Whisky/Whiskey trivia question

Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately
universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in
the US? For extra credit; by whom and why?


--riverman

On May 12, 8:42*pm, riverman wrote:
Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately
universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in
the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why?

--riverman

Clarification, from the Department of Pedantry. I'm looking for the
only IMPORTED whisk(e)y.

On Wed, 12 May 2010 05:44:31 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:

On May 12, 8:42*pm, riverman wrote:
Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately
universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in
the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why?

--riverman

Clarification, from the Department of Pedantry. I'm looking for the
only IMPORTED whisk(e)y.

Ah...I didn't realize that there was only one IMPORTED whisk(e)y (and I'm not
sure that's accurate, but I wasn't there, so ???), but if that was the case,
I'll guess that Joe Kennedy had something to do with it, and IIRC, that would
make it something from Seagram's.

TC,
R
....and BTW, I'm still waiting to see your calculations on the oil spill and
Massachusetts...

On May 12, 11:39*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 05:44:31 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:
On May 12, 8:42*pm, riverman wrote:
Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately
universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in
the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why?

--riverman

Clarification, from the Department of Pedantry. I'm looking for the
only IMPORTED whisk(e)y.

Ah...I didn't realize that there was only one IMPORTED whisk(e)y (and I'm not
sure that's accurate, but I wasn't there, so ???), but if that was the case,
I'll guess that Joe Kennedy had something to do with it, and IIRC, that would
make it something from Seagram's.

Nope, but certainly can't fault your logic.


TC,
R
...and BTW, I'm still waiting to see your calculations on the oil spill and
Massachusetts...

? Did you ask to see those elsewhere that I missed? LOL...calculations
were easy. Saw some article that gave the dimensions of the spill. I
just multiplied and got the surface area, then looked online to find a
state that had that same surface area. For the record, this article
http://www.independent.ie/world-news...e-2159086.html
puts it at three times the surface area of Mass on May 12. I'd have to
use the wayback machine to find the article I saw before, but a google
search on the day I posted would probably unearth it.

On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:

On May 12, 11:39*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 05:44:31 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:
On May 12, 8:42*pm, riverman wrote:
Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately
universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in
the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why?

--riverman

Clarification, from the Department of Pedantry. I'm looking for the
only IMPORTED whisk(e)y.

Ah...I didn't realize that there was only one IMPORTED whisk(e)y (and I'm not
sure that's accurate, but I wasn't there, so ???), but if that was the case,
I'll guess that Joe Kennedy had something to do with it, and IIRC, that would
make it something from Seagram's.

Nope,

I can't agree or disagree with your proposal since I don't know what it is and
since I'm not sure if you're saying "nope" to all or none of my guess, I'll wait
to see your answer, both to me, if any, as well as your proposed answer to your
trivia question, before I respond further. I will point out that Kennedy, via
various connections, had interests, contemporaneously disclosed and undisclosed,
with the Bronfman family as well as other, er, "families" involved in the legal
and illegal "whisk(e)y" business.

but certainly can't fault your logic.

TC,
R
...and BTW, I'm still waiting to see your calculations on the oil spill and
Massachusetts...

? Did you ask to see those elsewhere that I missed? LOL...calculations
were easy. Saw some article that gave the dimensions of the spill. I
just multiplied and got the surface area, then looked online to find a
state that had that same surface area. For the record, this article
http://www.independent.ie/world-news...e-2159086.html
puts it at three times the surface area of Mass on May 12. I'd have to
use the wayback machine to find the article I saw before, but a google
search on the day I posted would probably unearth it.

That article says (or implies, if you prefer, "circumference") about what I
expected. This is not like pouring oil onto a smooth, level surface such that
it would spread into a generally uniform "puddle." Moreover, there is a fairly
large amount of natural seepage of hydrocarbons, including oil, into the Gulf
(and most "oceans" worldwide) every day (for the Gulf, about 50,000 gallons a
day, using the _low_ estimates, 100,000 using the high). This is spread out
over the entire Gulf. The "real-world" picture is more like rivers or a river
delta _on the surface_, with ??? of hydrocarbons naturally and artificially
dispersed both on the surface _and_ sub-surface, and it has varying structure
and viscosity throughout the "column." The bottom line is trying to simplify
this into some mathematical formula of area will not work, unless you simply
wish to compare the theorized volume of "oil" to the overall volume of the Gulf
of Mexico. And even an attempt to do that would be, at best, a series of
mathematical assumptions (well, WAGs, really...) as the "Gulf of Mexico" has no
universally-accepted borders, but more importantly, the amount of "oil" is not
known. Of course, one could do a calculation based on opening size and
pressure, but since the exact pressure isn't known nor is the exact composition
of the output (and even then, both are dynamic variables as function of time),
that would only result in a theoretical momentary calculation as to output at
the source, and would provide little or no effective input as to a calculation
of the actual surface size of that output.

