Apparently being funny as a comedian is also hard.
Cristalino is a gimmick. And flavors are gimmicks. Technically rosado and extra anejo are not gimmicks because they produce unique products, but they're both easily "gimmicks" in quotations for me because they're so far from what I think of as traditional tequila.
You aren't obligated to love every type of tequila. I drink blancos 99% of the time myself. I will tentatively try out jovens and single-barrel repos but blancos are my jam. And for someone like me, there's a bigger gap between blanco and extra anejo than there is between a mixto and a 100% blue. Age this stuff for 4+ years and it's more whiskey than tequila to me. And I'm not a fan of peatiness in mezcals or scotches, which also further limits the blancos I like because some are made in that style.
I'm also sipping the vast majority of my stock. I keep a wide variety but that's just how I like to sip; I like to do pours from different bottles to constantly compare them and enjoy their unqiueness that way. If I were to have three pours in a night it's three different bottles, every time. Whereas I really only need one mixer on hand at a time, and there are many fine candidates for that, but it also matters much less.
Basically I have around 25 open bottles at a time, but they represent a narrow range of available tequila because those are my tastes. Notable differences within blancos, like highland vs valley, 80p vs overproof, never make them 'necessary' to keep around like your tiki bar example. Those rums' differences are contributing to cocktails in a specific and predictable way, whereas in a bar like mine tequila is its own end result and each one is unique. At minimum I'd say have one or two for sipping and one for mixing. At maximum...the only limit is your shelf space.
It has slightly more smokiness than the ArteNom 1123 blanco, if you've tried that as a point of comparison. Both too smokey for me, but high quality.
I ran across the joven the other day and passed on it because I just wasn't sure what I was in for. But Siembra Valles makes one of my all-time favorite blancos, so I suppose the whole family is worth a try.
Some don't understand why I'm not on the Gravity train, or why I've liked it less and less over the years, so a few spoiler-filled examples.
I remember at release the only negatives were in terms of its plot and scientific liberties. I'm mostly okay with these. Sure, it forgets that there are different orbits or that communications satellites are in geo orbit and space stations and spy sats are in leo, but whatever. It's science-fiction predicated on the real and very testable theory of Kessler syndrome. It taps into a real science-based fear that since the debris generated from a destroyed satellite can remain in orbit for centuries, enough of them could render certain orbits uninhabitable to new machinery. Obviously the film pretends there is only one orbit for all satellites, that only one satellite's destruction can chain react, that this could happen within seconds rather than a build-up of decades, and, I suppose most egregiously, that the span of low-earth orbit is about the size of a racetrack rather than all of Earth's continents standing shoulder to shoulder. Whatever, that's not really where it lost me.
It's emotionally-manipulative script decisions, none of them necessary or helpful for a film about an astronaut escaping this scenario. Why is Bullock's character a total newb? Lazy audience surrogate. She is afraid of everything from the beginning, she is a civvie shot into space after what-was-it a month of training, which doesn't happen, it's her first flight, etc. She's constantly fed extraordinarily basic information about space by Clooney, whose character parodically amounts to having an insufferable amount of rizz, just for audience benefit. How much better narratively would it be if she were a professional? How much more believable her ability to navigate this situation? All the dialogue spent on exposition could have been used to build up at least some of these characters. What we get is, in a word, lazy. The loss of her child is never relevant to her growth or state of mind. She is never overcome with grief, never reminded of it except when directly asked, never suicidal, it's not the subject of her hallucinations. It's just a Disney-esque deep cut tossed in there to generate audience sympathy. She's the only living person for 90% of the film; how are we not already sympathetic to her? It's a cynical choice. It's also incongruous that we have to believe her remembering how to operate a Soyuz spacecraft all on her own but also that she needs Clooney's help for basic physics or how her suit functions. These errors work against suspension of disbelief when the film comes to require it.
Imagine a 2001: A Space Odyssey where Dave Bowman isn't a professional, where he's in space because he lost someone close to him and then that person is never mentioned or revisted once he becomes a star child, where Hal or Frank have to explain basic tasks to him because its producers believe the audience wouldn't be able to follow along otherwise. Then imagine a Gravity with Jodie Foster in the lead who shows real fear in moments of quiet rather than hyperventilation, who has to come to terms with her past or her command on her journey rather than just mention them, and whose struggle to survive is as much internal as external. Her survival would not be a foregone conclusion and it would generate some actual tension and unpredictability. That would be a much better film. You can't give a 10 to a film that could be a much better film than it is.
