What is "martinizing"?

[Robert Lipton]

Trond Olav Berg (t.o....@labmed.uio.no) wrote:
: In a Seinfeld episode, Kramer said:
: "The carpet cleaner is the biggest hoax played on the American
: public since the one-hour martinizer" (receiving big laughs
: from the audience).
: I had never heard this word before. It is not to be found in any
: dictionary.
: 1. What is "martinizing"?
: 2. What is the origin of the word (etymology)?
: 3. What is so funny about martinizing?

"Martinizing" is a form of dry cleaning. The only other reference I can
recall is from GUYS AND DOLLS where it appears in the song "Take Back
Your Mink." I am uncertaining of the etymology but would hazard that it
was named after a Mr. Martin.

What was so funny about it? Well, I don't find Seinfeld so funny (I am a
Manhattanite), so I would guess that either he was on one of those rolls
where any unusual word sounds funny to the audience; or perhaps
familiarity with the techniques of one-hour martinizing is rampant: you
take the clothing, and put it in a plastic bag.

Bob

[Aaron J. Dinkin]

In article <4tq1vm$n...@ratatosk.uio.no>, t.o....@labmed.uio.no (Trond
Olav Berg) wrote:

> In a Seinfeld episode, Kramer said:
> "The carpet cleaner is the biggest hoax played on the American
> public since the one-hour martinizer" (receiving big laughs
> from the audience).
> I had never heard this word before. It is not to be found in any
> dictionary.
> 1. What is "martinizing"?
> 2. What is the origin of the word (etymology)?
> 3. What is so funny about martinizing?

I can answer two of your questions at once: it is funny because the word
has no real meaning. I assume someone named "Martin" pseudo-invented
"martinizing".

"Martinizing" is something dry-cleaners claim to be able to do. They but
up a sign saying "ONE HOUR MARTINIZING", I assume on the theory that some
unsuspecting people will see it and remark, "Hey look, Agnes! They can
martinize our clothes here in only an hour! Let's take our dry-cleaning
business here!"

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

[Kevin Beaulieu]

On 1 Aug 1996, Trond Olav Berg wrote:

> In a Seinfeld episode, Kramer said:
> "The carpet cleaner is the biggest hoax played on the American
> public since the one-hour martinizer" (receiving big laughs
> from the audience).
> I had never heard this word before. It is not to be found in any
> dictionary.
> 1. What is "martinizing"?
> 2. What is the origin of the word (etymology)?
> 3. What is so funny about martinizing?
>

> Trond Olav

There is a well-known service chain in the Toronto area called
"One Hour Martinizing Dry Cleaners", and after reading your question, I
called them in search of the answer, which was, "It's just the name of
the company -- Like Mcdonald's or Burger King." I asked if "Martinizing"
refers to a process or some like thing, only to be told that it doesn't.
Since I'm not sure that I entirely trust the knowledge of the
serviceperson who answered the phone, I would encourage further research
(not that I'm going to be the one to do it). Hopefully, I have given
you at least a starting point. It was probably some vain guy named Martin
who started a one-hour dry-cleaning service.
Out of context, I can't say that I find it that humourous. Then
again, it's from a sitcom, so I probably wouldn't even have found it funny
IN context.

Dryly and Cleanly Yours,

Kevin

[Curtis M. Smith]

Trond Olav Berg wrote:
>
> In a Seinfeld episode, Kramer said:
> "The carpet cleaner is the biggest hoax played on the American
> public since the one-hour martinizer" (receiving big laughs
> from the audience).
> I had never heard this word before. It is not to be found in any
> dictionary.
> 1. What is "martinizing"?
> 2. What is the origin of the word (etymology)?
> 3. What is so funny about martinizing?
>
> Trond Olav

It is a chain of one-hour dry-cleaning shops.

[Abfou .]

On Aug 01, 1996 09:54:36 in article <Re: What is "martinizing"?>,

'lip...@dorsai.org (Robert Lipton)' wrote:


>"Martinizing" is a form of dry cleaning. The only other reference I can
>recall is from GUYS AND DOLLS where it appears in the song "Take Back
>Your Mink." I am uncertaining of the etymology but would hazard that it
>was named after a Mr. Martin.
>

_____

Frank Loesser's lyric actually refers to a different, even more mysterious,
dry-cleaning process:

So take back your mink
To from whence it came
And tell them to Hollanderize it
For some other dame.

"Hollanderize"? Anyone?

Abfou

[Michael Gerard Maranda]

"Martinizing" is indeed a type of dry cleaning ... that can be one hour from
start to finish, thus the advertising gimmick. Of course, it never takes an
hour because there is the preparation time, the lag time between receiving
the work and beginning the cleaning, et cetera et cetera. Thus the joke ...
it might only take an hour to do, but it takes a few days for that hour to
be gotten to.

It was developed in France (martinizing) and thus there are also old stores
that advertise "French cleaning" or "French process".

--
(new quotation being searched for)

Michael Maranda *** mm0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

[Mark Odegard]

Posted to alt.usage.english & e-mailed.
On 2 Aug 1996 03:26:14 GMT ab...@nyc.pipeline.com(Abfou .)
wrote:

I remember having this explained when _Guys and Dolls_ had
its big revival. "Holland" comes from a Mr. Holland, who
operated a fur-cleaning/restoration/dying/restyling service
in New York.

Specifically, "hollanderizing" here refers to treating a
loesser ;) fur to make it look like mink.

--
Mark Odegard. Ode...@ptel.net

[Christopher J. Henrich]

In article <rdd-010896...@dmn1-37.usa1.com>, r...@usa1.com (Aaron J.
Dinkin) wrote:

> "Martinizing" is something dry-cleaners claim to be able to do. They but
> up a sign saying "ONE HOUR MARTINIZING", I assume on the theory that some
> unsuspecting people will see it and remark, "Hey look, Agnes! They can
> martinize our clothes here in only an hour! Let's take our dry-cleaning
> business here!"
>
> -Aaron J. Dinkin
> Dr. Whom

I always thought it was "One Hour Martini Zing." :-)

--
Christopher J. Henrich
chen...@monmouth.com

[rrr...@mirage.skypoint.com]

In article <1996Aug2.0...@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,

I've never had my French cleaned or processed. I have had my English
edited, however.

[lesley...@gmail.com]

You have ALL been martinized ;)

[Mack A. Damia]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:03:16 -0700 (PDT), lesley...@gmail.com
wrote:

>You have ALL been martinized ;)

"Fresh as a Flower in Just one Hour"

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:03:16 -0700 (PDT), lesley...@gmail.com
wrote:

>You have ALL been martinized ;)

Being Martinized is having Mr Ambuhl rip you a new one.

What is a franchise?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Lewis]

In message <409721b8-330b-4624...@googlegroups.com>

lesley...@gmail.com <lesley...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have ALL been martinized ;)

Martinizing is a (patented?) method of dry cleaning.

--
"You're just impressed by any pretty girl who can walk and talk." "She
doesn't have to talk."

[HVS]

On 16 Apr 2016, Tony Cooper wrote

> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:03:16 -0700 (PDT), lesley...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> You have ALL been martinized ;)
>
> Being Martinized is having Mr Ambuhl rip you a new one.
>
> What is a franchise?

A French house.

What's received pronunciation?

--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 7:22:33 AM UTC-4, HVS wrote:
> On 16 Apr 2016, Tony Cooper wrote
> > On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:03:16 -0700 (PDT), lesley...@gmail.com
> > wrote:

> >> You have ALL been martinized ;)
> > Being Martinized is having Mr Ambuhl rip you a new one.
> > What is a franchise?
> A French house.
> What's received pronunciation?

A sentenced criminal. What's gilt?

[Whiskers]

On 2016-04-17, HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16 Apr 2016, Tony Cooper wrote
>
>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 10:03:16 -0700 (PDT), lesley...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You have ALL been martinized ;)
>>
>> Being Martinized is having Mr Ambuhl rip you a new one.
>>
>> What is a franchise?
>
> A French house.
>
> What's received pronunciation?

