almost a universal thing for people to ingest a
substance to make them feel, think, or perceive differently. What
varies is which substance people choose, approve of, is disapprove of.
---Clay
Spidergod5
>substance to make them feel, think, or perceive differently. What
>varies is which substance people choose, approve of, is disapprove of.
Morning coffee, Prozac, Alcohol, Aspirin....
Erik Sprague
aka Snakeboy ;)-<
http://members.aol.com/spidergod5/index.html
abraxas
>>>>>> "Larisa" == Larisa Migachyov <l...@leland.Stanford.EDU> writes:
> Larisa> Well, but a boring person who takes LSD will have boring
> Larisa> hallucinations. If a person is capable of deep,
> Larisa> interesting feeling, it will come through with or without
> Larisa> drugs. (though drugs might remove inhibitions somewhat).
> Larisa> If he isn't, no drugs will give it to him. Mozart would
> Larisa> have written great music even if he weren't drunk while
> Larisa> writing it.
> No doubt, but earlier you said you didn't think
> drugs would significantly alter the nature of the
> feelings being expressed, and that's more what I
> take issue with. For everyone I know, myself
> included, who is or was a drug addict, drugs
> feature so prominently in their perceptions of the
> world and themselves that I can't imagine it not
> affecting the character of their artistic output.
You're mixing quite a few things up here. Let me just separate
them out for you so you can see what they are:
Not all people who use drugs are 'addicts'
Not all drugs are the same.
Your experience with drugs is not identical to everyone elses.
You seem to insinuate that drugs effecting the character of
artistic output is a BAD thing.
These are all entirely illogical assumptions.
> Of course, my artistic inclinations tend toward
> things that have words, where the differences may
> be more pronounced than in visual art or
> instrumental music. I.e., maybe sober Mozart would
> have written much the same music,
Wrong. I completely dont believe it. Mozart's music is like the
mind of a heavy drinker: its funny, whimsical, pathetic, angry,
lustful and painful.
It is NOT sober.
> but sober Charles
> Bukowski would certainly have been a very different
> poet, which is not to say that he wouldn't have been
> as good.
Of course it is.
-----yttrx
abraxas
>> I wont get into a Dali debate here, but one thing thats painfully obvious is
>> that youve never taken an art history course...or if you did, you werent
>> listening...:)
> Indeed (or I could be wrong again). Everything I've read or been told
> about Dali indicated that he did not use drugs, or at least not more
> than trying a few on a couple occasions and not being terribly
> impressed. Have I been mislead?
It depends on what you mean by 'mislead'. Dali socialized in the exact same
way as his peers of the day, with absinthe, tobacco, alchohol and *possibly*
opium.
But extreme paranoia about drug use didnt exist at the time. Dali most
certianly didnt stand out among his contemporaries.
-----yttrx
Karl MacRae
I keep seeing this thread (Drugs and art). And all I
can think is, "These are a few of my favorite things...."
-Karl
Ray Shea
Feynman <feyn...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I do hope you are kidding about alcohol not being a drug, right...?
>Because its obviously the most dangerous drug in the world today (simply
>because so many people use it without even thinking about it).
Of course, you keep calling it a drug, and people are going to treat
it like a drug, e.g., they're going to abuse it. In some countries,
such as Belgium, beer is considered food, kids are raised to think of
it as a food, and they treat it as such.
Yes, calling alcohol a drug is technically correct. It is also adding
to the strident drum-beat of the neo-prohibionists and of the huge
anti-tobbaco lobby who, having just about won that battle, are looking
around for some other battle to fight to justify their jobs. Watch
as alcohol slowly becomes less and less legal. 0.8 BAC laws in most
states now. Calls for bans on alcohol sales during domestic airline
flights. Bans on alcohol advertising. And don't be surprised when
Child Protective Services comes a-knocking because your kid saw you
drink a glass of wine with dinner and told his teacher "my daddy uses drugs".
This is the beginning. Get in line and march behind the
"Alcohol is a dangerous drug!" mantra and you too can play a part as
puritan America fails to learn from its past once again.