Not at all. Science never deduces. Induction > deduction. The least empirical character in all literature is probably Sherlock Holmes.
Minerality is my favorite aspect of blancos as well. I know it's not universal, but I want that wet, wet stone/cement above anything else.
G4 108 is the surest bet here. Of course the entire 1579 lineup features this flavor, but some more than others. I've had every blanco expression and while each have the same set of flavors more or less, they each have a different featured flavor. The original recipe G4 blanco was another mineral bomb, but it has since been changed to include 10% madera and now it's a different animal. Everyone is saying Terralta, but I only get it on the back end; I get much more of a chocolatey earth throughout. Volans gives me a combination of pepper, salt, citrus, and a certain weirdness that makes me think of bbq, especially the still strength. Primo gives me an olive undercurrent. Don Vicente's overly vegetal, and their ArteNom is an agave bomb (though my 2nd favorite Pandillo expression). So YMMV, but for the most mineral possible I'd try for the overproof G4 or the overproof Terralta, or a G4 blanco where the cork is visible from the top instead of black which are the earlier lots. Though IMO the minerality is even stronger here than in Fortaleza.
But minerality isn't Fortaleza's only salient feature. It's also a valley tequila, and say what you will about multiple-estate agave sourcing in the last couple decades making that distinction meaningless, the water and climate are still slightly different. Maybe it's similar production methods. Maybe it's coincidence. I don't care. For my money there is an inherent similarity between 1493, 1123, 1109, etc. that has to do with body and a certain lightness more than flavor. They're more delicate than Pandillo et al and go down like water. So recommendations of Cascahuin or Arette aren't as far off as they sound. Finding similar flavors amongst them is harder. Closest in flavor just IMO would be Siembra Valles' blanco, followed in some respects by Arette's fuerte 101, though they are very different from each other.
Just FYI, I've never heard anyone call minerality 'funky'. If you go around asking for funky tequilas, you're probably going to get something lactic like Chamucos or Atanasio.
TL;DR: G4 108, Siembra Valles blanco, Terralta 110. And trying them right now I think perhaps Siembra Valles is closest overall to Fort's blanco. You might even prefer it!
I think that's a terrible idea.
But I also think your being so certain about her reaction is a terrible response. It suggests to me you've potentially rationalized doing it again, or reneging on other important things as they come up in the future. Your first reaction shouldn't be to make up a reaction for her after the fact, but anticipate how she'd feel before the fact. This doesn't just go for seeing someone else, but events, stresses, requests, various milestones or financial decisions. Your gut reaction should be to get approval, not test the limits of what you can be forgiven for assuming.
How to handle it? By growing up. The idea you have to be the first at everything or the best at everything is the most childish form of romantic pursuit, and a person like that is doomed to failure.
How many of these are you going to post? You're going to be the asshole in each and every one of them, just like the other day, because you refuse to take any responsibility for this person's actions and socialization.
NTA, but personally not wanting to have to go through this every family event for the foreseeable future, I'd invite him.
I would have seated them in the back near the children's table, and hired security for the night to escort him out after he inevitably had too much to drink. It'd be a controlled chaos, would prove my point to everyone else, and I'd get really great photos of this red-faced bastard getting manhandled into the champagne fountain.
Why would you ever let anyone touch a 2500 personal item? Even if you were both the same size, even if your event had already passed, that's a hard 'no'. Nobody's touching something that expensive that I own for any reason, let alone if it means permanently altering it. It's frankly ridiculous this argument lasted longer than 5 seconds.
You're an idiot. I sincerely hope drugs are involved in this post.
It's normal little-kid behavior, yes. Kids are gross and picky. They're also still exploring what's in their food, something you take for granted having had it hundreds of times. She probably recently moved on from eating her own boogers, so cut her some slack.
If you want to try to change it with positive modeling, and it's worth a shot, start talking about what you're eating in terms of the components and how to form the 'perfect bite' on your fork. Because things like pizza ingredients are supposed to taste better all together than separately. What you did was basically name-calling, and doing something her own parents have probably been teaching her is rude is a great way to get written-off as a potential role model.
Buy him earbuds as a gift. It'll sound a lot better than listening through a shitty phone speaker, too. Because unless he's breaking out the 90s boom-box in his closet, what he's hearing must sound super tinny and annoying in comparison.
