Special Report - Vox Populi
This is one of six reports that wrap up the Liquid Log I've kept since 1997.
In Log Entry #300 I've collected some monthly reviews, my 'malt mileages' for
the last nine months of 2006 and an overview of all entries on the sub-pages.
Here are the topics of the five other special reports that wrap up this log;
300A - Past, Present & Future (Observations & ideas about the future of MM)
300B - Hamstergeddon 2006 (updates on our 'six malts on the matrix' mission)
300C - Festivities (Reports about various meetings, festivals and 'super tastings')
300E - A Beginner's Guide to Amsterdam (Yeah, I know it's a bit off-topic...)
300F - The Raveling (The tying up of several unraveling 'loose ends' of my log)
The special report on this page contains some questions and comments I've
received from readers of the site. As you can see in 'the historical report' the
very first version of MM already had a 'Vox Populi' section, but in later versions
the various public contributions were spread out across different site sections.
Obviously, most went into the Malt Maniacs section, but some others ended up
as testimonials on the contact page or as rants and raves on the (now defunct)
'Public Warnings' page. (Hmmm.... Maybe I should bring that one back for MM 2.0.)
Anyway... with the wrapping up of this log it only seems appropriate to revive the
Vox Populi page to allow 'the public' to share some of their questions and ideas.
This page contains the following entries;
17/04/2006 - Bang For Your Buck (Kennet argues that my BFYB List is wrong w.r.t. Strathisla 12yo.)
21/04/2006 - Short Report from Singapore (Kevin Chia offers us a brief glimpse of life in Singapore)
04/05/2006 - Bottle Codes (I) (Joe Barry from South Africa worries about the small print on the label)
19/05/2006 - Fresh Casks for Sale? (Richard wonders where one could obtain a fresh cask of whisky)
15/06/2006 - Bottle Codes (II) (After pondering Joe's question for a while longer I have some of my own)
23/06/2006 - Lowland Whisky (Allan Old finally dares to reveil his deep dark secret: he loves Lowlanders)
28/06/2006 - Bottle Codes (III) (Fred Prins argues that we'd better keep the secret formulas... eh, secret)
09/07/2006 - This & That (Gunnar Thormodsaeter sent me a question - or rather, he sent me quite a few!)
15/08/2006 - High Tech Heroes (Now that the site will be 'frozen' for a while, we'll need to get technical...)
April 17, 2006 - Strathisla 12yo = 'Bang For Your Buck'
Kennet: 'Hi Johannes, First: Thank you for a great site! Your passionate, but not with "the nose in the air" (is that
how to say it in English?) attitude for the whisky is really refreshing! I've been a fan of malt whisky for about 8 years
but it's first this year I really fell "head over heals" for this marvellous liquor! Before the "revelation" I where happy
with just getting totally amazed by Laphroaig 10yo, Caol Ila 12yo and Strathisla 12yo. The two first once is maybe not a big surprise, but the Strathisla might be. I really love this whisky! On your BFYB list you have this one listed on
"Unattractive" for the main cause that it is to expensive. In Sweden (where the tax for alcohol is among the highest in
the world!) we can buy this whisky for 32 Euro's and compared to what other whisky's you can buy here for that kind
of money I think it's a real barging! So, keeping it short, what would you think is a bigger BFYB in that flavours niche
that Strathisla should be placed in for that kind of money? If there is none, send your visitors on the site to Sweden to buy this great whisky for a good price!
Cheers! Peace and peat, Kennet'
Johannes: Thanks, Kennet. Well, I agree a pricetag of 32 Euro's would have made that Strathisla 12yo (I gave it
74 points) end up much higher on my BFYB List. But I should point out that this information (or rather misinformation) was on the 'ancient' part of my BFYB list, which was last updated in 2000. Price points do change
over time, and there can be significant differences between different markets and of course different stores. To
make matters even more confusing, the profile of a batch of any 'major' official bottling I try today could be quite
different from last year's - let alone from one bottled five years ago. The size of one's discretional income is an
important factor as well, of course. And last but not least there's the matter of personal taste. I can't stress enough that all my scores reflect my own, purely personal opinion.
I can only hope that the scores might be useful for people that have similar tastes...