Clay Young
Let me rephrase then....I'd been lead to believe he didn't use the sort
of drugs people quickly assume he must have (marijuana, peyote, LSD,
mushrooms, etc etc). And I remember an interview I saw on a videotape
where he was asked if he used LSD and he gave an unequivocal "no",
thought for a second, smiled and said approximately "I don't need to
take LSD. I am LSD." I figured this was a fib, a chance to make a good
sound bite, but other people (bigger fans of Dali than I) agreed there
was nothing ot indicate he was a regular user of any hallucinogens.
---Clay
Karl MacRae
>In article <7m13m4$v4h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>Feynman <feyn...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>I do hope you are kidding about alcohol not being a drug, right...?
>>Because its obviously the most dangerous drug in the world today (simply
>>because so many people use it without even thinking about it).
>
>Of course, you keep calling it a drug, and people are going to treat
>it like a drug, e.g., they're going to abuse it. In some countries,
>such as Belgium, beer is considered food, kids are raised to think of
>it as a food, and they treat it as such.
Yeah, and they make the world's best fucking beer. Geez. I
could spend a year there tasting beers and not see 'em all.
-Karl, thirsty again....
Feynman
> Of course, you keep calling it a drug, and people are going to treat
> it like a drug, e.g., they're going to abuse it.
Of course, if we decide _not_ to call heroin (for example) a drug, no
one will abuse it, and it won't cause any damages to anyone.
> In some countries,
> such as Belgium, beer is considered food, kids are raised to think of
> it as a food, and they treat it as such.
not a very nutritious food...
>
> Yes, calling alcohol a drug is technically correct. It is also adding
> to the strident drum-beat of the neo-prohibionists and of the huge
> anti-tobbaco lobby who, having just about won that battle, are looking
> around for some other battle to fight to justify their jobs. Watch
> as alcohol slowly becomes less and less legal. 0.8 BAC laws in most
> states now.
You mean some states don't have maximum blood alcohol levels for
driving?
(I'm from Canada, 0.8 BAC has been standard for a while, i don't know
how long, probably 20 years or more)
> This is the beginning. Get in line and march behind the
> "Alcohol is a dangerous drug!" mantra and you too can play a part as
> puritan America fails to learn from its past once again.
I'm not for prohibition - that people want to drink themselves stupid
doesn't bother me. But i'm occasionaly on the road, and driving around
drunk drivers - that bothers me. Drunk drivers, in addition to killing
themselves, have tendancy to kill others too... And alcoholic parents -
it bothers me that kids are suffering for their parents' addiction.
If prohibition returns in the U.S., that certainly wouldn't bother me.
I'd just buy some Seagram stock ;-).
Clay Young
> If prohibition returns in the U.S., that certainly wouldn't bother me.
> I'd just buy some Seagram stock ;-).
I'd buy a bar just across the border.
----Clay
Feynman
> > If prohibition returns in the U.S., that certainly wouldn't bother
> > me. I'd just buy some Seagram stock ;-).
>
> I'd buy a bar just across the border.
>
Also a good idea! Although i'd be willing to bet that the US would
strongly encourage (bully) Canada into banning alcohol too... Maybe a
bar in Mexico?
XMickX
> I'd just buy some Seagram stock ;-).
>
The problem isn't so much personal usage, although the health
implications are legion.
The problem is the way in which peoples alchohol consumption effects
those around them. Come to England and go for a walk at closing time in
any big town, you'll see what I mena quite clearly, add this to the
appalling level of drink driving offenses (with the weakest legal
penalties imaginable!) and you begin to see why some people are a little
non-plussed with alchohol.
As far as I'm concerned?? As a child I saw my mother frequently beaten
and once raped by a drunken father....it kind of took the urge to drink
right out of me...can't think why, guess I just didn't go to the right
parties!!
XMickX
abraxas
> The problem isn't so much personal usage, although the health
> implications are legion.
> The problem is the way in which peoples alchohol consumption effects
> those around them. Come to England and go for a walk at closing time in
> any big town, you'll see what I mena quite clearly, add this to the
> appalling level of drink driving offenses (with the weakest legal
> penalties imaginable!) and you begin to see why some people are a little
> non-plussed with alchohol.
Well if youd keep the freakin pubs open past 11 freakin pm once in a while,
people wouldnt go out and make trouble after they closed...theyd be too
tired and worn out.
