ThePortForum.com

In Streatham, on Saturday 30^th January 2016, Mr and Mrs Gandhi were the guests of Mr and Mrs Wiseman, as was Mrs W’s brother.

Links:

• Review of evening as a whole;
• Graham Malvedos 1986;
• Graham Malvedos 1987;
• Dow Bomfim 1992;
• Warre Cavadinha 1992, #1;
• Warre Cavadinha 1992, #2;
• Placemats.

DB92, decanted 2pm. Bright red, 80% opaque. Much drier than the Grahams and Warres. Good structure and weight, red cherry fruit, and also darker cherries. Well-made drinking. Despite the colour, ready to be drunk. Enjoy—we did.

Two days later still yummy. Only marginally dry, red cherry fruit, good size and weight and presence, and long. And empty—this last quality being reprehensible. Cheeky Symingtons, thinking that just because a a bottle is labelled “750ml” they can get away with putting in only 8.857×10^-52 cubic light years of Port.^† That is only 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008857 l.y.³, less than an atto-atto-femto l.y.³, which is self-evidently inadequate.

T-shirts?
• “0.8857 atto-atto-femto l.y.³ of Port is not enough”?
• “0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000008857 l.y.³ of Port is not enough”?

Light years versus parsecs? For this purpose I prefer the former. Others?

† Please could somebody competent confirm the calculations.

jdaw1 wrote:† Please could somebody competent confirm the calculations.

Agree with 8.857×10^-52 cubic light years; or 0.2553x10^-52 cubic parsecs (so alternatively: “25.53 atto-atto-atto parsecs³ of Port is not enough”).

Thank you.

I think the term parsec is not widely known outside its specialist field of use (e.g., the writers of Star Wars movies). Whereas almost everybody knows that a light year is a great distance.