With that in mind, I think it would be much better to use 'the magic formula' instead:
(X ~ Y) +/- [(Z-40)/3] = BB
X = The 'fair price' in Euro's (in my case 40 Euro's, but that might change, depending on my fortunes)
Y = The actual 'street price' for the malt (in Euro's, but that definitely varies over time and space)
Z = The actual alcohol percentage of the bottle (the ABV; cask strength whiskies may offer better value)
BB = The 'Bang-For-Your-Buck' score (the points you can add to or substract from your 'quality' score).
Erm.... Well, looking at that formula again now it doesn't seem to make as much sense as it did...
Well, I'll have a look at that when I get to the BFYB page in the course of the major reconstruction...
April 21, 2006 - Short Report from Singapore
Kelvin: 'Hello johannes, I have been looking up on single malts weeks back and discovered your website. I must say
your site has plenty of great information! There arent many liquor stores around that carry smsw here in Singapore (to
my knowledge) and was suprised to spot macallan 12 (hefty price tags) on a shelf of a supermart (and that was
perhaps the only resounding smsw). I am a cognac fan who is keen to explore smsw. Can not wait to get my hands on
my first smsw (probably macallan 12), hopefully from the duty free shop when I go on a holiday. I am now 21, enlisting for national service in the army with good years to enjoy smsw. Looking foward to spread the madness.
Thank you for the effort and madness!
Kelvin Chia, Singapore'
Johannes: Thank YOU, Kelvin - It's always a big rush to find my words have reached the other side of the world!
It seems that the Singaporian army allows its recruits to enjoy a higher standard of living than the Dutch! (When
I was younger we still had the draft in Holland; 14 months.) The best they had in the mess hall of the recruits
during basic trainig was Johnnie Walker Red - and certainly no cognac for the grunts! Fortunately, after basic
training I got stationed at a very small camp that had around a 100 officers and just a handful of lower ranking
cannon fodder like me. So, we only had an officer's mess there (indeed, better booze), as well as some other perks. But that was a few years before I discovered single malts, so I was quite content to throw cognac and
armagnac down my throat in those days...
Well, I'd drink anything really to forget the horror, the horror... ;-)
May 4, 2006 - Bottle Codes (Part 1)
Joe: 'Hi Johannes. Thanks for answering my email in such detail on your log!
You have now got us interested in a couple of things, firstly to raise our standards, spend a little more money and buy
older bottles and secondly be aware of what we are tasting i.e. a Bowmore 12 and a Bowmore 12 may be different
bottlings and therefore additional malt mileage to be claimed. And here is the problem – how do we tell the bottles apart?
I am writing this looking at 2 bottles of Laphroaig 10yo both 750ml and 43% vol.
Bottle no 1: The neck label says – years 10 old, bottled in Scotland. On the right is a number L43009. The front label –
There is no "by appointment…." statement and the number on the r/h bottom is LF0504. The back label – Has a "by
appointment…" statement, old fashioned printing for the rest of the label and a number on bottom right L00718. Bottle
no 2: The printing looks more modern. Neck label – ISLAY ESTABLISHED 1815 MALT and no.M00175. Front label – has
a "by appointment" statement and a no. on the r/h side M00328. Back label – now has a whole lot of things added to
the bottom, der groene punkt arrows, bar code no. 5010019640253, another no. 100/0000055/89, a triangular rubbish bin and a final no.M00232.
I notice on your track record you have 2 x 43% OB 93 and 99 and 2 x 40% OB 2000 and 2005 and this counts for 4
tastings. The big question – HOW do you tell the years of bottling on my two bottles? And how did you know yours.
And this applies to all the distilleries, unlike wine they don't always put the years on the label. This of course leads to
another problem in establishing a starting point for malt mileage. In our club tastings we have had laphroaig 10yo on
numerous occasions over the years but have only counted it as one tasting when it could have been (and probably was
) different bottlings. And what about all the years before our club started, all the s/malts I had over the years, this
should equate to a score of at least 200! We are desperate for an answer as this is frustrating! Can you help?
Slangevar (?) Joe Barry'
Johannes: Hi again, Joe. I could reply with 'RTFM' but that would be just rude ;-)
Both on my Track Record and the matrix we only offer a 'solid' year of bottling when we know the year of
distillation - usually because it's printed on the label or it's a very fresh release. When we don't know the bottling
date for certain (which is indeed often the case with the regular official bottlings) we use our 'best guess', which is then 'ghosted' to indicate that it is a guess. Since we can usually make a rough estimate about how long a
'fresh' shipment takes to reach the shelves of liquorists in a certain country we're able to come up with a pretty decent guess. For example, regular bottles that were submitted to the Malt Maniacs Awards in September 2005 were most likely bottled in 2005. There's a very slight chance one or two of the submissions were bottled in 2004
- but certainly not in 2006.