Keep em open till 4am, dammit. Sure youll have lots of people sleeping
on sidewalks, but its better than running over old ladies.
-----yttrx
Geoff
: Keep em open till 4am, dammit. Sure youll have lots of people sleeping
: on sidewalks, but its better than running over old ladies.
If they were open 24 hours with a flop room upstairs there would be no
problems with sidewalks either.
When I am president, there will be 24 hour drug and alcohol dispersal
centers. Anything you want all day all the time. We will also make
soylent green at these facilities. Lottery tickets will be given free with
each dispersal.
Geoffrey
abraxas
> :
> : Keep em open till 4am, dammit. Sure youll have lots of people sleeping
> : on sidewalks, but its better than running over old ladies.
> If they were open 24 hours with a flop room upstairs there would be no
> problems with sidewalks either.
I stayed in one of those in moon city. Durty Nellie's. 24 hour irish pub
on the first floor, private hostel on the second. The pub was open till 2am
for the public, but open 24/7 for hostelers. It was quite lovely.
Except that the bartender got mad when you brought weed into the pub at all.
He liked that kind of stuff kept upstairs 'with the rest of the shit'.
I love that place.
-----yttrx
Ray Shea
Geoff <geof...@no.uce.mediaone.net> wrote:
>When I am president, there will be 24 hour drug and alcohol dispersal
>centers. Anything you want all day all the time. We will also make
>soylent green at these facilities. Lottery tickets will be given free with
>each dispersal.
Ahh, New Orleans.
Except for the soylent green part, but I bet you could turn that into
something yummy if you made yourself a good dark roux...
Clay Young
>
> When I am president, there will be 24 hour drug and alcohol dispersal
> centers. Lottery tickets will be given free with
> each dispersal.
You'd be defeating the purpose of the state lottery, which is simply to
generate revenue by imposing a tax on people who are bad at math.
---Clay
Geoff
Clay Young <C.C....@lse.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:378CBCA5...@lse.ac.uk...
My system will work better since it will impose a tax on people who are bad
at math AND stuperous.
Geoffrey
heidi
how are you imposing a tax by giving them free tickets? huh?
andrea
> > as alcohol slowly becomes less and less legal. 0.8 BAC laws in most
> > states now.
>
> You mean some states don't have maximum blood alcohol levels for
> driving?
> (I'm from Canada, 0.8 BAC has been standard for a while, i don't know
> how long, probably 20 years or more)
what? 0.8? do you use a different BAC measurement over there? it's .05
here. that's 0.05g/100ml. at about 0.4, most people should be dead.
andrea
a.m...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au
ma...@enternet.com.au
Geoff
heidi <he...@NO.SPAM.bmeworld.com> wrote in message
news:378d529d....@news.earthlink.net...
: On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 15:46:34 -0400, "Geoff"
:
Bob Manners
> > such as Belgium, beer is considered food, kids are raised to think of
> > it as a food, and they treat it as such.
> not a very nutritious food...
Au contraire. Beer, especially dark beer, is very nutritious.
It was part of the staple working-class British diet for
centuries.
Bob, trying to avoid getting a beer gut
Ray Shea
andrea <amm...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>what? 0.8? do you use a different BAC measurement over there? it's .05
>here. that's 0.05g/100ml. at about 0.4, most people should be dead.
Sorry, I said "point oh eight" but typed 0.8.
abraxas
>> > In some countries,
>> > such as Belgium, beer is considered food, kids are raised to think of
>> > it as a food, and they treat it as such.
>> not a very nutritious food...
> Au contraire. Beer, especially dark beer, is very nutritious.
> It was part of the staple working-class British diet for
> centuries.
Thats right. There is a tendency for the more gullible among us to
believe everything everyone tells them about the evils of substances.
-----yttrx
Ray Shea
Bob Manners <rman...@array.ca> wrote:
>> not a very nutritious food...
>
>Au contraire. Beer, especially dark beer, is very nutritious.
>It was part of the staple working-class British diet for
>centuries.