Soft ESH. How many dates did you actually go on? Is she really an ex at all or was this a failed third date? Asking as I don't call people I barely knew 'exes', nor would I take their reasons for rejection seriously or to heart.
Also am I reading this right that you sabotaged your chances with dating the second person? Why the hell would you do that?
Let's clarify another thing. You say you got the 'real reason' from her mother. And she says you 'went behind her back' to ask her mother, which you deny. Isn't that precisely what you did? How exactly does that info come out organically from the mother without you following up on it? How can both statements have different truth values? Sorry if it makes you feel icky, but that's exactly what you did.
I think the first girlfriend certainly exhibited asshole behavior. She's an asshole to test. She's an asshole to take you outside your comfort zone. She's an asshole for not listening to you about you being tired. She's an asshole for being dumb enough to listen to that advice she was given. Not an innocent party. However from her point of you it must surely look like you're out for revenge, having managed (through whatever coincidence) to contact her mother and her friend about this. On that basis she sure has a right to avoid you. Therefore complaining that she blocked you just makes you sound petty and still not over it.
YTA. Please don't make snap judgments, here. It should be obvious to everyone that she was letting you down easy. It's also possible she was previously keeping her relationship secret for reasons you aren't aware of. The world doesn't revolve around you and YWBTA to assume somebody else's personal life was carefully curated to piss you off. That's what a psychopath would think.
Everyone faces rejection. Not everyone flies off into a jealous rage after the rejection and bitches to strangers on the internet about the technicalities behind that rejection. There's no reason two normal people can't remain friends, even good friends, after the conversation you had, whether it was true or not.
Now you're about to get 100 other responses from undeveloped children who equate white-lying with viciousness, but use your fucking brain for a minute and you'll realize that's not what happened at all.
The dumbest thing about her behavior is exercise is great and all but contributes comparatively little to weight loss. NOT EATING is what is making you lose weight. Running replaces fat lost through diet with tone, very very slightly boosts metabolism, and gives you a schedule around which to have small meals. It also creates endorphins that make you feel good (it's the body's response to dealing with the pain you're putting it through, but a win's a win). These are all great secondary benefits in terms of weight-loss, but you absolutely aren't losing weight taking a couple runs a day. It might be significant for a marathon trainer, but not for you.
So if she wanted you fat she shouldn't be hiding your gear, she should be offering you ice cream. And it would be 100% less passive-aggressive and obvious.
I'm in neither camp. I understand shippers who just want to make smut and get off to it. This is a reasonable reward for time input kind of thing. Let them have their fun, whatever. They eventually got what they wanted, they just had to wait 9 seasons for it. And it's not like sexual tension wasn't an intended outcome throughout from Carter and his directors.
I don't understand why it has to dominate almost every thread, episode review, photo posted. Or why it factors into anybody's episode rating. That's obsession to me. The internet is for porn, but forums are for geeking out on minutiae. Maybe it's because the plot is in a few specific ways unknowable or deliberately open to interpretation, but I wish we had what Trekkies have with r/DaystromInstitute.
I've also gone Fury Road here.
Well, that's a very different reason than the one you gave about service staff convenience. Sure, if you aren't comfortable going Dutch, that's the time to speak up about it, but don't use the cheques as an excuse, because that's really not the problem you made it out to be.
I mean, as someone who keeps the apartment in the low-60s at all times and won't voluntarily go outside without protective cloud cover, definitely NTA.
107? I can cook a piece of bacon on my car's hood with that.
Google is your friend. You didn't learn everything about the English language at the public swing set.
You can, too, you know. You can fantasize about anybody you want, and it won't impact your relationship or the self-esteem of a reasonable person. You can have all the sex you want; people will still want to masturbate occasionally, and there's nothing wrong with that. You are being unreasonable.
The idea that any one person will satisfy another person's entire sexual thought process is frankly medieval and I thought we were past this. If you don't want to end up with an open relationship, let him jerk off without getting butthurt about it.
Foraging is part of it, but bipedalism was needed to cover distances between ever-sparser trees when the Savannah deforested to become grassland, and they were likely outrunning predators and heat stroke. Upper-body strength comes from the same scenario dragging or carrying back food. Free time hasn't really been a factor; plenty of animals have more time to do nothing than humans do. The effect of bipedalism on intelligence is much less clear.
But the gray cat is certainly much smarter than the orange cat.
Thieving bastards!!
funny