Maybe this approach seems a little 'rough', but probably not so much if you consider that most major official bottlings are released in several different batches each year. Some of these batches are vattings of over a
hundred different casks and there are bound to be differences between them. It's a testament to the skill of the
master blenders that these differences are usually so small. In statistical terms, these differences could be
considered 'errors' - and therefor insignificant. What the maniacs are mostly interested in are the 'trends' over a
longer period of time - for example compare a Laphroaig 10yo that was released last year with one that was bottled in the mid 1990's and one from the mid 1980's. (But of course, that brings up the question of the Old
Bottle Effect discussed in MM#17.)
And speaking of 'antique' bottles... There are some 'tell tale signs' that can give you a clue.
For example, when a label says '80 Proof' instead of an ABV like 40% the whisky was most likely bottled before
1980. The standard bottle size dropped from 75cl to 70cl in Europe around 1990, sometimes the name of the proprietor or the age of a particular expression changes, etc. There are quite a few 'rules' - but plenty of
exceptions as well...
Also, it's important to remember that a change in packaging doesn't neccessarily equal a change in product.
Workers at several distilleries told us that they could run out of the old labels in the middle of a bottling run and
just crack open a box with the new labels that just arrived from a different printer. So, don't get too hung up on numbers...
That also goes when it comes to keeping track of your 'malt mileage'.
I usually don't revisit the same expression of a distillery more than once every few years, and when I do I only
count it as a new notch on my belt if I'm reasonably certain it's a different vatting. When it comes to 'club'
tastings of major bottlings like the Laphroaig 10yo you could try to keep at least two years between each official
tasting to make sure the bottlings are different. And the best thing to do with those two Laphroaigs? Bring them
to the next club meeting and taste then Head-to-Head! Just make sure to pour them in identical glasses, and you'll have an interesting challenge!
May 19, 2006 - Fresh Casks for Sale?
Richard: 'Dear Johannes, I would like to buy a cask to put away for twenty to thirty years.
The only scotch that I have found to date that will sell me a hogshead (200 liters) is Bruichladdich.
Do you know of any other distilleries that do cask sales to the public? If so could you inform me of them? I could then
research the scotch's to determine which one would meet my future needs. Any answers would be appreciated. I like
your site and I have learned a lot from it. I hope you keep it ongoing in the future. Sincerely, Richard Secrest.'
Johannes: Hi there, Richard. The first two to pop to mind are Bruichladdich and Springbank.
Let's see.... I think Kilchoman offers fresh casks for sale as well. When I asked the malt maniacs about it Serge
and Martine also came up with Glann ar Mor in Brittany, France (http://www.glannarmor.com/offres.htm#futs). Fellow Frenchman Olivier suggested that Highland Park might also be prepared to consider private sales. Davin
suggested Bladnoch and Charlie came up with some 'long shots': Glencadam, Tomintoul and Daftmill. Finally, Canadian Lawrence Graham mentioned two other possible candidates: Arran and Tullibardine - although I can't
personally recommend the latter. According to 'Mister Glenfarclas' Luc Timmermans Glenfarclas only sells mature casks - which might be something worth consider anyway...
I certainly understand the special thrill of buying a 'baby cask' and watch it mature ever so slowly.
However, just like a real baby your cask may grow up to be something completely different than you expected!!!
Yeah, chew on that for a while... ;-)
June 15, 2006 - Bottle Codes (Part 2)
I couldn't help thinking about the question about bottle codes from Joe Barry.
In fact, I couldn't even if I wanted to, because I've received about two dozen further questions about it since I
published my initial response. After reading it again, I agree I may have skimmed over the issue too quickly. My only excuse is that I was busy with the preparations for the Hamstergeddon sessions in Alsace and Amsterdam.
Now that my schedule is clearing up again I'd like to delve a little deeper into the issue - especially after Michel
casually dropped the 'secret formula' to decipher the codes on Gordon & MacPhail bottlings this morning. Brilliant! If the formula is correct I could now check all Gordon & MacPhail bottlings on my Track Record and the matrix to
verify our 'estimates'. I knew that writing down those bottling codes whenever possible would pay off some day!
