ThePortForum.com

djewesbury wrote:Sharpen up Andy. I was talking about the spelling mistake in the handwritten sign taped to the tree.

Andy Velebil wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Sharpen up Andy. I was talking about the spelling mistake in the handwritten sign taped to the tree.

I was being sarcastic, please sharpen up

• The [] may make such rules and processes as it believes necessary to ensure that [X] purporting to be [X+] are indeed [X+]. Such rules may heavily penalise false purportations.

jdaw1 wrote:In a formal document that I am qwriting […]
Comment? Objections?

djewesbury wrote:Only one…

• The [] may make such rules and processes as it believes necessary to ensure that [X] purporting to be [X+] are indeed [X+]. Such rules may heavily penalise false purports.

jdaw1 wrote:Is the noun just ‘purport’? If it is:

• The [] may make such rules and processes as it believes necessary to ensure that [X] purporting to be [X+] are indeed [X+]. Such rules may heavily penalise false purports.

Comment? Objections?

• The [] may make such rules and processes as it believes necessary to ensure that [X] claimed to be [X+] are indeed [X+]. Such rules may heavily penalise false claims.

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=86044#p86044]Here[/url] djewesbury wrote:What did we drink from this bottle today (PhilW is disqualified from this quiz as he knows the answer).

jdaw1 wrote:+1.

jdaw1 wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:over the last five-ish years the descent of the 63 has become more precipitous. It may of course do a 1960 and pull itself together. But current prices and reputation seem excessive. Maybe I have just been unlucky with those I have tried; they have been rather too charming.

+1.

djewesbury wrote:Should punctuation be used in arithmetical arguments?
Or, put another way, should English be used in posts?

djewesbury wrote:I am not aware of overusing angle brackets. Please correct me though.

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I am not aware of overusing angle brackets. Please correct me though.

Have you been on the turpentine again?

djewesbury wrote:

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I am not aware of overusing angle brackets. Please correct me though.

Have you been on the turpentine again?

"You must always be intoxicated."
For now, that requires D'Oliveira 1977 Terrantez. Turpentine is for afters.

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I am not aware of overusing angle brackets. Please correct me though.

Have you been on the turpentine again?

"You must always be intoxicated."
For now, that requires D'Oliveira 1977 Terrantez. Turpentine is for afters.

Could I have a tasting note on the 77 Terrantez, with bottling date if you please? I have two more of these and the last one I had did taste of turpentine.

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=86506#p86506]Here[/url] djewesbury wrote:But it was only Gonzalez-Byass.

djewesbury wrote:Moved by jdaw1 from thread Summarise a vintage, concisely.

jdaw1 wrote:+1.

Should punctuation be used in arithmetical arguments?
Or, put another way, should English be used in posts?

jdaw1 wrote: 1?@aT.

djewesbury wrote:I am entirely in agreement but holding my fire as I am guilty of using a "-1" this morning. You attack, Owen, and I'll hold the rear (please missus). Julian will have descended entirely into text speak by the end of the week.

LGTrotter wrote:

jdaw1 wrote: 1?@aT.

Ghastly, just ghastly...

LGTrotter wrote:While no crime has been committed I could not stop an involuntary shudder when I read the following;

jdaw1 wrote: 1?@aT.

Ghastly, just ghastly...

jdaw1 wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:While no crime has been committed I could not stop an involuntary shudder when I read the following;

jdaw1 wrote: 1?@aT.

Ghastly, just ghastly...

Are abbreviations no longer allowed? Has the meaning of a semi-colon changed?

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=86764#p86764]Here[/url] DRT wrote:If we take 750ml bottle maturity as a baseline I think 375ml bottle maturity almost exactly follows an exponential curve.

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=86854#p86854]Here[/url] DRT wrote:I think the gap will widen inconsistently more rapidly with age, which is why I correctly described it as almost exactly exponentially.

jdaw1 wrote:Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=86764#p86764]Here[/url] DRT wrote:If we take 750ml bottle maturity as a baseline I think 375ml bottle maturity almost exactly follows an exponential curve.

Yes. If the rate of reaction is proportional to the remaining reactants, the behaviour will be approximately exponential, whether absolute for either bottle size, or as a ratio. I have taught him to write, and also taught him some basic continuous mathematics. Top teaching.

Then:

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=86854#p86854]Here[/url] DRT wrote:I think the gap will widen inconsistently more rapidly with age, which is why I correctly described it as almost exactly exponentially.

But if the behaviour is exponential, both quantities of both reactants will tend to zero, a narrowing of the gap, and so inconsistent with this statement.

But it would be so disheartening to believe that the accuracy of the first was a fluke. Maybe he meant the theoretical gap as a ratio — even though untastable and unmeasurable in the real world. Maybe.

jdaw1 wrote:Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

jdaw1 wrote:

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=86764#p86764]Here[/url] DRT wrote:If we take 750ml bottle maturity as a baseline I think 375ml bottle maturity almost exactly follows an exponential curve.

Yes. If the rate of reaction is proportional to the remaining reactants, the behaviour will be approximately exponential, whether absolute for either bottle size, or as a ratio. I have taught him to write, and also taught him some basic continuous mathematics. Top teaching.

jdaw1 wrote:Then:

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=86854#p86854]Here[/url] DRT wrote:I think the gap will widen inconsistently more rapidly with age, which is why I correctly described it as almost exactly exponentially.

But if the behaviour is exponential, both quantities of both reactants will tend to zero, a narrowing of the gap, and so inconsistent with this statement.

PhilW wrote:The same mechanism could occur in the case under discussion. Additionally, while the exchange of air through the cork may be very small, if it can be assumed to be non-zero then while the additional particles capable of reaction entering the bottle could be irrelevantly small initially, but come to dominate the late effect once almost all of the reactant particles in the original air volume have reacted. Does this return victory to DRT?

jdaw1 wrote:— even though untastable and unmeasurable in the real world. Maybe.

LGTrotter wrote:the 77s with a reputation for problems are I think Dow, Nierpoort, Taylor

RAYC wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:the 77s with a reputation for problems are I think Dow, Nierpoort, Taylor

Not sure if this is a running joke that i've missed the point of!!

DRT wrote:You see, German white wine can be very useful to have lying around, especially if you accidentally run over your neighbours pet rabbit

djewesbury wrote:

DRT wrote:You see, German white wine can be very useful to have lying around, especially if you accidentally run over your neighbours pet rabbit

djewesbury wrote:Go to the Graham's Lodge, it's the furthest away from the bridge

djewesbury wrote:I think you'll find they're the same thing.

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I think you'll find they're the same thing.

I think you will find they are not.