That which some both hear and listen to.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Janet]

In article <a05deb02-6e8a-4af5...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...

A shiny present for suspicious wife. What's a boar?

Janet

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

HVS skrev:

>>> You have ALL been martinized ;)
>> Being Martinized is having Mr Ambuhl rip you a new one.
>> What is a franchise?

> A French house.

> What's received pronunciation?

The sound that hits your ear when somebody speaks within earshot.
What's shuteye?

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Mack A. Damia]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 02:41:01 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <409721b8-330b-4624...@googlegroups.com>
> lesley...@gmail.com <lesley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You have ALL been martinized ;)
>
>Martinizing is a (patented?) method of dry cleaning.

It was actually the first "on-site" dry cleaning endeavor as dry
cleaning was traditionally performed far from the madding crowd and
the dry cleaning store fronts due to the very dangerous cleaning
fluids utilized in the dry cleaning process. Martin, a chemist,
developed nonflammable solvents.

Wiki says it all.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Non-inflammable, yes, but not non-toxic, unfortunately. Even today
dry-cleaning shops can be dangerous places to work.


>
> Wiki says it all.


--
athel

[Mack A. Damia]

Agree. I think anywhere where a person has to constantly breathe in
questionable chemical fumes is quite risky.

[HVS]

On 17 Apr 2016, Mack A. Damia wrote

> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:33:26 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
><acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>

-snip-

>>> It was actually the first "on-site" dry cleaning endeavor as dry
>>> cleaning was traditionally performed far from the madding crowd and
>>> the dry cleaning store fronts due to the very dangerous cleaning
>>> fluids utilized in the dry cleaning process. Martin, a chemist,
>>> developed nonflammable solvents.
>>
>> Non-inflammable, yes, but not non-toxic, unfortunately. Even today
>> dry-cleaning shops can be dangerous places to work.
>
> Agree. I think anywhere where a person has to constantly breathe in
> questionable chemical fumes is quite risky.

The example I use for dangerous "standard" working practices was the use in
the 1970s of "blue-line" plan printers in architectural offices, which gave
off powerful ammonia fumes.

The companies I worked with tended to put the machine in a windowless room,
with either no (or perhaps just wildly ineffective) ventilation. It
certainly cleared a stuffy nose if you had a cold.

[Cheryl]

On 2016-04-18 7:20 AM, HVS wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2016, Mack A. Damia wrote
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:33:26 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>
> -snip-
>
>>>> It was actually the first "on-site" dry cleaning endeavor as dry
>>>> cleaning was traditionally performed far from the madding crowd and
>>>> the dry cleaning store fronts due to the very dangerous cleaning
>>>> fluids utilized in the dry cleaning process. Martin, a chemist,
>>>> developed nonflammable solvents.
>>>
>>> Non-inflammable, yes, but not non-toxic, unfortunately. Even today
>>> dry-cleaning shops can be dangerous places to work.
>>
>> Agree. I think anywhere where a person has to constantly breathe in
>> questionable chemical fumes is quite risky.
>
> The example I use for dangerous "standard" working practices was the use in
> the 1970s of "blue-line" plan printers in architectural offices, which gave
> off powerful ammonia fumes.
>
> The companies I worked with tended to put the machine in a windowless room,
> with either no (or perhaps just wildly ineffective) ventilation. It
> certainly cleared a stuffy nose if you had a cold.
>

I once had a summer job preparing soil samples for analysis. This
required grinding and sifting dried mud, an extremely dusty procedure,
and we were required to wear masks. We (a bunch of teenagers on one of
our first jobs) did so at first out of novelty and afterwards when one
of the managers came by. We couldn't chatter with the masks on, and
sitting in a dusty shack sifting dried mud was probably the most boring
thing any of us had done. It certainly was for me.

I guess as teens we didn't pay attention to - any warnings about health
concerns.

--
Cheryl

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

HVS skrev:

> The example I use for dangerous "standard" working practices
> was the use in the 1970s of "blue-line" plan printers in
> architectural offices, which gave off powerful ammonia fumes.

The photocopy machines that we had on my school gave off ozon
fumes.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Mack A. Damia]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:50:36 +0100, HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 17 Apr 2016, Mack A. Damia wrote
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:33:26 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
>><acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>
>-snip-
>
>>>> It was actually the first "on-site" dry cleaning endeavor as dry
>>>> cleaning was traditionally performed far from the madding crowd and
>>>> the dry cleaning store fronts due to the very dangerous cleaning
>>>> fluids utilized in the dry cleaning process. Martin, a chemist,
>>>> developed nonflammable solvents.
>>>
>>> Non-inflammable, yes, but not non-toxic, unfortunately. Even today
>>> dry-cleaning shops can be dangerous places to work.
>>
>> Agree. I think anywhere where a person has to constantly breathe in
>> questionable chemical fumes is quite risky.
>
>The example I use for dangerous "standard" working practices was the use in
>the 1970s of "blue-line" plan printers in architectural offices, which gave
>off powerful ammonia fumes.
>
>The companies I worked with tended to put the machine in a windowless room,
>with either no (or perhaps just wildly ineffective) ventilation. It
>certainly cleared a stuffy nose if you had a cold.

Sixty years ago or so, we were volunteering to pick up the
mimeographed papers in the office so that we could sniff the
duplicating fluid on the way back to the classroom. There was a
certain buzz to it.

A few years later - maybe 8th or 9th grade, a half-dozen boys were
caught sniffing model airplane glue in paper bags somewhere in the
bowels of the school. The process was new to me, and I remember the
gym teacher or maybe it was the principal giving us all a lecture,
circa 1961.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <dnhs6m...@mid.individual.net>,

When I was working at McDonnell Douglas, part of my work was monitoring
the tanks used for treating metal parts. Some of these were very large,
capable of fitting a portion of a DC-10 wing skin so it could be
degreased. They contained trichloroethylene. When I first began working
there (late 60s) all of the tanks in the facility were uncovered. As
rules kicked in, the tanks were covered to prevent fumes from escaping.
There may have been some reclamation as well.

I hate to think what fumes I was exposed to during the years I was there.


charles, though that would explain a lot

[Peter Young]

Trichlorethylene is a volatile anaesthetic, which I occasionally used
in the early part of my career. Did you manage to stay awake while
using it?

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Os)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Mack A. Damia skrev:

> Sixty years ago or so, we were volunteering to pick up the
> mimeographed papers in the office so that we could sniff the
> duplicating fluid on the way back to the classroom. There was a
> certain buzz to it.

The first duplicating machines used in Danish schools used a
fluid based on alcohol. We always smelled the fresh prints.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[grabber]

Someone who hogs the conversation. What's verbiage?

[Mack A. Damia]

If I close my eyes and lose my mind, I can smell the aroma. It was
quite seductive.

This from Wiki:

"The faintly sweet aroma of pages fresh off the duplicator was a
memorable feature of school life in the spirit-duplicator era. A pop
culture reference to the aroma can be found in the 1982 film Fast
Times At Ridgemont High. At one point a teacher distributes a
duplicated schedule of class quizzes, and every student immediately
lifts it to his or her nose and inhales."

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-04-18, Mack A Damia wrote:

> Sixty years ago or so, we were volunteering to pick up the
> mimeographed papers in the office so that we could sniff the
> duplicating fluid on the way back to the classroom. There was a
> certain buzz to it.

Purple haze
All in my brain!


--
I am at the moment writing a lengthy indictment against our
century. When my brain begins to reel from my literary labors, I make
an occasional cheese dip. --- Ignatius J Reilly

[Mack A. Damia]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:23:30 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

>On 2016-04-18, Mack A Damia wrote:
>
>> Sixty years ago or so, we were volunteering to pick up the
>> mimeographed papers in the office so that we could sniff the
>> duplicating fluid on the way back to the classroom. There was a
>> certain buzz to it.
>
>Purple haze
>All in my brain!