IAC, between Congresspeople and other "Government" officials who know literally
nothing about "oil" production and have absolutely no mechanical/technical
experience asking inane questions and much of the press who are similarly
lacking any knowledge trying to explain it, most of the information I've seen in
non-technical reporting varies from general misunderstanding to flat-assed
wrong. Surprisingly, BP, at least at this point, seems to be particularly
forthcoming about the facts as they learn them, even contradicting "positive"
news put forth by others - see Napolitano's statement now more "gas" than
"oil," etc.

There are more birds with oil (AFIAK, all or mostly pelicans who have been
easily and successfully cleaned), but (again, AFIAK) no more unusual turtle
finds and certainly no mass kills of fish on the shore. Thus far, while this is
certainly not a good thing or even a non-event, the ecological damage appears to
be - thankfully - at a minimum. However, the lawyer commercials and print ads
are nearly constant, with calls to even "hospitality employees" to seek "major
cash compensation" via the multitude of firms now advertising.

TC,
R

On May 12, 10:35*am, wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:
On May 12, 11:39*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 05:44:31 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:
On May 12, 8:42*pm, riverman wrote:
Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately
universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in
the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why?

--riverman

Clarification, from the Department of Pedantry. I'm looking for the
only IMPORTED whisk(e)y.

Ah...I didn't realize that there was only one IMPORTED whisk(e)y (and I'm not
sure that's accurate, but I wasn't there, so ???), but if that was the case,
I'll guess that Joe Kennedy had something to do with it, and IIRC, that would
make it something from Seagram's.

Nope,

I can't agree or disagree with your proposal since I don't know what it is and
since I'm not sure if you're saying "nope" to all or none of my guess, I'll wait
to see your answer, both to me, if any, as well as your proposed answer to your
trivia question, before I respond further. *I will point out that Kennedy, via
various connections, had interests, contemporaneously disclosed and undisclosed,
with the Bronfman family as well as other, er, "families" involved in the legal
and illegal "whisk(e)y" business.

but certainly can't fault your logic.
TC,
R
...and BTW, I'm still waiting to see your calculations on the oil spill and
Massachusetts...

? Did you ask to see those elsewhere that I missed? LOL...calculations
were easy. Saw some article that gave the dimensions of the spill. I
just multiplied and got the surface area, then looked online to find a
state that had that same surface area. For the record, this article
http://www.independent.ie/world-news...-size-of-irela...
puts it at three times the surface area of Mass on May 12. I'd have to
use the wayback machine to find the article I saw before, but a google
search on the day I posted would probably unearth it.

That article says (or implies, if you prefer, "circumference") about what I
expected. *This is not like pouring oil onto a smooth, level surface such that
it would spread into a generally uniform "puddle." *Moreover, there is a fairly
large amount of natural seepage of hydrocarbons, including oil, into the Gulf
(and most "oceans" worldwide) every day (for the Gulf, about 50,000 gallons a
day, using the _low_ estimates, 100,000 using the high). *This is spread out
over the entire Gulf. *The "real-world" picture is more like rivers or a river
delta _on the surface_, with ??? of hydrocarbons naturally and artificially
dispersed both on the surface _and_ sub-surface, and it has varying structure
and viscosity throughout the "column." *The bottom line is trying to simplify
this into some mathematical formula of area will not work, unless you simply
wish to compare the theorized volume of "oil" to the overall volume of the Gulf
of Mexico. *And even an attempt to do that would be, at best, a series of
mathematical assumptions (well, WAGs, really...) as the "Gulf of Mexico" has no
universally-accepted borders, but more importantly, the amount of "oil" is not
known. *Of course, one could do a calculation based on opening size and
pressure, but since the exact pressure isn't known nor is the exact composition
of the output (and even then, both are dynamic variables as function of time),
that would only result in a theoretical momentary calculation as to output at
the source, and would provide little or no effective input as to a calculation
of the actual surface size of that output. *

IAC, between Congresspeople and other "Government" officials who know literally
nothing about "oil" production and have absolutely no mechanical/technical
experience asking inane questions and much of the press who are similarly
lacking any knowledge trying to explain it, most of the information I've seen in
non-technical reporting varies from general misunderstanding to flat-assed
wrong. *Surprisingly, BP, at least at this point, seems to be particularly
forthcoming about the facts as they learn them, even contradicting "positive"
news put forth by others - see Napolitano's statement now more "gas" than
"oil," etc.