The reference I've seen is that a pint of stout is equivalent
to eating about a 1/4 lb. of grain, nutrition-wise. And if it's
unfiltered, you get an immense amount of vitamin B from
the yeast. Various monastic orders used to brew strong beer to
help sustain them during the lenten fast. This is where the
doppelbock style originates, BTW...ever wonder why so many German
breweries have monks on the labels? This isn't just marketing,
the Paulaner brewery, for instance, has its origins in monastic
brewing. And some of the finest beers in the world today are still
brewed by Trappists at monasteries such as Scourmont, Westvleteren (sp?).
Of course, in the neo-prohibitionist protestant puritanical nutball
viewpoint that is taking over America these days, this makes the
Trappist orders a bunch of drug dealers.
iniquity
<amm...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Feynman wrote:
>
>> > as alcohol slowly becomes less and less legal. 0.8 BAC laws in most
>> > states now.
>>
>> You mean some states don't have maximum blood alcohol levels for
>> driving?
>> (I'm from Canada, 0.8 BAC has been standard for a while, i don't know
>> how long, probably 20 years or more)
>
>what? 0.8? do you use a different BAC measurement over there? it's .05
>here. that's 0.05g/100ml. at about 0.4, most people should be dead.
Hmmmm 0.8 seems about right for the way most of them drive around
here...
iniquity
"Her vocabulary was bad, like, whatever..."
michelle
> Bob Manners <rman...@array.ca> wrote:
> > Au contraire. Beer, especially dark beer, is very nutritious.
> > It was part of the staple working-class British diet for
> > centuries.
>
> believe everything everyone tells them about the evils of substances.
Tale sharing: When I was working third shift and lived around the
corner from a damn fine pub, I'd stop for a pint or two most days on my
way home from work in the morning. One barfly told a story once (or
several times, more likely) about how, after she gave birth to one of
her children, she couldn't produce any milk to nurse the baby. Her
doctor put her on Guinness; she was able to start nursing and both
mother and baby were happy and healthy.
-michelle
Kerry
snip
>what? 0.8? do you use a different BAC measurement over there? it's .05
>here. that's 0.05g/100ml.
Are you sure the units are g/100ml? I thought it was % as in .05% of the blood
is composed of alcohol. (Of course, this could be the same unit if 1 ml of
blood has the same mass as 1 g of alcohol. (Pure water does, but I believe
blood is thicker than water, and alcohol less dense.))
Clay Young
>
> > > In some countries,
> > > such as Belgium, beer is considered food, kids are raised to think of
> > > it as a food, and they treat it as such.
>
>
> It was part of the staple working-class British diet for
> centuries.
A friend and I were hypothesizing that it was beer which is responsible
for the lack of truly fabulous ancient monuments in England compared to
elsewhere. You can imagine the scene at some tavern late at night...
"William of Avesbury was tryin' ta get a bunch of the lads together to
go build some pyramid out in his field, but we were a wee bit hungover
and couldn't be arsed."
and a few beers later...
"Hey...mate...*hic*...what say you and I go get some chalk, go out on
that hill over there and draw a great big man with his willy hangin'
out...."
---Clay
(bringing the thread back to drugs AND art)
Karl MacRae
>In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.99071...@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au>,
>andrea <amm...@student.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
It's that Texas Dyslexia, where instead of reversing it,
you just get everything BIGGER.
=B^)
-Karl
Karl MacRae
michelle <mich...@weirdsistersbooks.com> wrote:
>abraxas wrote:
>
>> Bob Manners <rman...@array.ca> wrote:
>> > It was part of the staple working-class British diet for
>> > centuries.
>>
>> believe everything everyone tells them about the evils of substances.
>
>Tale sharing: When I was working third shift and lived around the
>corner from a damn fine pub, I'd stop for a pint or two most days on my
>way home from work in the morning. One barfly told a story once (or
>several times, more likely) about how, after she gave birth to one of
>her children, she couldn't produce any milk to nurse the baby. Her
>doctor put her on Guinness; she was able to start nursing and both
>mother and baby were happy and healthy.
That's still common folk wisdom. I think the idea was that the
relaxation helped some, as did the nutritive value of the
beer.
On the other hand, when I've seen this tried, it resulted
consistantly is a serious stomach ache for the baby.
So who knows....