Bertel mentioned an alcohol base, but a chemist created a solvent for
duplicating machines in the late 1930s consisting of alcohol AND
"ether", so there was the basis of the pleasant aroma and buzz.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-6, Mack A. Damia wrote:
...

> Sixty years ago or so, we were volunteering to pick up the
> mimeographed papers in the office so that we could sniff the
> duplicating fluid on the way back to the classroom. There was a
> certain buzz to it.
>
> A few years later - maybe 8th or 9th grade, a half-dozen boys were
> caught sniffing model airplane glue in paper bags somewhere in the
> bowels of the school. The process was new to me, and I remember the
> gym teacher or maybe it was the principal giving us all a lecture,
> circa 1961.

At which point the incidence of glue-sniffing suddenly increased?

--
Jerry Friedman

[Mack A. Damia]

I couldn't say, but I never heard of anybody else trying it or getting
into trouble, at least in our group. Maybe some were more careful
about where they sniffed.

I remember them telling us that it could lead to blindness and brain
damage, and that was enough for me. I never tried it.

[Peter Moylan]

Petrol sniffing is a major problem in some remote aboriginal
communities. A few years ago the federal government started a campaign
to wipe it out. The town that was most successful in reducing the
incidence of petrol sniffing was given a prize: a new petrol station.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Charles Bishop]

In article <a58fd0725...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>,

I never had to use it, just take samples and analyze them for $Something
that I've forgotten now. I seem to recall that the tanks switched to
tricholorethane or perhaps it was the other way 'round.

--
chrles

[Adam Funk]

You mean like "don't put beans up your nose [or in your ears]"?

OTOH, saying as little as possible has been fairly well demonstrated
not to work for sex education, for example.


--
The love of money as a possession ... will be recognised for what it
is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal,
semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to
the specialists in mental disease. --- J M Keynes

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Mack A. Damia skrev:

> I couldn't say, but I never heard of anybody else trying it or getting
> into trouble, at least in our group. Maybe some were more careful
> about where they sniffed.

> I remember them telling us that it could lead to blindness and brain
> damage, and that was enough for me. I never tried it.

You have things mixed up. Those horrible effects had to do with
masturbation.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-04-18, Mack A Damia wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:23:30 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2016-04-18, Mack A Damia wrote:
>>
>>> Sixty years ago or so, we were volunteering to pick up the
>>> mimeographed papers in the office so that we could sniff the
>>> duplicating fluid on the way back to the classroom. There was a
>>> certain buzz to it.
>>
>>Purple haze
>>All in my brain!
>
> Bertel mentioned an alcohol base, but a chemist created a solvent for
> duplicating machines in the late 1930s consisting of alcohol AND
> "ether", so there was the basis of the pleasant aroma and buzz.

Apparently you can inhale alcohol recreationally, but it sounds like
too much effort to me.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_inhalation#Recreational_use>


--
...the reason why so many professional artists drink a lot is not
necessarily very much to do with the artistic temperament, etc. It is
simply that they can afford to, because they can normally take a large
part of a day off to deal with the ravages. --- Amis _On Drink_

[Peter Moylan]

Especially if you masturbate while sniffing glue.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 23:11:54 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 2016-Apr-19 19:39, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Mack A. Damia skrev:
>>
>>> I couldn't say, but I never heard of anybody else trying it or getting
>>> into trouble, at least in our group. Maybe some were more careful
>>> about where they sniffed.
>>
>>> I remember them telling us that it could lead to blindness and brain
>>> damage, and that was enough for me. I never tried it.
>>
>> You have things mixed up. Those horrible effects had to do with
>> masturbation.
>
>Especially if you masturbate while sniffing glue.

Our gym teacher was also our "Hygiene" class teacher in 7th and 8th
grades. He may have been the one who lectured us about glue-sniffing.

I don't recall if he ever spoke about the so-called evils of
masturbation, but he was a Lt. Col. in the USAF Reserves. He accessed
some WW2 military-grade slides designed to "educate" the troops about
the dangers of venereal diseases.

They were very graphic and morbid photographs of genitals that were in
various states of putrefaction due to the effects of VD.

Bernie (the teacher) should have provided airplane barf bags. We were
impressionable kids at that age, and several boys got sick. One even
fainted.

[David Kleinecke]

Ah the good old Venereal Serial. All us US WW II hands remember the
endless series of little movies about the horrors of having sex with
foreign ladies.

[Mack A. Damia]

Bernie had a habit of loudly emphasizing and elongating last words in
sentences at times.

He once asked the class, "What is a WOMB?"

The joker from the back of the class answered, "An elephant fart".

[Jerry Friedman]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 3:30:07 AM UTC-6, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2016-04-18, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> > On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-6, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> Sixty years ago or so, we were volunteering to pick up the
> >> mimeographed papers in the office so that we could sniff the
> >> duplicating fluid on the way back to the classroom. There was a
> >> certain buzz to it.
> >>
> >> A few years later - maybe 8th or 9th grade, a half-dozen boys were
> >> caught sniffing model airplane glue in paper bags somewhere in the
> >> bowels of the school. The process was new to me, and I remember the
> >> gym teacher or maybe it was the principal giving us all a lecture,
> >> circa 1961.
> >
> > At which point the incidence of glue-sniffing suddenly increased?
>
> You mean like "don't put beans up your nose [or in your ears]"?

Exactly. In ancient times, the Consumer's Union put out a book called
/Licit and Illicit Drugs/ (Edward M. Brecher, 1972, the Internetz seem
to think). The parts I glanced at were devoted to stories about places
where the media had started a brouhaha about the dangers of this or that
drug and use among teenagers had immediately spiked. I don't know how
reliable all of that was.

> OTOH, saying as little as possible has been fairly well demonstrated
> not to work for sex education, for example.

I wouldn't be surprised if drug use is different. Of course, once
drugs such as glue are well known to kids, saying that they're dangerous
is probably advisable.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

So they wisely turned to foreign gentlemen.

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

Nopr. That's a "spirit duplicator"; a mimeo is, essentially, a
rotary silkscreen, and uses an oil based ink, or an emulsion.
Very different animules.

ANMcC

[Mack A. Damia]

You are correct, and I did not know the difference. Based on this, I
don't believe that we used mimeographing in school; it was a spirit
duplicator.

[bill van]

In article <2d3adbb9-ec15-4eb4...@googlegroups.com>,

Where do Gestetner machines fit in? I remember back in student activist
days we used silk-screening for graphic posters, and a Gestetner for
text hand bills. There was a distinct smell to the Gestetner operation,
but I think it used some kind of ink.
--
bill

[snide...@gmail.com]

Gestetner was a mimeograph machine. You could use your typewriter (set to the no-ribbon position) or a stylus, both of which put strategic holes in a soft-ish mask sheet. There was a screen layer between the mask and the paper.
You cranked a handle or flipped a switch, and the drum spun 'round and engaged
the paper, pulling it through and squeezing ink onto it.

The ink I encountered came in tubes, and was slightly thinner than artist paints
from tubes (water colors or oils, and probably acrylics).

/dps

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 5:19:07 PM UTC-7, bill van wrote:

Gestetners were stencil, but I think the company also made or
marketed spirit duplicators, just co confuse things. Or that
might have been Dick or Roneo or...
AN "CRS" McC

[Lewis]

In message <7366999c-c099-429f...@googlegroups.com>

When I was in Jr High school one of the jobs for the student office
assistants was standing and the mimeograph and spinning out 30 or 50 or
100 copies of something. The smell was sort of pleasant and sort of
horrid and made you a bit woozy and, IIRC, turned out be carcinogenic.

> The ink I encountered came in tubes, and was slightly thinner than artist paints
> from tubes (water colors or oils, and probably acrylics).