There are more birds with oil (AFIAK, all or mostly pelicans who have been
easily and successfully cleaned), but (again, AFIAK) no more unusual turtle
finds and certainly no mass kills of fish on the shore. *Thus far, while this is
certainly not a good thing or even a non-event, the ecological damage appears to
be - thankfully - at a minimum. *However, the lawyer commercials and print ads
are nearly constant, with calls to even "hospitality employees" to seek "major
cash compensation" via the multitude of firms now advertising.

TC,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanx for the enlightenment. I had no idea that oil spills were
actually good for the environment. Just tell me this: (you must have a
great technique for cleaning oil-soaked birds. It took me a couple of
hours and the bird died,) How do you do it so "...easily and
successfully..." ?

Dave
Ever thought of hanging out a consulting shingle and going up to
Alaska with your spill expertise? I understand there is lots of oil
left up there that those incompetents could not clean up after the
Exxon Valdez dropped it's load.

On May 12, 12:35*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:
On May 12, 11:39*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 05:44:31 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:
On May 12, 8:42*pm, riverman wrote:
Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately
universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in
the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why?

--riverman

Clarification, from the Department of Pedantry. I'm looking for the
only IMPORTED whisk(e)y.

Ah...I didn't realize that there was only one IMPORTED whisk(e)y (and I'm not
sure that's accurate, but I wasn't there, so ???), but if that was the case,
I'll guess that Joe Kennedy had something to do with it, and IIRC, that would
make it something from Seagram's.

Nope,

I can't agree or disagree with your proposal since I don't know what it is and
since I'm not sure if you're saying "nope" to all or none of my guess, I'll wait
to see your answer, both to me, if any, as well as your proposed answer to your
trivia question, before I respond further. *I will point out that Kennedy, via
various connections, had interests, contemporaneously disclosed and undisclosed,
with the Bronfman family as well as other, er, "families" involved in the legal
and illegal "whisk(e)y" business.

but certainly can't fault your logic.
TC,
R
...and BTW, I'm still waiting to see your calculations on the oil spill and
Massachusetts...

? Did you ask to see those elsewhere that I missed? LOL...calculations
were easy. Saw some article that gave the dimensions of the spill. I
just multiplied and got the surface area, then looked online to find a
state that had that same surface area. For the record, this article
http://www.independent.ie/world-news...-size-of-irela...
puts it at three times the surface area of Mass on May 12. I'd have to
use the wayback machine to find the article I saw before, but a google
search on the day I posted would probably unearth it.

That article says (or implies, if you prefer, "circumference") about what I
expected. *This is not like pouring oil onto a smooth, level surface such that
it would spread into a generally uniform "puddle." *Moreover, there is a fairly
large amount of natural seepage of hydrocarbons, including oil, into the Gulf
(and most "oceans" worldwide) every day (for the Gulf, about 50,000 gallons a
day, using the _low_ estimates, 100,000 using the high). *This is spread out
over the entire Gulf. *The "real-world" picture is more like rivers or a river
delta _on the surface_, with ??? of hydrocarbons naturally and artificially
dispersed both on the surface _and_ sub-surface, and it has varying structure
and viscosity throughout the "column." *The bottom line is trying to simplify
this into some mathematical formula of area will not work, unless you simply
wish to compare the theorized volume of "oil" to the overall volume of the Gulf
of Mexico. *And even an attempt to do that would be, at best, a series of
mathematical assumptions (well, WAGs, really...) as the "Gulf of Mexico" has no
universally-accepted borders, but more importantly, the amount of "oil" is not
known. *Of course, one could do a calculation based on opening size and
pressure, but since the exact pressure isn't known nor is the exact composition
of the output (and even then, both are dynamic variables as function of time),
that would only result in a theoretical momentary calculation as to output at
the source, and would provide little or no effective input as to a calculation
of the actual surface size of that output. *

IAC, between Congresspeople and other "Government" officials who know literally
nothing about "oil" production and have absolutely no mechanical/technical
experience asking inane questions and much of the press who are similarly
lacking any knowledge trying to explain it, most of the information I've seen in
non-technical reporting varies from general misunderstanding to flat-assed
wrong. *Surprisingly, BP, at least at this point, seems to be particularly
forthcoming about the facts as they learn them, even contradicting "positive"
news put forth by others - see Napolitano's statement now more "gas" than
"oil," etc.

There are more birds with oil (AFIAK, all or mostly pelicans who have been
easily and successfully cleaned), but (again, AFIAK) no more unusual turtle
finds and certainly no mass kills of fish on the shore. *Thus far, while this is
certainly not a good thing or even a non-event, the ecological damage appears to
be - thankfully - at a minimum. *However, the lawyer commercials and print ads
are nearly constant, with calls to even "hospitality employees" to seek "major
cash compensation" via the multitude of firms now advertising.