Here's how you can translate the printed code on the back label (or on the back of the front label) of Gordon &
MacPhail bottlings. The bottles usually have a four or five letter code, like IC/BIF on my bottle of Cragganmore 1976/1993 (53.8%, G&M Cask, C#3588-3591). The first two letters of the code are significant an can be
translated as such;
The 1st letter indicates a decade; H = 1980's, I = 1990's, J = 2000's, etc.
The 2nd indicates a year in the decade; A = xxx1, B = xxx2, C = xxx3, etc.
So, let's check a few empty bottles in my cabinet to check Michel's formula.
Benrinnes 1978/1995 (40%, G&M Centenary Reserve, IE/ABC)
Cragganmore 1976/1993 (53.8%, G&M Cask, C#3588-3591, IC/BIF)
Caperdonich 1976/1998 (40%, G&M Connoisseur's Choice, IH/HB)
Glenesk 1984/1997 (40%, G&M Connoisseur's Choice, IG/BB)
Glencadam 1987/1997 (40%, G&M Connoisseur's Choice, IG/AJJ)
Glenglassaugh 1986/1998 (40%, MacPhail's Collection, IH/BAF)
Glentauchers 1979/1998 (40%, G&M 'OB', IH/BAE)
Longmorn-Glenlivet 1963/1996 (40%, Gordon & MacPhail, IF/HB)
Mortlach 1984/1995 (40%, G&M Centenary Reserve, IE/ACI)
North Port-Brechin 1981/1998 (40%, MacPhail's Collection, IH/DF)
Scapa 1985/1995 (40%, G&M 'OB', Viking Ship, IE/DIC)
Teaninich 1982/1998 (40%, G&M Connoisseur's Choice, IG/DJA) - Hey....
All bottles checked out but that last one didn't fit the bill.
According to the neck label it was distilled in 1998 instead of 1997 - what gives?.
Still, the 'secret formula' seems to be correct most of the time... So, once again my maniacal behaviour has been vindicated! I've had to start pruning my 'historical stock' of empty bottles many years ago, first of all the
duplicates (I must have bought at least four dozen bottles of Lagavulin 16yo during the 1990's) and then some of
the uglier independent bottlings from well known distilleries. Still, I never could bring myself to throw out all the
empty bottles and now I'm glad that I didn't. That means I could check Michel's formula before applying it to the bottles where the bottling date is not provided.
Bottlings like the Glenrothes 8yo (40%, MacPhail's Collection) for example.
The bottling year isn't provided on the bottle, but the code IH/DDH that means I can now safely assume it was
bottled in 1998. And the IC/E on the Dallas Dhu 10yo (G&M 'OB') indicates that it was bottled in 1993.
Now, I imagine it would be very useful to find out the 'secret formula's' for other independent bottlers and official
bottlings as well, so I'll ask the other maniacs about it. If we can get enough useful information together I'll publish an 'Ask an Anorak' article about it in Malt Maniacs #18 as soon as I have time. Now I've got to get back to work on some real work ;-)
(Check out Log Entry #300 for an overview of 2006 log entries dealing with other topics.)
June 23, 2006 - Lowland whisky
Allan Old: 'I thought I'd drop you a note after reading some (but not all!) of your Malt Madness website.
Specifically, I'm intrigued by your selection of Saint Magdalene 19yo as your favourite malt. To cut a long story short, I
am a Scot and I used whisky as respite from beer when there was no space left but still drinking to be done. Then,
one day, I visited my friend Iain who lives in Islay. My wife and I borrowed Iain's car and did the obligatory tour of the
island and a distillery, in this case Bowmore, and my senses were overwhelmed by the smells and tastes. When I
sipped the glass at the end of the tour I stepped into a new world, the world of malts. Later, when I told my friend how
disappointed I was that I couldn't drink any more at the distillery (as I was driving), he invited me to the local hotel bar
where we sampled all the other Islays. They weren't the special bottlings you delight in but it was enough to convince me to investigate the wide range of malt whiskies on offer in Scotland.
As I was born in Linlithgow, coincidentally also the birthplace of Maria Stuart, Mary Queen of Scots, I thought I should
try a bottle of Saint Magdalene's, the local product. To my astonishment it was absolutely perfect, which was a shock
to me as I had read that all the best whiskies were Speysides or Islays, depending on taste. I now recognise from your
description of strength, year, etc. that it must have been the same item as your top-rated whisky, although I don't still have the bottle for proof.