Yep, that sounds like what I rememebr.


--
Honesty may be the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.

[Lewis]

In message <d6chucx...@news.ducksburg.com>

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2016-04-18, Mack A Damia wrote:

>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:23:30 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2016-04-18, Mack A Damia wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sixty years ago or so, we were volunteering to pick up the
>>>> mimeographed papers in the office so that we could sniff the
>>>> duplicating fluid on the way back to the classroom. There was a
>>>> certain buzz to it.
>>>
>>>Purple haze
>>>All in my brain!
>>
>> Bertel mentioned an alcohol base, but a chemist created a solvent for
>> duplicating machines in the late 1930s consisting of alcohol AND
>> "ether", so there was the basis of the pleasant aroma and buzz.

> Apparently you can inhale alcohol recreationally, but it sounds like
> too much effort to me.

All you need is a plastic bottle and an air compressor.

> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_inhalation#Recreational_use>

Put a tablespoon (15ml) of whiskey in a 1.5l or 2l plastic bottle, use an air
compressor to pressurise the bottle. Release the pressure and the
alcohol will vaporize. Inhale the fumes. You can use a bicycle pump.

15ml of alcohol will be as effective as a couple of regular mixed
drinks, so be careful.

--
'Do you know what they call a sausage-in-a-bun in Quirm?' 'No?' said Mr
Tulip 'They called it le sausage-in-le-bun.' 'What, in a --ing foreign
language? You're --ing kidding!'

[bill van]

In article <slrnnhdugn....@amelia.local>,

I have accidentally breathed in small amounts of single malt scotch, and
I'm here to say the traditional means of imbibing are the best and do
not trigger coughing fits.
--
bill

[Adam Funk]

Surely masturbation (although not while sniffing glue) should be
encouraged in order to help reduce the spread of disease & unplanned
pregnancies.


--
To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world,
if men were only capable of staying awake long enough to let the idea
soak in. --- Henry Miller

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-04-19, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 3:30:07 AM UTC-6, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2016-04-18, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> > On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-6, Mack A. Damia wrote:
...

>> >> A few years later - maybe 8th or 9th grade, a half-dozen boys were
>> >> caught sniffing model airplane glue in paper bags somewhere in the
>> >> bowels of the school. The process was new to me, and I remember the
>> >> gym teacher or maybe it was the principal giving us all a lecture,
>> >> circa 1961.
>> >
>> > At which point the incidence of glue-sniffing suddenly increased?
>>
>> You mean like "don't put beans up your nose [or in your ears]"?
>
> Exactly. In ancient times, the Consumer's Union put out a book called
> /Licit and Illicit Drugs/ (Edward M. Brecher, 1972, the Internetz seem
> to think). The parts I glanced at were devoted to stories about places
> where the media had started a brouhaha about the dangers of this or that
> drug and use among teenagers had immediately spiked. I don't know how
> reliable all of that was.
>
>> OTOH, saying as little as possible has been fairly well demonstrated
>> not to work for sex education, for example.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if drug use is different. Of course, once
> drugs such as glue are well known to kids, saying that they're dangerous
> is probably advisable.

It might be different, but I think the problem with lack of sex
education is worth bearing in mind. ISTR American PSAs in the 1970s
or 80s warning that "if you don't talk to your kids about drugs,
someone else will", with the implication that it would be the dealers
or drug-using friends.


--
It is probable that television drama of high caliber and produced by
first-rate artists will materially raise the level of dramatic taste
of the nation. --- David Sarnoff, CEO of RCA, 1939; in Stoll 1995

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-04-20, Lewis wrote:

> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>> Apparently you can inhale alcohol recreationally, but it sounds like
>> too much effort to me.
>
> All you need is a plastic bottle and an air compressor.
>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_inhalation#Recreational_use>
>
> Put a tablespoon (15ml) of whiskey in a 1.5l or 2l plastic bottle, use an air
> compressor to pressurise the bottle. Release the pressure and the
> alcohol will vaporize. Inhale the fumes. You can use a bicycle pump.
>
> 15ml of alcohol will be as effective as a couple of regular mixed
> drinks, so be careful.

My successful method until now is this: put 50 ml of whiskey in a
glass, add an ice cube or two [1], & drink. I suppose the pumped-up
method economizes, but I'm not sure where to get a soda bottle adapter
for my bike pump.


[1] That's for bourbon or rye. I would never put ice in Scotch. I
can't explain why.


--
It would be unfair to detect an element of logic in the siting of the
Pentagon alongside the National Cemetery, but the subject seems at
least worthy of investigation. --- C Northcote Parkinson

[RH Draney]

On 4/20/2016 12:01 AM, bill van wrote:
>
> I have accidentally breathed in small amounts of single malt scotch, and
> I'm here to say the traditional means of imbibing are the best and do
> not trigger coughing fits.

I suppose this cautionary video needs to be posted periodically for the
benefit of newcomers:

https://youtu.be/aQm7YpxgOnA

....r

[Mack A. Damia]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:56:53 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

>On 2016-04-19, Mack A Damia wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 23:11:54 +1000, Peter Moylan
>><pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>Especially if you masturbate while sniffing glue.
>>
>> Our gym teacher was also our "Hygiene" class teacher in 7th and 8th
>> grades. He may have been the one who lectured us about glue-sniffing.
>>
>> I don't recall if he ever spoke about the so-called evils of
>> masturbation, but he was a Lt. Col. in the USAF Reserves. He accessed
>> some WW2 military-grade slides designed to "educate" the troops about
>> the dangers of venereal diseases.
>>
>> They were very graphic and morbid photographs of genitals that were in
>> various states of putrefaction due to the effects of VD.
>>
>> Bernie (the teacher) should have provided airplane barf bags. We were
>> impressionable kids at that age, and several boys got sick. One even
>> fainted.
>
>Surely masturbation (although not while sniffing glue) should be
>encouraged in order to help reduce the spread of disease & unplanned
>pregnancies.

Fifty-five years ago, issues like this weren't spoken about so
directly, and even now, I can't imagine a teacher saying in the
classroom, "Yes, and you should whack-off regularly for a variety of
reasons."

Many parents would be horrified and some would definitely complain.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <slrnnhdugn....@amelia.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

In the US, (probably elsewhere too, and probably earlier than the US)
there is powdered alcohol. You mix it with a liquid and you have an
alcoholic beverage. The product has been banned in several states and
others are considering it as well.

The fear, and it's a real one is that it would make it easier for
underage people to abuse it. Also that it would make it possible to
increase the alcohol content of other alcoholic drinks by adding the
powdered alcohol. Also, perhaps, by "sniffing" the powdered alcohol.

I'm not sure how much of a problem it would be, as measured against how
much of a problem alcoholic consumption is now.

--
charles

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Charles Bishop skrev:

> In the US, (probably elsewhere too, and probably earlier than the US)
> there is powdered alcohol. You mix it with a liquid and you have an
> alcoholic beverage. The product has been banned in several states and
> others are considering it as well.

> The fear, and it's a real one is that it would make it easier for
> underage people to abuse it. Also that it would make it possible to
> increase the alcohol content of other alcoholic drinks by adding the
> powdered alcohol. Also, perhaps, by "sniffing" the powdered alcohol.

Isn't it also difficult to evaluate how much alcohol the drink
contains?

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Adam Funk]

Well, not exactly that, but advising them that it's a lot safer than
contact with lots of other people's private parts.

> Many parents would be horrified and some would definitely complain.

No doubt, as is already the case for sensible sex education. They
should be told to lump it.


--
Why is it drug addicts and computer afficionados are both
called users? --- Clifford Stoll

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-04-20, Charles Bishop wrote:

> In the US, (probably elsewhere too, and probably earlier than the US)
> there is powdered alcohol. You mix it with a liquid and you have an
> alcoholic beverage. The product has been banned in several states and
> others are considering it as well.
>
> The fear, and it's a real one is that it would make it easier for
> underage people to abuse it. Also that it would make it possible to
> increase the alcohol content of other alcoholic drinks by adding the
> powdered alcohol. Also, perhaps, by "sniffing" the powdered alcohol.
>
> I'm not sure how much of a problem it would be, as measured against how
> much of a problem alcoholic consumption is now.