-Karl
Karl MacRae
Clay Young <C.C....@lse.ac.uk> wrote:
>Bob Manners wrote:
>>
>
>A friend and I were hypothesizing that it was beer which is responsible
>for the lack of truly fabulous ancient monuments in England compared to
>elsewhere. You can imagine the scene at some tavern late at night...
>
>"William of Avesbury was tryin' ta get a bunch of the lads together to
>go build some pyramid out in his field, but we were a wee bit hungover
>and couldn't be arsed."
>and a few beers later...
>"Hey...mate...*hic*...what say you and I go get some chalk, go out on
>that hill over there and draw a great big man with his willy hangin'
>out...."
Hey, you have something there. That could also apply to
the ancient citizens of what's now Uffington:
"s'okay, mate. *hic* It looks enough like an 'orse to *me*!"
-Karl
abraxas
> In article <378DDA39...@array.ca>,
> Bob Manners <rman...@array.ca> wrote:
>>
>>It was part of the staple working-class British diet for
>>centuries.
> Of course, in the neo-prohibitionist protestant puritanical nutball
> viewpoint that is taking over America these days, this makes the
> Trappist orders a bunch of drug dealers.
Which also dont seem to be the demonic horrors that these same neo-
prohibitionist protestant puritanical nutballs seem to make them
out to be.
www.lycaeum.org for the thinking ones among us. Its pretty good.
Lotsa links and stuff. That guy's alright man.
-----yttrx
Ray Shea
Clay Young <C.C....@lse.ac.uk> wrote:
>A friend and I were hypothesizing that it was beer which is responsible
>for the lack of truly fabulous ancient monuments in England compared to
>elsewhere.
...except that the Egyptians brewed beer too.
Actually, if you believe Michael Jackson (the beer guy, not the gloved
one), beer is actually *responsible* for all those ancient monuments,
because beer is the cause of civilization. It's a rather involved
little theory, having to do with agriculture and ancient brewing methods,
I won't regurgitate it here.
>"Hey...mate...*hic*...what say you and I go get some chalk, go out on
>that hill over there and draw a great big man with his willy hangin'
>out...."
Those would be crop circles.
Ray Shea
Karl MacRae <km...@best.com> wrote:
> It's that Texas Dyslexia, where instead of reversing it,
> you just get everything BIGGER.
Shhh. Don't tell Gina, she thinks everything really *is* bigger.
Karl MacRae
>In article <378E136B...@lse.ac.uk>,
>
>...except that the Egyptians brewed beer too.
>
>Actually, if you believe Michael Jackson (the beer guy, not the gloved
>one), beer is actually *responsible* for all those ancient monuments,
>because beer is the cause of civilization. It's a rather involved
>little theory, having to do with agriculture and ancient brewing methods,
>I won't regurgitate it here.
Yeah, but you can distill it down to "agriculture is required
to make beer". Once humans figured out how to ferment grain
into something that contained alcohol, they suddenly needed
more grain than they could gather. Hence, farming.
It makes a lot of sense.
-Karl
jason mccarthy
> Yeah, but you can distill it down to "agriculture is required
> to make beer". Once humans figured out how to ferment grain
> into something that contained alcohol, they suddenly needed
> more grain than they could gather. Hence, farming.
it has become clear to me that a number of people in this thread own the
same book.
the world encyclopedia of beer.
wonderful reading, eh?
every household should have one.
especially the commie-prohibitionists
j:)
--
Dan Quayle, 9/15/88: "The Holocaust was an obscene period
in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all
lived in this century. I didn't live in this century."
Ray Shea
jason mccarthy <a6...@unb.ca> wrote:
>it has become clear to me that a number of people in this thread own the
>same book.
>the world encyclopedia of beer.
>wonderful reading, eh?
>every household should have one.
>especially the commie-prohibitionists
I keep it next to my bible, which is by Jim Murray and has a
Scotch Testamanent and a Kentucky Testament. Today's reading is from
the Book of Ardbeg, chapter 12...
Karl MacRae
>In article <7mljfp$h15$1...@shell14.ba.best.com>,
>Karl MacRae <km...@best.com> wrote:
>> It's that Texas Dyslexia, where instead of reversing it,
>> you just get everything BIGGER.
>
>Shhh. Don't tell Gina, she thinks everything really *is* bigger.
