kara [email] said at 9:16 AM 07-05-2007: Product search results for andre champagne
Andre Champagne Extra Dry 750ML - $3.99 - Winelibrary
Andre Champagne Brut - $3.49 - BevMo! Beverages & More!
Andre Champagne or Oak Creek - $3.49 - CVSpharmacy
jake [email] said at 11:21 PM 07-05-2007: Cecil, I had no idea you were such a devotee of the Mimosa. Or of the Manhattan. Or of the wait what the fuck are you talking about?
Cecil, you can be delightful and snide but this isn't that. Either of that.
This is the kind of bandwagon bashing we expect from Ed when the subject is hip-hop.
This is the kind of unfunny and needless abuse that we expect from Wade.
This is beneath you, Cecil. I mean really.
PS: I ended up skipping the orange slices, and everybody enjoyed their drink. Several suggested club soda instead of red bull for next time, which I think is valid. The tomatoes really worked, though.
jake [email] said at 4:13 PM 07-09-2007: Acorns? Seriously, nothing comes to mind. But Oakland is known in some circles for being hard-core to an ass-backwards uck-fupped degree, so in that sense it's totally appropriate that an "Oakland Mimosa" is actually a gimlet. I'm imagining it being on the menu that way at Mama's Royal Cafe, and people reading it and going "what the hell, how is this a mimosa?" And the waitress does a shoulder fake and goes "what? what? you got a problem with it? You wanna start something?"
josh [email] said at 5:17 PM 07-07-2007: This is like trying to reinvent the Manhattan by calling it a New Jersey Manhattan for a walking tour of a Vermont Maple Syrup processing house.
jake [email] said at 2:53 AM 07-08-2007: I find it funny that you all think I'm unaware of how far off my recipe was from the starting concept.
You're absolutely right, what I ended up with was much closer to gin and juice. But that's not at all what I started with. I started with the idea of a mimosa, and started making substitutions.
josh [email] said at 2:29 AM 07-09-2007: i started with the idea of a blt. meat, vegetable, another vegetable, bread. i started some subsititions and ended up with... pepperoni, tomato sauce, pizza dough. all cooked to perfection in an oven, with some cheese for zest. the "baltimore BLT", i call it.
Sure it was; I started with the basic concept of orange juice and champagne, abstracted that to citrus, fizzy, and alcohol, substituted lime/pomegranate, redbull, and vodka, and then when it turned out I didn't have vodka the guy I was talking with agreed that gin would still work.
I said from the second or third response that this was a stretch. I was not aware that people had such sticks up their asses about drink-etymology.
josh [email] said at 11:34 AM 07-08-2007: thats like saying i reinterpreted a jack and coke and i took it down to the most important elements of carbonation and alcohol... so then i made the "killoggs jack and coke" with tonic water and gin.
josh [email] said at 11:37 AM 07-08-2007: oh and by the way, yes, i am saying that when you are dealing with alcoholic drinks, a most important element, base-level, can't be abstracted down anymore element is the type of alchol used. champagne drinks cant really be made with whiskey instead. gin drinks shouldn't be made with brandy instead. etc.
even the areas where their are overlap like gin vs vodka martinis, the taste difference is HUGE.
jake [email] said at 6:30 PM 07-08-2007: Josh, you're being obtuse. Stop being such an ass.
Do you see me claiming that what I made tasted anything like a true Mimosa? No.
Do you see me claiming that my changes weren't really that big of a deal? No.
Do you see me rejecting the better descriptions that people have offered? No, actually, you see me acknowledging them and accepting them.
So what's your beef? That I used the word "re-invent" to describe the process where I started with something standard and kept making subsitutions until I found something different? Go argue with webster's or wikipedia.
jake [email] said at 7:34 PM 07-08-2007: Now you're just being obstinate.
Go on and argue against things I haven't said, Dad. I'll pour you another Mimosa.
Josh, we're arguing about your idiotic polemic on what "re-invent" means, not on the varied qualities of liquor. I defy you to put any two quotes from your responses and mine side by side and show me how this is anything but dipshit semantics on your part.
josh [email] said at 8:02 PM 07-08-2007: what are you talking about? everything 've said on here can be watered down to one statement: you cant really reinvent a type of alcoholic beverage by switching the alcohol out. you might be using the name to help people understand evoke a similar feeling, but the alcohol is the base ingredient.
thats not semantics, and im not talking about semantics. im talking about how a whiskey sour "reinvention" with vodka is not a whiskey sour. similarly, a mimosa "reinvention" without champagne is not a mimosa.
Josh, I already agreed that a gimlet is a better description. What you don't seem to be able to get your head around is the UNCONTESTED FACT that I began BY THINKING ABOUT A MIMOSA.