It's not literally "powdered", though, it's "micro-encapsulated",
i.e., liquid alcohol in tiny capsules. The website says (among other
things)

Outdoor Activity Applications: Palcohol is a boon to outdoors
enthusiasts such as campers, hikers and others who wanted to enjoy
adult beverages responsibly without having the undue burden of
carrying heavy bottles of liquid.

<http://www.palcohol.com/>

But surely 1 kg of palcohol has to contain slightly less than 1 kg of
ethanol, because of the micro-capsules. And I'd expect the contents
of the capsules to be subject the usual limit of distillation of
ethanol for beverage use [1]. It seems to me that if you want to
drink while camping with minimum effort in the field, you should pack
Everclear (or something similar) into lightweight collapsible plastic
containers. (OTOH, Everclear has been banned in a lot of states now
too.)


[1] I think it's 97% or something like that; you can only distill
alcohol to a stronger level by adding something that (even in
traces) makes the result poisonous but suitable for industrial
applications.


--
By filing this bug report, you have challenged my
my honor. Prepare to die!
--- Klingon Programmer's Guide

[Peter Young]

On 20 Apr 2016 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> On 2016-04-20, Lewis wrote:

>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>>> Apparently you can inhale alcohol recreationally, but it sounds like
>>> too much effort to me.
>>
>> All you need is a plastic bottle and an air compressor.
>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_inhalation#Recreational_use>
>>
>> Put a tablespoon (15ml) of whiskey in a 1.5l or 2l plastic bottle, use
>> an air
>> compressor to pressurise the bottle. Release the pressure and the
>> alcohol will vaporize. Inhale the fumes. You can use a bicycle pump.
>>
>> 15ml of alcohol will be as effective as a couple of regular mixed
>> drinks, so be careful.

> My successful method until now is this: put 50 ml of whiskey in a
> glass, add an ice cube or two [1], & drink. I suppose the pumped-up
> method economizes, but I'm not sure where to get a soda bottle adapter
> for my bike pump.


> [1] That's for bourbon or rye. I would never put ice in Scotch. I
> can't explain why.

Because the only thing you should put in Scotch, particularly single
malt, is more Scotch. Remember what W C Fields said about water.

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Os)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[Mack A. Damia]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:12:13 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>

Have you been following the Republican primaries?

Ted Cruz has openly said that masturbation is evil. He's a genuine
fruitcake - no macadamia nuts, though.

He admits that God talks to him, and he has a plan for America. That's
not God's plan, that's Ted Cruz's god "talking" to him. Dangerous
stuff.

Shades of Joe McCarthy, who Cruz resembles, and who was diagnosed as a
paranoid schizophrenic. I think Ted has more than a touch of it.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Adam Funk skrev:

>> Fifty-five years ago, issues like this weren't spoken about so
>> directly, and even now, I can't imagine a teacher saying in the
>> classroom, "Yes, and you should whack-off regularly for a variety of
>> reasons."

> Well, not exactly that, but advising them that it's a lot safer than
> contact with lots of other people's private parts.

Staying indoor is also a lot safer than getting into a car and
driving somewhere.

These two pieces of advice are just about equally useful.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

Not to go full metal AFUnian, but "cite?"

AN "FMAFU would add 'BOP', of course" McC

[Mack A. Damia]

You have to Google and dig around a bit. This one took me ten
seconds:

http://tinyurl.com/zqajcfp (or)

https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=ZKzjpsN5-VcC&pg=PA325&lpg=PA325&dq=Joe+McCarthy,+paranoid+schizophrenic&source=bl&ots=rr6QXju7Bs&sig=BUgni_7Q8V9NaNEjO7P1o-jK5EQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgt56EiZ7MAhVW9GMKHbEvDD4Q6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=Joe%20McCarthy%2C%20paranoid%20schizophrenic&f=false

http://tinyurl.com/zuxyo2z (or)

https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=c98Nk0ElgZUC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=Joe+McCarthy,+paranoid+schizophrenic&source=bl&ots=RFIieJhlAi&sig=zq_tvR7LjgW8D22W7A0syXhvA8s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgt56EiZ7MAhVW9GMKHbEvDD4Q6AEINzAF#v=onepage&q=Joe%20McCarthy%2C%20paranoid%20schizophrenic&f=false

I don't think you will find an MD's actual clinical diagnosis, but he
had all the signs and symptoms, and this diagnosis of him appears
often in trying to understand his personality.

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 1:47:59 PM UTC-7, Mack A. Damia wrote:

...which is to say a self-published political screed (the first,
and a work given examples of misuse of armchair psychoanalysis
(the second).

Those are hardly quality cites. If you dig further, you can also
find examples from deliberate political smear campaigns; perhaps
ironic in McCarthy's case, but still not meaningful.

ANMcC

[Mack A. Damia]

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no
sense of decency?"

All I can say to you is that you learn these things over the years
from various sources, and some of us come to accept them. It is
generally accepted that he demonstrated paranoia and schizophrenia. I
posted links to two books, and there are others, too.

It is an attempt to explain the bizarre behavior of the man. Have you
taken the time to study the guy? He was off his rocker.

I can say no more.

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 3:11:44 PM UTC-7, Mack A. Damia wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 14:42:22 -0700 (PDT), AMNC...@alum.rpi.edu wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 1:47:59 PM UTC-7, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 13:21:09 -0700 (PDT), ANMU...@alum.wpi.edu wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 8:38:35 AM UTC-7, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:12:13 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>

Given the context of gay-baiting associated with that episode,
it's an open question whether any of 'em did, by today's
standards, but that's neither here nor there.

> All I can say to you is that you learn these things over the years
> from various sources, and some of us come to accept them. It is
> generally accepted that he demonstrated paranoia and schizophrenia. I
> posted links to two books, and there are others, too.

Which is generally how folklore works, yup. It is "generally
accepted" by most shrinks that remote diagnosis is imprecise,
and it is "generally accepted" by most historians that it often
comes down to whose ox is gored.

ANMcC

[Mack A. Damia]

Did you check the authors' references?

Learned scholars analyze these things and posit educated theories. You
may disagree, but then there are many who agree.

There are no magic diagnostic tools with which to diagnose paranoid
schizophrenia. It is done by simple observation and analysis of
speech and thought.

McCarthy not only went after the so-called communists in government
(didn't he have different numbers every time he spoke?) but he went
after homosexuals, too.

His behavior was truly bizarre.

[Lewis]

In message <billvan-E5D84E...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>

Inhaling vaporized alcohol did not cause me to cough.

--
Clarke's Law: Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic
Clark's Law: Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable
from malice
Clark Slaw: Anything that has been severely damaged or destroyed by
application of Clark's Law

[Lewis]

In message <l5tjucx...@news.ducksburg.com>

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2016-04-20, Lewis wrote:

>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>>> Apparently you can inhale alcohol recreationally, but it sounds like
>>> too much effort to me.
>>
>> All you need is a plastic bottle and an air compressor.
>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_inhalation#Recreational_use>
>>
>> Put a tablespoon (15ml) of whiskey in a 1.5l or 2l plastic bottle, use an air
>> compressor to pressurise the bottle. Release the pressure and the
>> alcohol will vaporize. Inhale the fumes. You can use a bicycle pump.
>>
>> 15ml of alcohol will be as effective as a couple of regular mixed
>> drinks, so be careful.

> My successful method until now is this: put 50 ml of whiskey in a
> glass, add an ice cube or two [1], & drink. I suppose the pumped-up
> method economizes, but I'm not sure where to get a soda bottle adapter
> for my bike pump.