Hell, maybe it is. I mean, just look at Peter Pan at the
mini-golf place on Barton Springs road. If *he* can be that
damned big.....
-Karl
Karl MacRae
>> Yeah, but you can distill it down to "agriculture is required
>> to make beer". Once humans figured out how to ferment grain
>> into something that contained alcohol, they suddenly needed
>> more grain than they could gather. Hence, farming.
>
>same book.
>the world encyclopedia of beer.
Actually, no, though I should. I just happen to have an
encyclopedic knowledge of beer. =B^)
-Karl
andrea
> >>here. that's 0.05g/100ml. at about 0.4, most people should be dead.
> >
> >Sorry, I said "point oh eight" but typed 0.8.
>
> It's that Texas Dyslexia, where instead of reversing it,
> you just get everything BIGGER.
>
> =B^)
>
I was thinking it was a special limit for your average southern redneck,
whose brain and blood are so thick that only huge amounts of alcohol
penetrate them.
a.m...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au
ma...@enternet.com.au
andrea
> Bob Manners <rman...@array.ca> wrote:
>
> > Au contraire. Beer, especially dark beer, is very nutritious.
> > It was part of the staple working-class British diet for
> > centuries.
>
> Thats right. There is a tendency for the more gullible among us to
> believe everything everyone tells them about the evils of substances.
Guinness is supposed to be chock full of iron. in Ireland, they used to
give blood donators a voucher for a pint of Guinness. and in pubs over
there there are still nifty old posters with the Guinness Toucan saying
"Guinness is good for you!" - which was actual Guinness advertising till
they were forced to stop it, sadly enough.
andrea
a.m...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au
ma...@enternet.com.au
andrea
> >what? 0.8? do you use a different BAC measurement over there? it's .05
> >here. that's 0.05g/100ml.
> snip
>
> Are you sure the units are g/100ml? I thought it was % as in .05% of the blood
> is composed of alcohol. (Of course, this could be the same unit if 1 ml of
> blood has the same mass as 1 g of alcohol. (Pure water does, but I believe
> blood is thicker than water, and alcohol less dense.))
yep, I'm sure. my VicRoads (my state's traffic authority, givers
of licences, etc) handbook and other literature I have refers to "the
maximum BAC allowed is .05g/100ml." damnit, I remember seeing somewhere
else another explanation of the measurement, can't find it now...re: the
grams measurement, it's related to the grams of alcohol in a drink. e.g a
standard drink has 10 grams of alcohol. oh - .05 BAC means your body
contains 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. the liver
eliminates alcohol at a rate between 4 and 12 grams per hour, with the
average being 7.5 grams or 3/4 of a standard drink.
etc etc. make any sense?
andrea
a.m...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au
ma...@enternet.com.au
Melissa L.
>
> Guinness is supposed to be chock full of iron. in Ireland, they used to
> give blood donators a voucher for a pint of Guinness. and in pubs over
> there there are still nifty old posters with the Guinness Toucan saying
> "Guinness is good for you!" - which was actual Guinness advertising till
> they were forced to stop it, sadly enough.
>
> andrea
>
> a.m...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au
> ma...@enternet.com.au
I like to call Guinness "liquid bread". In fact, it's hard to get drunk
from it because I usually get full first.
Melissa =)
--
.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.
School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University
http://albert.tau.ac.il/~melissa/
Anyone who has never made a mistake has never
tried anything new. -- Albert Einstein
.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.
Bob Manners
> especially the commie-prohibitionists
I tend to find most of the prohibitionists coming from the 'Christian
Right'. The commies were rather good at subsidizing the production
of vodka ;)
Bob
Ray Shea
Bob Manners <rman...@array.ca> wrote:
>I tend to find most of the prohibitionists coming from the 'Christian
>Right'. The commies were rather good at subsidizing the production
>of vodka ;)
Actually, quite a lot of the neo-prohibitionists come from the
"we're from the government, we're here to help" crowd,
which is chock full of liberals and other assorted lefties.
For some good discussions on the topic, go to dejanews and search the
archives of rec.food.drink.beer for "prohibition" and "bryson" (Lew
Bryson writes for the Malt Advocate, he's a smart cookie).