Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2019 21:34:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Oct 25, 2019 6:17:34 GMT
Why would something that is 93 years old be described as 60 years old?
|
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Oct 25, 2019 13:22:17 GMT
Why would something that is 93 years old be described as 60 years old? Was distilled in 1926 bottled in 1986. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Oct 25, 2019 15:26:00 GMT
Why would something that is 93 years old be described as 60 years old? Was distilled in 1926 bottled in 1986. It's still 93 years old. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 16:20:54 GMT
Why would something that is 93 years old be described as 60 years old? Who wants to tell him? |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Oct 25, 2019 17:08:20 GMT
Why would something that is 93 years old be described as 60 years old? Who wants to tell him? You do, but Yggdrasil already did. Makes no sense, though. Feel free to support stupidity, though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 17:29:30 GMT
You do, but Yggdrasil already did. Makes no sense, though. Feel free to support stupidity, though. LOL, sometimes your dumbness is adorable. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Oct 25, 2019 18:47:48 GMT
LOL, sometimes your dumbness is adorable. Needless to say, you won't explain what you mean because you have nothing but stupid responses like this. It's quite funny. You have nothing. Watch you come back with a stupid reply instead of anything remotely serious explaining why referring to it as 60 years old makes sense. 3...2....1.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 19:11:52 GMT
LOL, sometimes your dumbness is adorable. Needless to say, you won't explain what you mean because you have nothing but stupid responses like this. It's quite funny. You have nothing. Watch you come back with a stupid reply instead of anything remotely serious explaining why referring to it as 60 years old makes sense. 3...2....1.... Once a whisky is bottled... it ceases to age. Read a book or two, ya big Geordie cock fondler. |
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Oct 25, 2019 19:27:21 GMT
It would probably taste shit anyway. Technically the longer you age a whisky the weaker it becomes. Lagavulin 16 year old is very nice though. Beautifully peaty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Oct 25, 2019 19:54:19 GMT
Once a whisky is bottled... it ceases to age. And that is why bottles say "Aged 60 years" instead of "60 years old". "60 years old" is wrong. It is "aged 60 years". You are thick. Read some fucking booze labels, you cretin.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2019 20:04:42 GMT
Once a whisky is bottled... it ceases to age. And that is why bottles say "Aged 60 years" instead of "60 years old". "60 years old" is wrong. It is "aged 60 years". You are thick. Read some fucking booze labels, you cretin. It's been another bad day for you Monkey. Shake it off. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Oct 26, 2019 5:43:19 GMT
Learn the difference between 'ageing' and 'aging'.
One is what happens with the passage of time. The other is what happens when a process or substance is applied to another substance to make it look older (e.g. jeans with stone-washing; leather with tannic acid ('tanning'); whisky with wood).
The idiot journalist, who you agree with, has confused the two and decided in his peanut of a brain that it is correct to say that if something has been aged for 60 years, it is 60 years old.
That is wrong.
This whisky has been aged for 60 years, but is 93 years old.
Hence, why they put on the bottle "Aged xx years" and not "xx years old".
I am right, you are wrong; I am smart, you are stupid.
That is all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2019 13:10:58 GMT
Learn the difference between 'ageing' and 'aging'. One is what happens with the passage of time. The other is what happens when a process or substance is applied to another substance to make it look older (e.g. jeans with stone-washing; leather with tannic acid ('tanning'); whisky with wood). The idiot journalist, who you agree with, has confused the two and decided in his peanut of a brain that it is correct to say that if something has been aged for 60 years, it is 60 years old. That is wrong. This whisky has been aged for 60 years, but is 93 years old. Hence, why they put on the bottle "Aged xx years" and not "xx years old". I am right, you are wrong; I am smart, you are stupid. That is all. And yet no-one else had a problem grasping it. |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Oct 26, 2019 18:17:31 GMT
So it's 60 years old because that's how long it spent in the barrel, despite being 93 years old.
Okay, so you are 25 years old, because that's how long you spent in short trousers.
Glad we got that sorted.
|
|