That is my usual method.

> [1] That's for bourbon or rye. I would never put ice in Scotch. I
> can't explain why.

Scotch should be drunk straight.

--
no no no no no
no no no no no no no
no no no no no

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 3:34:40 PM UTC-7, Mack A. Damia wrote:

You mean the Phd from the border-line diploma mill? Depending on
exactly when it was granted, that could mean no more than that
he had, or could borrow, a certain amount of money.

>
> Learned scholars analyze these things and posit educated theories. You
> may disagree, but then there are many who agree.

Then find some "learned scholars who do, not a self-published blogger.

>
> There are no magic diagnostic tools with which to diagnose paranoid
> schizophrenia. It is done by simple observation and analysis of
> speech and thought.

Do you have another blogger to cite for that?

> McCarthy not only went after the so-called communists in government
> (didn't he have different numbers every time he spoke?) but he went
> after homosexuals, too.

As did his opponents; the wordplay about "fairy" was not a
coincidence.

> His behavior was truly bizarre.

Some worthwhile sources have claimed that, but only for his last
few years...when everyone -was- out to get him.

ANMcC

[Mack A. Damia]

I have over three years (one course short of an M.A.) graduate-study
in Counseling Psychology and Diagnostics/Psychological Testing and a
few years of practical experience. I have worked with diagnosed
paranoid schizophrenics, too.

If you want more information on how to diagnose them, the Internet
will point you in the right direction.

>> McCarthy not only went after the so-called communists in government
>> (didn't he have different numbers every time he spoke?) but he went
>> after homosexuals, too.
>
>
>As did his opponents; the wordplay about "fairy" was not a
>coincidence.
>
>> His behavior was truly bizarre.
>
>Some worthwhile sources have claimed that, but only for his last
>few years...when everyone -was- out to get him.

1. I posted a theory that is accepted by many.

2. You asked for references.

3. I supplied them.

4. You engaged in an ad hominem attack against their credibility, and
now you question my personal work and research into methodology.

5. I said that I cannot say anymore.

6. You continue on your personal vendetta.

7. I can do no more. I am not in a university library; I only have
the Internet. I supplied references. If you are unwilling
to accept them, let me suggest that you do your own research.

8. Report back.

9. No milk and cookies for you tonight.

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 4:25:30 PM UTC-7, Mack A. Damia wrote:

Oh, my. Argumentum ad Interwebbum.

>
> >> McCarthy not only went after the so-called communists in government
> >> (didn't he have different numbers every time he spoke?) but he went
> >> after homosexuals, too.
> >
> >
> >As did his opponents; the wordplay about "fairy" was not a
> >coincidence.
> >
> >> His behavior was truly bizarre.
> >
> >Some worthwhile sources have claimed that, but only for his last
> >few years...when everyone -was- out to get him.
>
> 1. I posted a theory that is accepted by many.
>
> 2. You asked for references.
>
> 3. I supplied them.

No. You supplied one low quality reference that supported your
contention, and one better one that refuted it. The second
piece was critical of the whole idea of remote arm-chair
psychology. It'd be nice to have a single good reference.

It'd be nicer still to just BOP this, but the true old times are dead.

>
> 4. You engaged in an ad hominem attack against their credibility, and
> now you question my personal work and research into methodology.

Nonsense. You only just brought up your "personal work." Now
that you have, though.....

>
> 5. I said that I cannot say anymore.

Would that you had, and meant it, but you didn't "say" any such
thing, except perhaps by muttering to yourself. Look above;
you wrote nothing to that effect.

> 6. You continue on your personal vendetta.
>
> 7. I can do no more. I am not in a university library; I only have
> the Internet. I supplied references. If you are unwilling
> to accept them, let me suggest that you do your own research.
>
> 8. Report back.

Oh, dear. Another victim of schoolmasteritis, AKA PeteY's Disease.


AN "Sit down over there with group W" McC

[Mack A. Damia]

This sounds like a family problem, now. Did you quibble with your
mother like this?

You have been skunked. Accept it with grace and dignity [1]

[1] I once had lunch with Grace and Mercy; I kid you not.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:17:30 -0700 (PDT), ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu wrote:

>Would that you had, and meant it, but you didn't "say" any such
>thing, except perhaps by muttering to yourself. Look above;
>you wrote nothing to that effect.

Seriously, are you on drugs?

I can say no more about the voracity of my original claim. Where
would I get such information on the Internet? I gave you two
references, and you threw a little hissy fit.

As I said, it's a family thing.

[bill van]

In article <slrnnhg1ne....@amelia.local>,

Not necessarily. Cheaper blended scotches are not very pleasant drunk
straight. And any primer on single malts will tell you that some are at
their best when drunk neat (not straight), while others benefit from a
few drops of water, especially when the alcohol volume approaches cask
strength. A few drops of water and swirling the malt inside the glass
will often release oils and esters that are not otherwise apparent. Some
people like more water than others.

Experiment until you find the combination of whisky and water that you
like best. It will likely be different between one malt and the next.

I wouldn't put ice in my scotch unless it's at the low end of the
quality scale and all I really want is for the alcohol to have its way.
--
bill

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-04-21, bill van wrote:

> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>> > [1] That's for bourbon or rye. I would never put ice in Scotch. I
>> > can't explain why.
>>
>> Scotch should be drunk straight.
>
> Not necessarily. Cheaper blended scotches are not very pleasant drunk
> straight. And any primer on single malts will tell you that some are at
> their best when drunk neat (not straight), while others benefit from a
> few drops of water, especially when the alcohol volume approaches cask
> strength. A few drops of water and swirling the malt inside the glass
> will often release oils and esters that are not otherwise apparent. Some
> people like more water than others.
>
> Experiment until you find the combination of whisky and water that you
> like best. It will likely be different between one malt and the next.

I agree with all that. I didn't say I wouldn't put water in Scotch,
just ice.

> I wouldn't put ice in my scotch unless it's at the low end of the
> quality scale and all I really want is for the alcohol to have its way.

I'd probably use sparkling water for that.


--
All crime is due to incorrect breathing.
--- Sir Henry Rawlinson

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-04-20, Peter Young wrote:

> On 20 Apr 2016 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>> My successful method until now is this: put 50 ml of whiskey in a
>> glass, add an ice cube or two [1], & drink. I suppose the pumped-up
>> method economizes, but I'm not sure where to get a soda bottle adapter
>> for my bike pump.
>
>
>> [1] That's for bourbon or rye. I would never put ice in Scotch. I
>> can't explain why.
>
> Because the only thing you should put in Scotch, particularly single
> malt, is more Scotch. Remember what W C Fields said about water.

Fish do that in the water they make Scotch from too.


--
svn ci -m 'come back make, all is forgiven!' build.xml

[Charles Bishop]

In article <15w9oot1mljvz$.d...@lundhansen.dk>,

I don't know, but I would think the packaging of the "powdered" alcohol
would give an indication of how much liquid to add it to to get a %
C2H5OH concentration.

Of course the worry is that people will increase the amount added,
leading to abuse.

--
charles

[Mack A. Damia]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:17:30 -0700 (PDT), ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu wrote:

>Oh, dear. Another victim of schoolmasteritis, AKA PeteY's Disease.

It is written that invoking the name of AUE's very own "Scratch" in a
debate will get you a permanent wedgie for the remainder of your
unenlightened life.

Pax.

[Wayne Brown]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:02:47 in article <i78ahb522i6h55gvl...@4ax.com> Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 19:30:55 +0200, Bertel Lund Hansen
> <gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>
>>Mack A. Damia skrev:

>>
>>> Sixty years ago or so, we were volunteering to pick up the
>>> mimeographed papers in the office so that we could sniff the
>>> duplicating fluid on the way back to the classroom. There was a
>>> certain buzz to it.
>>

>>The first duplicating machines used in Danish schools used a
>>fluid based on alcohol. We always smelled the fresh prints.
>
> If I close my eyes and lose my mind, I can smell the aroma. It was
> quite seductive.
>
> This from Wiki:
>
> "The faintly sweet aroma of pages fresh off the duplicator was a
> memorable feature of school life in the spirit-duplicator era. A pop
> culture reference to the aroma can be found in the 1982 film Fast
> Times At Ridgemont High. At one point a teacher distributes a
> duplicated schedule of class quizzes, and every student immediately
> lifts it to his or her nose and inhales."

