• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


About suggs

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/15/1986

Profile Information

  • Location
    Durham, North Carolina
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

763 profile views
  • Cep

  • CBL

  1. I'm going as deeply on BCGs as I can. I've already bought a box, and plan on at least three more...that still counts, right? I plan on smoking through one box and let the others nap.
  2. If we're lobbing reductionist insults now...
  3. I've only ever had one box of 4s. I don't have the box anymore, but from what I remember, they're an October 2014 production. I smoked most of the box within the first couple of months mostly because I really liked it being something of a "transition" stick into CCs, with earthiness and some spice that I tend to associate with Nicaraguan tobacco. Anyway, I noticed a few in my singles drawer so I thought "what the heck, let's see how these guys are." I get midway through and I'm seeing a lot of custardy, creamy cocoa, something I don't remember being there before and something I associate more with other vitolas in the marca. My question is this: how do #4s typically age for you all? My tastes have changed quite a bit, since coming into the CC world, and I *was* gravitating away from #4s...but this cigar is making rethink this. Thoughts?
  4. A Thanksgiving infused cigar? I'd be surprised if Drew Estate isn't planning on releasing one!
  5. Lit up this Epi No.1. Ten minutes in and I think "wow...this draw is really strange." I peel off the bands and see this: The good news: it's definitely still smokeable, and only looks like it was one beetle. The bad news: I'm traveling and can't check my humidor until Sunday!
  6. This is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. I believe you know that and are choosing to derail at this point. I'm fine with that, though, I don't see much left to salvage in this discussion. You clearly *can* be bothered to divert attention away from valid, legitimate criticisms. You clearly *do* have the time to talk to no one with vague statements that don't address anything the other party has said. Who have your past three posts been for? Is this another long-winded demonstration that you clearly can't be bothered to actually have a discussion? I have directly asked you to do that. Please stop with the false civility. Your transparency is quite obvious. Thinly-veiled ad hominems are clearly not beneath you. You don't know me, or my background. But humor me...come down from the mountains, oh sage, that we lowly plebs might hear words of Truth from thine lips. No, you do not...mostly because I think you're purposely misrepresenting what I've said. Again with the can't-be-bothered demeanor. You clearly can. Just be honest. Also, if you'll do me the courtesy of reading what I actually wrote, I never said I misunderstood what market forces, individual liberty, etc. are...nor did I make any arguments supporting or opposing any of these concepts. I *did* offer a few examples of what I *thought* you were referring to, but my purpose was to ask for clarification. Instead of clarifying, you assumed I don't understand these things. I can assure you that I do. I asked what I asked not out of ignorance of the concepts. I asked you for clarification about your use of the terms and you've come back with yet another stereotypical, holier-than-thou, post that doesn't address anything.
  7. If you're not going to carry this further why bother typing the next thirty or so lines? Stop it with your your disingenuous posturing, especially if it's such a large waste of your time. I haven't dismissed your position. I asked you for a few clarifications on what you said and then said your argument had some problems. I didn't dismiss anything. I asked for clarification of a term you used. If you don't want to give clarification, then at least be honest and say that rather than adopting a can't-be-bothered demeanor...especially when you clearly can. It's nothing personal with me, either, but I didn't bring this on the level of the personal. We're just two people on the Internet as far as I'm concerned. It's not "diversionary" when there are real, substantive differences between individual issues, but we're painting with much too broad strokes (and your diversion has been noted). Although you're correct, there probably are a few pro-regulation/intervention people in the forum. My point with saying that was to point out the reaction of the people reaching for their cigars/guns/healthcare/etc. rather than to deny the existence of the opposing group. I get the underlying relativism, though, at some point most of us are going to be talking past each other. Again, I haven't dismissed anything. I'd be interested to hear more about your thoughts on who the "government" is, though. I thought you were using the word to mean something like "Washington," but you've also said a small group of corrupt elites, too. You've read quite a lot of words into my mouth with this post. I would really appreciate it if you would drop the pseudo-friendly demeanor and just speak frankly. Regardless, I'll parse through it. I haven't put forward my position. I asked you to clarify yours and pointed out the problems with it. I never said anyone was right or wrong. I said non-smoker's have serious health-related claims, when it comes to smoking, that ought to be taken seriously. I also said your argument had some problems. That doesn't make it wrong. You're assuming far too much. I will admit that tobacco can be both addictive and harmful (it is) if you can convincingly demonstrate how what I have directly said in this thread has lead you to make the following point: I have not argued abolition. You've been incredibly dishonest with the vast majority of your post; surely others have noticed this, too. If you're not too busy with not being bothered by what people write on here do a Google search for "slippery slope fallacy," think about what you've written (again, if you've got the time), and then we can have a conversation.
  8. I don't understand what you mean by "market forces." Do you mean different agents acting within the confines of a particular economic system, or the argument that people will vote with their pocketbooks...and a discussion of "who's rights count" can be solved in the context of the market? If so, we're gonna need a bigger boat/thread! This is false equivalency. Workers need to work to live; aside from some form of addiction, smokers don't need to smoke. If you're approaching this from one's class position, I can see what you mean, though. Again, false equivalency...especially with the hip-hop club. I buy that a business-owner should be allowed to have smoking in his or her establishment if they'd like, so was this a rhetorical question? But framing it as an "us against them" dichotomy never really yields any productive discussion because reducing people to two sides always removes any nuances of opinion. I've yet to see any government-loving, freedom-hating, fascists on this thread. I *have* seen those accusations lazily thrown about, however.
  9. RijkdeGooier brings up an interesting point, though, that I think bears some serious consideration. If the standard M.O. for many people here is to launch into a rights-based defense of smokers' use of both public and private spaces, then we ought to have a discussion of the rights of non-smokers to use the same spaces...yes, because of health concerns. Sure, there may be (read: is) overreach by many different parties, but if the tendency is to go "from my cold, dead hands" from the outset, then we should at least give the other parties involved their day in court because of the pluralistic nature of our conception of rights.
  10. Who, specifically, has made this point?
  11. H. Upmann Sir Winston blend in a corona gorda vitola. Call it the "Marlborough," after Churchill's family.
  12. It's possible that the weakness you're experiencing was due to over-extraction. 9ish minutes is usually *way* too long for the entire brewing process. I'm not sure exactly how your brewer works, but it might help to go ahead and pour close-to-boiling water in the water reservoir to help speed things along so the water is coming into contact with the grounds more quickly. The cleanness/lightness you're reporting is really one of the advantages of siphon/vacuum brewing. the coffee light/clean in that it's too "weak" for you, in the sense that you're not tasting much of anything? Or in the sense that the coffee doesn't have much body afterwards? Oh, and I would advise against recycling for a second batch. Most of the solubles will have already been brewed out of the grounds, so you'd probably end up with an even worse cup!
  13. This is the problem when it becomes a standard left v. right pissing contest. Nobody's realistically going to change anyone's mind about deeply-held convictions on an Internet forum. Prez has the right of it.
  14. NC Cigars: Not every blend needs a maduro version. CC Cigars: Thick cigars. Non-cigar: Expensive sandwiches, store-bought or otherwise. I mean, who has ever been satisfied with a sandwich? You either make something really simple because it's quick and you're starving, or you spend like $10/15 on getting "nicer" ingredients and take twenty minutes to...make an effing sandwich.
  15. Lovely find! Vacuum brewing certainly looks cool, but there are quite a few variables that you probably won't have as much control over as if you brewed with different methods. That said, sometimes it can *really* bring out the body of a coffee in a beautiful's just a little harder to find the proper ratios/weights/timing when using the vacuum.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.