Up until now, I was almost embarrassed to say that a Lowland was my favourite whisky.
Now I can confidently say that my opinion is shared by an undoubted expert on the matter.
Thank you very much for re-inflating my self-esteem. Interestingly, I also left the bottle open for about six months,
not wanting to finish it, but eventually drunk it with a friend on a special occasion and found that it still had all its
appeal. Strangely, I felt guilty about drinking it, as the supply from the closed distillery is finite. Instead, I now have a
bottle of Gordon & Macphail 1965 40% Saint Magdalene lying on the shelf, never to be opened. Strangely, I now feel
guilty about NOT drinking something so special. I am only an occasional user of malt whisky but have bookmarked your site as an excellent reference on the subject. Keep up the good work.'
Johannes: Thanks, Allan...
Oh yes, Lowland whiskies can be astonishing, but I personally make a clear distinction between young and older
Lowlanders. The traditional triple distillation of Lowland malts produces a light and clean spirit while I tend to
favour heavier malts with lots of character. Just like with grain whiskies, a lot of the character of Lowlanders has
to come from the cask. In the case of young Lowlanders like Auchentoshan 10yo and Glenkinchie 10yo the casks
haven't made enough of an impact for my tastes; maybe they simply needed more time but it could be a matter of
cask selection as well... (But just to put things in perspective; a mediocre young Lowland single malt still beats the vast majority of the blends on the market!)
Whatever the reason, most of the Lowlanders that end up in the 'recommendable' range of my personal
spectrum (i.e. scoring 80 points or more) were at least 20 years old - with the Saint Magdalene 19yo 1979 in UD's
'Rare Malts' range as the notable exception that falls just outside the > 20yo bracket. The main reason it still
reigns supreme on my Hit List is (quite ironically) the fact that it's much more than my personal favourite
Lowlander - given enough time, air and water it takes you on a complete tour of Scotland. Take an hour with this
malt, and it will show you not just the Lowlands, but impressions of Speyside, the Highlands and the islands as well. To me, it's very close to 'the perfect malt'...
And with 1500 single malts under my belt I'm starting to feel that my 97 points may have been a bit stingy.
Not as a purely 'organoleptic' score, mind you. Although it is very hard to define the 'quality' of a malt whisky in
absolute terms, there are arguably 'better' whiskies than my beloved Saint Magdalene. But my scores indicate
how I personally feel about a whisky, and at the very top of my Hit List (94/95 points and more) they seem to
become even more personal. In fact, during my recent visit to Serge we discussed this topic and now that I think
about it I guess the topic deserves a seperate log entry or E-pistle. So, I'll get back to that in the forseeable future.
June 28, 2006 - Bottle Codes (Part 3)
Remember part 1 and part 2 of my 'bottle codes' entries?
Well, here's the third - and quite probably the last one as well.
First of all, Michel warned me that the 'unconfirmed' codes for the 1980's and
the 'noughties' might not be correct. I've recently learned that some people
take MM far more seriously than they probably should, so I guess I should be
extra careful with the (mis)information I spread across the web through MM.
So, please disregard most of what I wrote about Gordon & MacPhail codes...
More importantly, fellow Dutchman Fred Prins pointed out that supplying this
kind of information on Malt Madness or Malt Maniacs could potentially help the
producers of fake whiskies make their bottles look more authentic with a code
that would seem to be 'correct'. A very good point. This was the reason why
we stopped publishing the details of our investigations into fake bottles in the
first place and after thinking it over I have to agree it applies here as well.
So, will we drop our search for meaning in the sometimes 'Da Vinci'-like codes?
Of course not - but we WILL keep our knowledge to ourselves to prevent fakers from using it.
For one thing, it would allow us to properly 'date' more bottles on the matrix and monitor - something that's
becoming increasingly important now that our data covers several decades. Slowly trends and patterns start to
emerge from the numbers and we start to see some 'cause and effect' relations between the character of certain
malts and the time there was a change in ownership, management, production process or cask management. The more precisely we can put a particular bottle into a historical perspective the better...
And that's 'it' for this entry - I have to get busy with the preparations for the MM Awards now.
July 09, 2006 - This & That
Gunnar Thormodsaeter: 'Hi, Johannes! I've been skimming through your Liquid Log recently.