That is a fairly accurate description of my own high school classes
in the early '70s. Not every student did it, but at least the large
majority did whenever a teacher passed out papers fresh from the
spirit-duplicating machine.

My 9th grade physical science teacher needed a large metal can with
a tight-fitting cap for an experiment. He got an "empty" one-gallon
duplicating fluid can, filled it half full of water, and set it
over a flame to boil the water. The idea was that the steam from
the boiling water would displace a portion of the air in the can.
He then would screw the cap on the can and remove it from the flame.
As it cooled and the steam condensed back into water it would create
a partial vacuum in the can and the outside air pressure would cause
the can to twist and crumple slowly as if squeezed by an invisible
pair of hands.

Unfortunately he didn't realize that there was a film of highly
flammable duplicating fluid clinging to the inside of the can. After
a few minutes he leaned over and peered into the small opening to see
if the water was boiling yet. There was a flash and a "whoosh" sound.
Fortunately he was wearing glasses so the only things he lost were
his eyebrows.

--
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>

ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)

[Wayne Brown]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:34:26 in article <a502cf735...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk> Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2016 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-04-20, Lewis wrote:
>
>>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Apparently you can inhale alcohol recreationally, but it sounds like
>>>> too much effort to me.
>>>
>>> All you need is a plastic bottle and an air compressor.
>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_inhalation#Recreational_use>
>>>
>>> Put a tablespoon (15ml) of whiskey in a 1.5l or 2l plastic bottle, use
>>> an air
>>> compressor to pressurise the bottle. Release the pressure and the
>>> alcohol will vaporize. Inhale the fumes. You can use a bicycle pump.
>>>
>>> 15ml of alcohol will be as effective as a couple of regular mixed
>>> drinks, so be careful.
>
>> My successful method until now is this: put 50 ml of whiskey in a
>> glass, add an ice cube or two [1], & drink. I suppose the pumped-up
>> method economizes, but I'm not sure where to get a soda bottle adapter
>> for my bike pump.
>
>
>> [1] That's for bourbon or rye. I would never put ice in Scotch. I
>> can't explain why.
>
> Because the only thing you should put in Scotch, particularly single
> malt, is more Scotch. Remember what W C Fields said about water.

That reminds me of my favorite W.C. Fields story. Fields always
carried a small flask with him on the set while making films. He said
that it contained pineapple juice. One day he picked it up, took a
drink, sputtered and said, "Some sidewinder has put pineapple juice
in my pineapple juice!"

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 12:19:43 PM UTC-4, Wayne Brown wrote:

> That is a fairly accurate description of my own high school classes
> in the early '70s. Not every student did it, but at least the large
> majority did whenever a teacher passed out papers fresh from the
> spirit-duplicating machine.

"purple dittos"

> My 9th grade physical science teacher needed a large metal can with
> a tight-fitting cap for an experiment. He got an "empty" one-gallon
> duplicating fluid can, filled it half full of water, and set it
> over a flame to boil the water. The idea was that the steam from
> the boiling water would displace a portion of the air in the can.
> He then would screw the cap on the can and remove it from the flame.
> As it cooled and the steam condensed back into water it would create
> a partial vacuum in the can and the outside air pressure would cause
> the can to twist and crumple slowly as if squeezed by an invisible
> pair of hands.
>
> Unfortunately he didn't realize that there was a film of highly
> flammable duplicating fluid clinging to the inside of the can. After
> a few minutes he leaned over and peered into the small opening to see
> if the water was boiling yet. There was a flash and a "whoosh" sound.
> Fortunately he was wearing glasses so the only things he lost were
> his eyebrows.

Benjamin Lee Whorf used a similar anecdote, with a less happy outcome, to
warn of the difficulty with the word "inflammable."

[Peter Young]

Another W C Fields story, but I have no idea whether it's authentic.
You have to imagine the ponderous delivery.

"Every time I see a snake, I have to have a little tot of whisky to
steady my nerves.

So I always like to have a bottle of whisky handy in case I see a
snake.

I also like to keep a snake handy".

[Peter Moylan]

Is that an update to Godwin's Law?

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Mack A. Damia]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 12:03:19 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 2016-Apr-22 01:36, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:17:30 -0700 (PDT), ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Oh, dear. Another victim of schoolmasteritis, AKA PeteY's Disease.
>>
>> It is written that invoking the name of AUE's very own "Scratch" in a
>> debate will get you a permanent wedgie for the remainder of your
>> unenlightened life.
>>
>> Pax.
>
>Is that an update to Godwin's Law?

A footnote to Part II of the Malleus Maleficarum.

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-04-21, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 12:19:43 PM UTC-4, Wayne Brown wrote:

...

>> My 9th grade physical science teacher needed a large metal can with
>> a tight-fitting cap for an experiment. He got an "empty" one-gallon
>> duplicating fluid can, filled it half full of water, and set it
>> over a flame to boil the water. The idea was that the steam from
>> the boiling water would displace a portion of the air in the can.
>> He then would screw the cap on the can and remove it from the flame.
>> As it cooled and the steam condensed back into water it would create
>> a partial vacuum in the can and the outside air pressure would cause
>> the can to twist and crumple slowly as if squeezed by an invisible
>> pair of hands.
>>
>> Unfortunately he didn't realize that there was a film of highly
>> flammable duplicating fluid clinging to the inside of the can. After
>> a few minutes he leaned over and peered into the small opening to see
>> if the water was boiling yet. There was a flash and a "whoosh" sound.
>> Fortunately he was wearing glasses so the only things he lost were
>> his eyebrows.
>
> Benjamin Lee Whorf used a similar anecdote, with a less happy outcome, to
> warn of the difficulty with the word "inflammable."

I thought the problem was with the word "empty" (the workers were
careless around the canisters that were empty of liquid but contained
explosive fumes).

[Peter T. Daniels]

Different but similar problem. He was in the fire insurance biz.

[Adam Funk]

OK, found it: 2 different anecdotes.


--
No sport is less organized than Calvinball!

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-04-20, Adam Funk wrote:

> But surely 1 kg of palcohol has to contain slightly less than 1 kg of
> ethanol, because of the micro-capsules. And I'd expect the contents
> of the capsules to be subject the usual limit of distillation of
> ethanol for beverage use [1]. It seems to me that if you want to
> drink while camping with minimum effort in the field, you should pack
> Everclear (or something similar) into lightweight collapsible plastic
> containers. (OTOH, Everclear has been banned in a lot of states now
> too.)
>
>
> [1] I think it's 97% or something like that; you can only distill
> alcohol to a stronger level by adding something that (even in
> traces) makes the result poisonous but suitable for industrial
> applications.

It turns out that 95% is the maximum, the magic word is "azeotrope", &
the trace poison is usually benzene.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azeotropic_distillation#Material_Separation_Agent>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azeotrope>


--
I only regret that I have but one shirt to give for my country.
--- Abbie Hoffman

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-04-20, Mack A Damia wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:56:53 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:

>>Surely masturbation (although not while sniffing glue) should be
>>encouraged in order to help reduce the spread of disease & unplanned
>>pregnancies.
>
> Fifty-five years ago, issues like this weren't spoken about so
> directly, and even now, I can't imagine a teacher saying in the
> classroom, "Yes, and you should whack-off regularly for a variety of
> reasons."

Frequent ejaculation is now considered beneficial for reducing the
odds of prostate cancer. (Obviously it doesn't matter for this
purpose whether you're taking matters into your own hands or not.)