Josh, you are arguing about the definition of the words "reinvent," "reinterpret," and "mimosa." How is this anything but semantics? You are picking apart the words I chose, and you are the only person on this post (except Cecil) that I have argued with. I'm not singling you out; you're being obstinate.
josh [email] said at 2:25 AM 07-09-2007: i'm not picking apart the words you chose... except the word "mimosa".
what im saying is you can make your own version of a mimosa, maybe, by like using orange drink and champagne. or like... soda water with lemon slices and champagne. or something else and champagne. but if you take out the champagne, it's not a mimosa anymore.
if you make your own version of a BLT without bacon, or lettuce, or tomato, or even bread... it's not a BLT!!!!
jake [email] said at 4:07 PM 07-09-2007: Josh, I have agreed with pretty much everything people have said about my drink not being very (or at all) mimosa-like. What we're arguing about is the meaning and use of the words "reinvent" and "reinterpret."
How is that not semantics? Are we now going to have a meta-argument about the definition and use of the word semantics? Really? Really?
woody [email] said at 4:17 PM 07-09-2007: Did you mean to say "redefine" or something? Because reinvent really implies that you'll end up with something very similar to the original. That's why it's wasteful to "reinvent the wheel" as it were.
jake [email] said at 4:50 PM 07-09-2007: See what? That you can't remember what you were arguing 30 minutes ago, let alone 2 days ago? What ev.
I think reinvent, redefine, and reinterpret are all valid to describe the process I went through. I completely agree that reinvention, redefinition, and reinterpretation are not very good descriptions of the product I ended up with.
Really, I would expect someone who went to art school to understand the difference between process and product.
jake [email] said at 5:13 PM 07-09-2007: Actually, he's wrong here, about his definitions of re-etc, and about his claim that he's not arguing about those definitions, and about his claim that that's not semantics, and if this weren't my own post I would have quit a long time ago, but we all know I'm a response # whore.
jake [email] said at 5:35 PM 07-09-2007: That's not what you said. If that's what you meant, and you had said so, this argument wouldn't have happened, and you know it.
josh [email] said at 2:40 PM 07-07-2007:
im sure it was a nice drink but it's not really a mimosa reinvention
josh [email] said at 11:34 AM 07-08-2007:
thats like saying i reinterpreted a jack and coke and i took it down to the most important elements of carbonation and alcohol... so then i made the "killoggs jack and coke" with tonic water and gin.
what you made is a gimlet with red bull added.
what i'm saying there, and it's pretty much the same thing i've said in this entire thread, is that your drink should really not be called a mimosa, no matter how you got to it.
to further clarify... i'm saying that if you somehow managed to re-discover electricity, you don't get to call it "jaketricity". no. it's electricity. and a mimosa is a mimosa. and what you discovered is not one. no matter how you got to the point of making it, it's not a mimosa.
i'm not saying you didn't try to re-invent or re-imagine or go through some process... i'm saying it shouldn't be called a mimosa, much like you shouldn't call what comes out of the sockets in your house jaketricity and i should not call yummy pizza baltimore BLTs.
jake [email] said at 6:05 PM 07-09-2007: If you're not arguing with my use of the words re-invent etc, than we're not arguing anymore. Thanks for finally agreeing with me. The power of Jake-tricity is strong within you.
josh [email] said at 7:18 PM 07-09-2007: as long as you agree that it should not be called a mimosa, and in fact is not a mimosa, and that the type of alcohol in a cocktail is pretty much the most definiing characteristic of it, we aren't arguing. you can call your process whatever you like. i only care about the end product.
jake [email] said at 7:33 PM 07-09-2007: I agree to accept your restatement of things that I've agreed to all along, and your reversal of things you've been saying all along.
josh [email] said at 5:21 PM 07-09-2007: i also learned in art school that process is really only of importance to the artist. everyone else sees the finished product. your finished product was not a mimosa. you did not make a mimosa.
jake [email] said at 5:36 PM 07-09-2007: I like how you answer my retort by affirming my concession, as if that alone is a refutation of my counter-argument.
jake [email] said at 4:35 PM 07-09-2007: uh, you are arguing about those words. Your example about a BLT is all about those words, not the ineffable nature of a mimosa.
If you're really just defending the integrity of the mimosa, why aren't you satisfied by the multiple times I've agreed that what I ended up with isn't a mimosa, and that there are better descriptions for it?
