Nah, the OT list is dead (the provider went under and I had to quickly move to another, but haven't gotten around to setting up the mailing list there).
And whiskey here is NOT <-- get it, get it? Not Off Topic? get it? irp On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 22:36, Raymond E. Feist <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 9, 2012, at 5:44 PM, Richard Williamson wrote: > >> Bias: I'm partial to being able to taste the whiskey, that is to say >> that bringing me a peat monster will get you a polite "why, thanks...I >> guess". >> >> So what does she bring? A peat monster, cask strength no less. >> >> Had with ice. >> >> Robust, in the way that eating a soggy charred branch is robust. That >> said... >> >> Nose: Not unlike the smell of a house that's burned down, and then >> sat out in the rain for a couple days. Hints of leather (musk) and >> apple. >> Initial: Apple much more noticeable. The peat is, on the other hand, >> noticeable by its absence. Sweet, not sweat. >> After: Peat's back, and he brought his friends. >> >> Actually, if it weren't for the aftertaste (a bit peaty, in case you >> missed that bit), this wouldn't be bad. See my bias statement above. >> I'm probably overstating it. >> >> If anyone is in the Columbia, MD area in the next ... (looks at the >> level in the bottle...judges...) ... ten months or so* and would like >> to sample it, ping me and we'll set someat up. >> >> rip >> >> * to compare: I will go through a bottle of Aberlour 15 or Glengoyne >> 17 in ten weeks, give or take. If you are still reading this... the >> peat lingers a bit, too. >> > > > rip, > > Did you intend this for the off topic list and blow the address? > > Best, R.E.F. > > P.S. I refer to those types as "make your eyes bleed" scotches. Not my > preference. > ---- > www.crydee.com > > Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by > stupidity. > > > > > > >