> Many parents would be horrified and some would definitely complain.

I'd forgotten about this until it turned up in some of the news
articles about National Masturbation Month (& IANMTU): Clinton fired
the Surgeon General in 1995 for advocating the promotion of
masturbation in sex education curricula.


--
Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but
that's not why we do it. --- Richard Feynman

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-04-19, Mack A Damia wrote:

> Our gym teacher was also our "Hygiene" class teacher in 7th and 8th
> grades. He may have been the one who lectured us about glue-sniffing.
>
> I don't recall if he ever spoke about the so-called evils of
> masturbation, but he was a Lt. Col. in the USAF Reserves. He accessed
> some WW2 military-grade slides designed to "educate" the troops about
> the dangers of venereal diseases.

"98% of all procurable women have venereal disease. Why bet against
these odds?"

http://www.newsfroup.net/procurable/#procurable


--
Men, there is no sacrifice greater than someone else's.
--- Skipper

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-04-20, Lewis wrote:

> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>> Apparently you can inhale alcohol recreationally, but it sounds like
>> too much effort to me.
>
> All you need is a plastic bottle and an air compressor.
>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_inhalation#Recreational_use>
>
> Put a tablespoon (15ml) of whiskey in a 1.5l or 2l plastic bottle, use an air
> compressor to pressurise the bottle. Release the pressure and the
> alcohol will vaporize. Inhale the fumes. You can use a bicycle pump.
>
> 15ml of alcohol will be as effective as a couple of regular mixed
> drinks, so be careful.

I came across some more stuff about this on the WWW. Among other
things, it's claimed that you don't get the calories from the alcohol
this way, but I don't see how that's possible. I understand that
inhalation bypasses the GI tract & the liver (which is why it's
possible to overdose easily) to get into the bloodstream, but ISTM
that the alcohol in the bloodstream has to be metabolized to the same
final products either way, & the release of chemical energy in those
reactions constitutes the "calories". Am I missing something?

As for the claim that it's more "effective" than drinking the same
amount, is that merely a question of speed of absorption? Or is some
of the ethanol when drinking "lost" in the liver before reaching the
bloodstream? (I'm thinking of the fact that oral medicine doses are
calculated to allow for loss that way.)


--
Disagreeing with Donald Rumsfeld about bombing anybody who gets in our
way is not a crime in this country. It is a wise and honorable idea
that George Washington and Benjamin Franklin risked their lives for.
--- Hunter S Thompson

[Lewis]

In message <c5h32dx...@news.ducksburg.com>

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2016-04-20, Lewis wrote:

>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>>> Apparently you can inhale alcohol recreationally, but it sounds like
>>> too much effort to me.
>>
>> All you need is a plastic bottle and an air compressor.
>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_inhalation#Recreational_use>
>>
>> Put a tablespoon (15ml) of whiskey in a 1.5l or 2l plastic bottle, use an air
>> compressor to pressurise the bottle. Release the pressure and the
>> alcohol will vaporize. Inhale the fumes. You can use a bicycle pump.
>>
>> 15ml of alcohol will be as effective as a couple of regular mixed
>> drinks, so be careful.

> I came across some more stuff about this on the WWW. Among other
> things, it's claimed that you don't get the calories from the alcohol
> this way, but I don't see how that's possible. I understand that
> inhalation bypasses the GI tract & the liver (which is why it's
> possible to overdose easily) to get into the bloodstream, but ISTM
> that the alcohol in the bloodstream has to be metabolized to the same
> final products either way, & the release of chemical energy in those
> reactions constitutes the "calories". Am I missing something?

Your blood will process the alcohol out of your blood, but only your GI
can convert food to energy, which is what a calorie is.

> As for the claim that it's more "effective" than drinking the same
> amount, is that merely a question of speed of absorption?

No. The alcohol goes directly into your lungs and into your blood. No
alcohol is lost in your GI with general processing of the food. Also,
spiking you BAC to 1% in a few seconds is much different than doing so
over the course of an hour.

> Or is some of the ethanol when drinking "lost" in the liver before
> reaching the bloodstream? (I'm thinking of the fact that oral
> medicine doses are calculated to allow for loss that way.)

In the stomach, the duodenum, the liver, and everything in between.

--
"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it." - Groucho
Marx

[Stan Brown]

On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 18:04:12 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
> I came across some more stuff about this on the WWW. Among other
> things, it's claimed that you don't get the calories from the alcohol
> this way, but I don't see how that's possible. I understand that
> inhalation bypasses the GI tract & the liver (which is why it's
> possible to overdose easily) to get into the bloodstream, but ISTM
> that the alcohol in the bloodstream has to be metabolized to the same
> final products either way, & the release of chemical energy in those
> reactions constitutes the "calories". Am I missing something?

At a guess, it's a question of quantity. It would be difficult to
ingest as much alcohol in vapor form as could easily be drunk as a
liquid. You would get the same quantities per gram of alcohol, but
there would be fewer grams in your body.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the
/right/ word is ... the difference between the lightning-bug
and the lightning." --Mark Twain

[Adam Funk]

On 2016-06-02, Lewis wrote:

> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>> I came across some more stuff about this on the WWW. Among other
>> things, it's claimed that you don't get the calories from the alcohol
>> this way, but I don't see how that's possible. I understand that
>> inhalation bypasses the GI tract & the liver (which is why it's
>> possible to overdose easily) to get into the bloodstream, but ISTM
>> that the alcohol in the bloodstream has to be metabolized to the same
>> final products either way, & the release of chemical energy in those
>> reactions constitutes the "calories". Am I missing something?
>
> Your blood will process the alcohol out of your blood, but only your GI
> can convert food to energy, which is what a calorie is.
>
>> As for the claim that it's more "effective" than drinking the same
>> amount, is that merely a question of speed of absorption?
>
> No. The alcohol goes directly into your lungs and into your blood.

That's what I meant by speed of absorption --- straight into the blood
faster than through the oral route.

> No alcohol is lost in your GI with general processing of the
> food. Also, spiking you BAC to 1% in a few seconds is much different
> than doing so over the course of an hour.
>
>> Or is some of the ethanol when drinking "lost" in the liver before
>> reaching the bloodstream? (I'm thinking of the fact that oral
>> medicine doses are calculated to allow for loss that way.)
>
> In the stomach, the duodenum, the liver, and everything in between.

Wait a minute:

1. No alcohol is lost in your GI with general processing of the food.

2. Your blood will process the alcohol out of your blood, but only

your GI can convert food to energy, which is what a calorie is.

3. some of the ethanol when drinking "lost" ... In the stomach, the

duodenum, the liver, and everything in between.

2 & 3 are consistent with each other, but how is 1 consistent with
them? For the GI to extract energy, there must be some chemical
change, i.e., a reaction that changes some of the ethanol to something
else before leaving the GI, right?


--
Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided
missiles and misguided men. --- Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Lewis]

In message <ifb52dx...@news.ducksburg.com>

Are you suggesting that your body is a perfect alcohol processor? I
don't think that is true.

> 2 & 3 are consistent with each other, but how is 1 consistent with
> them? For the GI to extract energy, there must be some chemical
> change, i.e., a reaction that changes some of the ethanol to something
> else before leaving the GI, right?

I do not think that everything that goes in your mouth that the body CAN
use WILL be used.

But the main thing is that while it may take hours for your body to push
food and liquids through your GI tract, it takes seconds for your lungs
to push inhaled alcohol into your blood.

The net effect is you get MUCH drunker on MUCH less alcohol. There's no
way for your GI tract to extract calories from the alcohol, it will get
cleaned out eventually by your kidneys, but I don't think it gets broken
down.

That is, a while after you inhale alcohol, you will literally be pissing
it out.

OTOH, I am not a doctor.

--
'They've given us the answers,' he [Carrot] said. 'Perhaps we can find
out what the questions should have been.' --Feet of Clay