You're either exercising innate obtusivity, or ingrained obstinacy. what ev.
josh [email] said at 4:38 PM 07-09-2007: i guess i am also arguing that you fucked up your whole program when you chose not to use champagne, and that a integral aspect of a "drink type" is the basic alcohol used.
i am also arguing about those things as well.
i am NOT arguing about the definition or use of any words, though... besides mimosa. and since when, on killoggs, was someone admitting they were wrong a reason to stop pointing out they were wrong?
jake [email] said at 4:46 PM 07-09-2007: Like I've been saying, your beef has no beef except that you want to have beef. So it must be obstinacy, by your own admission.
josh [email] said at 5:17 PM 07-09-2007: all i did was say that your drink should and even could not be called a mimosa... and then you argued with me. and i reasserted that you can't make a mimosa with gin, that's crazy. that sums up every interaction you have had with me in this post, pretty much.
jake [email] said at 5:30 PM 07-09-2007: Josh, if you had actually said that, I would have said, "you're right, it's crazy, what do you think I should call it?"
But instead you took issue with the word "reinvention," and that's where this entire line of argument came from.
I guarantee you I am more sober than you and therefore more likely to be right.
josh [email] said at 5:48 PM 07-09-2007: again - i didn't take issue with the word reinvention. i took issue with the fact that what you ended up with is not a mimosa, and you should pick a name that better reflects what your drink actually is then what you originally intended it to be. my stance is is simply this: it's not a mimosa because you wanted to, but failed, to make a mimosa.
jake [email] said at 6:03 PM 07-09-2007: First of all, your actual stance that started this used the word reinvention. Maybe the reason you don't get that I was responding to that really is that you're obtuse.
josh [email] said at 7:16 PM 07-09-2007: "I started with the idea of a mimosa" implies you were trying to make your own version of a mimosa. the name "oakland mimosa" supports that theory. you know, since you are calling your drink a mimosa.
josh [email] said at 7:20 PM 07-09-2007: also i used the word reinvention because you did. i also used the word reinterpret, as well, interchangably. i was simply referring to whatever process you went through that led you to the drink you gave the incorrect name to.
josh [email] said at 4:29 PM 07-09-2007: also, i never said other people also said your drink is not a mimosa - i'm simply also saying: your drink is not a mimosa.
brandon [email] said at 1:43 AM 07-08-2007: I reinvented the mimosa tonight. Champagne + Sunkist, b/c we ran out of orange juice. Not as bad as it sounds.
brandon [email] said at 3:01 AM 07-08-2007: I disagree with the debasement of your re-interpretation. Re-interpreatations are often great departures: for instance, the new Mustang versus the trash-stang of the 80s and 90s, versus The original pony car. You've got a Mustang now that has basically nothing in common with the Mustangs over the past 30 years - and even less, save a few lines and some grill work - with the original pony car. Yet its stang is undeniable.
I'll vouch for your mimosa. I may not care for it, or even privately refer to it as a mimosa. But, by god, if you want to call it a mimosa, you call it a goddamn mimosa. Considering the shit that passes without comment for martinis, you have more than just cause to call your concoction a mimosa. Try this though.Make your mimosa. Then stick your dick in it. That's right. I want you to place your cock in the glass. Go ahead, place your penis in the cocktail. That feels pretty good, right? Cool, almost painfully so, that citric acid has a bite to it, eh? keep going. Wait for it. Wait for it. Now you're done. White Russian.
reggie [email] said at 10:17 AM 07-09-2007: Try this though.Make your mimosa. Then stick your dick in it. That's right. I want you to place your cock in the glass. Go ahead, place your penis in the cocktail. That feels pretty good, right? Cool, almost painfully so, that citric acid has a bite to it, eh? keep going. Wait for it. Wait for it. Now you're done. White Russian.
You see, this is why Brandon's presence has been sorely sorely missed.
zack [email] said at 7:30 PM 07-08-2007: my re-invention of the mimosa is called the "more-mosa", which is a lot like the mimosa, except you put in a lot of champagne in a big glass with some OJ and you get really drunk all afternoon.
reggie [email] said at 5:21 PM 07-09-2007: Pancakes: a reinvention
1 automobile
1 key to the automobile
1 tank of gas
12 US Dollars and/or credit card of choice
1 copy of latest issue of free weekly paper
Get in automobile. Insert key into ignition and start automobile. Drive to closest International House of Pancakes. Order pancakes (coffee is optional). Read free weekly paper while order is being prepared. Once order has arrived to table, fold up free weekly paper, place it to the side and proceed to consume pancakes. Pay bill, leave decent tip. Go home.
reggie [email] said at 5:30 PM 07-09-2007: Well, anyone can "make pancakes" but it takes a real creative genius to let someone else do it for them in a comletely generic and unimaginative way.
jake [email] said at 5:33 PM 07-09-2007: One of those personality typing schemas that were all the rage in the sixties and still have a lot of followers amongst creative people and californians.