Thanks for sharing thoughts and knowledge by the way, I really appreciate MM/MM! There's a subject that
interests me that you mention, and I wondered if you have given it some more thought or would care to elaborate on it. What I have in mind is oxidation, and I'm mainly thinking of what happens in an opened bottle
over time. (I tried to bring up the subject in the newsgroup alt.drinks.scotch-whisky some time ago, but the feedback was very limited).'
Johannes: Thanx, Gunnar...
Yes, oxidation is a tricky topic... You have oxidation in the bottle, but oxidation in the glass as well. Oxidation in
the bottle is a slow process that takes many months, but through 'breathing' in your glass a whisky can change a lot in minutes.
'Generally, my experience is that there usually will be a detectable positive effect to begin with; say the first
couple of weeks or up to a couple of months. The whisky opens up and shows more complexity. As long as
there's more whisky than air in the bottle, then nothing more happens for quite a while. Sooner or later though, a
negative effect will be noticable; the whisky will slowly become flat and dull. This may occur after a year, but sometimes already after maybe 6 months.'
Johannes: Quite right; the 'positive' effect you mentioned is what Louis Perlman calls 'breaking in'.
It's true that many malts do indeed improve during the first few weeks after opening the bottle. My personal
favourite Saint Magdalene 19yo 1979 is a perfect example of that phenomenon. And it's also true that at some point many bottles start to deteriorate - although some stay in good shape for years.
'As you mention, different whiskies react differently and in varying degree to the phenomenon, and exactly which
factors that are at play here is perhaps difficult to establish. You mention type of cask (bourbon/sherry), phenol
level and age. I have seen also elsewhere that some believe that a high phenol level will slow down the negative
effects. With a "maltometer" showing just about 30 seriously sampled singles, I can't say I have a lot of
experience to draw conclusions from. But it so happens that the most air sensitive and shortlived whisky I have had was a peaty Laphroaig IB, which makes me doubt the phenol theory.'
Johannes: Well, first impressions can be misleading. Especially with the IB's, some fairly mediocre bottles are
released these days that are not always very 'representative' for the 'house style' of that whisky. But then again,
that's sometimes the fun of tasting an independent bottling - a different perspective on a certain distillery. One of
the reason's we're so busy with the 'Hamstergeddon' mission is that we want to try at least six expressions from
each distillery so one or two 'freaky' expressions don't give us a wrong image of the distillery.
'Now, when age is concerned, I really can't draw any conclusions at all from my own experience.
But a guess wold be that young whiskies, since they haven't allready been breathing in the cask for that long,
will 1) be more sensitive than older whiskies to the early, positive effects of oxidation, and 2) endure a longer
period of air exposure than older whiskies before they decline. But then there is the influence of the cask. If that
in some way has a preservative effect, then probably older whiskies will withstand oxidation better... And what
about tannins? (Are there tannins in whisky at all, and if there are, do they come from production or from the wood?).'
Johannes: Well, THERE you bring up a huge number of different issues.
I think you should be able to find out plenty of interesting stuff in the 'Ask an Anorak' E-pistles on these topics.
Anyway, it's an interesting phenomenon, and difficult to understand.
Strange thing that a few weeks in an opened bottle (not to mention 15 to 30 minutes in a glass!) can make so much difference with whisky that has been breathing in the cask for many years.
Cheers! Gunnar Thormodsaeter, Trondheim, Norway'
Johannes: Erm... Wow... That was quite an all-encompassing message, Gunnar.
Going into all these questions could fill an entire issue of Malt Maniacs - so I won't here...
I have to focus on the massive rebuilding of the website now...
August 15, 2006 - High Tech Heroes...
Ok.... Just like the other sub-entries dangling under Log Entry #300 I'll have to wrap up this page.
I've experienced several site crashes, not to mention an actual car crash that has slowed me down quite a bit
over the last few weeks. The questions and comments from the audience are still flowing in, but I'll have to
'freeze' the site so I won't be able to publish them with my responses. I may try to set up a 'Google Group' so
that everybody can still follow the maniacal discussions while the site is being reconstructed. Join the mailinglist if you want to stay informed...
Of course, it remains to be seen whether or not I'll ever get it working...
I don't have a knack for technology, but I'll try to be a 'High tech Hero' and get things working...
And that's it for now...
(Check out Log Entry #300 for an overview of 2006 log entries dealing with other topics.)