TC,
R

Good god, you are a suppurating ass.

g.
and some of you people STILL insist on treating this refuse from an
abattoir like an adult human being!

On May 13, 1:35*am, wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:
On May 12, 11:39*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010 05:44:31 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:
On May 12, 8:42*pm, riverman wrote:
Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately
universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in
the US? *For extra credit; by whom and why?

--riverman

Clarification, from the Department of Pedantry. I'm looking for the
only IMPORTED whisk(e)y.

Ah...I didn't realize that there was only one IMPORTED whisk(e)y (and I'm not
sure that's accurate, but I wasn't there, so ???), but if that was the case,
I'll guess that Joe Kennedy had something to do with it, and IIRC, that would
make it something from Seagram's.

Nope,

I can't agree or disagree with your proposal since I don't know what it is and
since I'm not sure if you're saying "nope" to all or none of my guess, I'll wait
to see your answer, both to me, if any, as well as your proposed answer to your
trivia question, before I respond further. *I will point out that Kennedy, via
various connections, had interests, contemporaneously disclosed and undisclosed,
with the Bronfman family as well as other, er, "families" involved in the legal
and illegal "whisk(e)y" business.

but certainly can't fault your logic.
TC,
R
...and BTW, I'm still waiting to see your calculations on the oil spill and
Massachusetts...

? Did you ask to see those elsewhere that I missed? LOL...calculations
were easy. Saw some article that gave the dimensions of the spill. I
just multiplied and got the surface area, then looked online to find a
state that had that same surface area. For the record, this article
http://www.independent.ie/world-news...-size-of-irela...
puts it at three times the surface area of Mass on May 12. I'd have to
use the wayback machine to find the article I saw before, but a google
search on the day I posted would probably unearth it.

That article says (or implies, if you prefer, "circumference") about what I
expected. *

Here is the relevant sentence from the article I posted above:
"Despite attempts to slow its advance by setting it on fire, the slick
now has a circumference of about 600 miles and covers about 28,600 sq
miles." Obviously the math supports that they derived area from
circumference, but as the spill is not really circular, I'm not
convinced they did. They might have gone the other way to provide a
mental image that people could grasp.

According to wikipedia, Massachusetts has an AREA of about 10,000
square miles. The earlier article I referenced last week gave the
dimensions of the oil spill (not circumference) with numbers whose
product was something like 9500 mi^2, which is why I said the spill is
roughly the size of Mass. But our discussion seems to have gone off of
that post to this recent one...OK, I can live with that.

I understand the essence of your post...just because a spill is
roughly contained within a region does not mean that this is the size
of the spill..there can be holes and pockets. Also, that much of the
surface content within that region can be derived from sources other
than that spill (one site I read yesterday said that accepted
estimates are that daily natural subsurface leakage is equal to the
volume of this particular spill). Nonetheless...there does exist data
(satellite, visual (direct and indirect) etc) to document that there
IS something on the surface of the water, and that it seems to fill
that region enough to stand out from the background, so I'm not sure
what good arguing semantics, or strawmanning back and forth between
VOLUME vs AREA vs CIRCUMFERENCE vs DENSITY serves. I suppose we could
decide to agree on exactly what percentage of oil cover constitutes
'covered in oil' vs 'unamalgamated surface detritus', or whether or
not that particular piece of geography is indeed 'the Gulf of Mexico',
and we could even call in Siddhartha to remind us that the Gulf stays
there, but the water moves on.

But I don't want to go there. I'm happy to just state that the spill
looks like its pretty damn big...about the size of Massachusetts the
other day, and about the size of Ireland today, according to sources
who are providing images to support their claims.

But for that matter, there are a lot of folks in Ireland who are not
Irish...should we take that into account?

--riverman

On Wed, 12 May 2010 05:42:54 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:

Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately
universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in
the US? For extra credit; by whom and why?

AFAIK, no such answer (and I didn't Google anything) - "medicinal" whisk(e)y,
with a prescription, was legal and AFAIK, there were several "brands" available.

HTH,
R


--riverman

On 2010-05-12 11:28:30 -0400, said:

On Wed, 12 May 2010 05:42:54 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:

Without googling the answer, what whisk(e)y (name deliberately
universalized) was the only brand legally sold during Prohibition in
the US? For extra credit; by whom and why?

AFAIK, no such answer (and I didn't Google anything) - "medicinal" whisk(e)y,
with a prescription, was legal and AFAIK, there were several "brands"
available.

HTH,
R


--riverman

The only whisky that tastes like medicine is Laphroig (Leap Frog). It
smells and tastes like iodine. Lagavulan (sp) is a close second.