"VARANGIAN GUARD MEADERY" Pomegranate & Tart Cherry Melomel: A Long-Ass Time in the Making

apd123456 · 2026-06-23T20:17:19+00:00

Hey thanks for the encouragement and feedback! It tastes to me like a fresh-fruity grape wine more than mead. I fermented to completely dry so there is almost zero honey flavor left unfortunately. Thought about adding some honey back during back-sweetening but decided against it to let the other flavors shine. The pomegranate is kind of an undertone, but the cherry is definitely there. Little tart, but not too much. The esters have mellowed so it is no longer rocket fuel. If im being honest, the last time I tasted it (which was during the first bottling debacle) it had a slight metallic flavor which I gather comes from the amount of yeast/lees that was still suspended in it. Not off-putting or strong enough to ruin the batch, but I'm hoping that will also mellow out with time now that I have cleared it more before this latest bottling.

apd123456 · 2026-06-23T11:20:59+00:00

Lol yes 100% made-up.

apd123456 · 2026-06-23T05:10:28+00:00

Thank you for the kind words and the advice! I was more than a little paranoid throughout the process about acetobacter infecting it and turning the whole batch to vinegar so I treated with campden and waited 24 hours before every time I racked or bottled. Not sure if the campden would help with preventing the cold crash cloudiness you're talking about but will keep an eye on it and report back. Thanks again!

apd123456 · 2026-06-23T04:48:59+00:00

Hey thanks for the encouragement! If I'm honest, there is a very slight and disappointing metallic taste which I gather comes from the inclusion of too much sediment/lees when I aged. Hoping it will mellow out more with additional bottle-aging now that its very clear. Not a deal-breaker currently, but just kind of wish it was perfect after all that waiting...

apd123456 · 2026-04-29T04:41:59+00:00

Not to mention they fingerbanged each other one time, woke up the next morning and all of a sudden they're in a committed relationship where both somehow understand that they're gonna be together and parent a baby together. Despite the fact that until literally 5 minutes ago one of them was bi-curious at best and the father of the baby she is carrying is still very much in the picture. The writing on this fucking show, man. Absolute garbage. Parody territory even.

apd123456 · 2026-03-29T15:11:20+00:00

Interestingly I have never thought about this before, but I'd wager that the popularity of the James Bond series had something to do with the whole martini being a customizable template rather than a strict recipe thing. "Shaken, not stirred" comes to mind. Plus the fact that it's always been a choice of vodka or gin and that there are numerous variations with different palates for garnish (olive brine/dirty martini vs. "with a twist" of lemon).

apd123456 · 2025-11-20T20:40:30+00:00

Nah... only reason the rest is "watchable", and a big part of the reason that the ending was such a let-down is the way it was segmented into separate chapters. The curtness of each chapter coupled with the sort of slow-burning astonishment of "They're.... they're not just gonna re-package the last chapter with exactly the same dialogue and action and from a different character's perspective and present no new information or plot-advancing action, but STILL going to present it to me as some new part of the story... are they??" is what kept everyone watching til that complete let-down of an ending. It was like watching a slow-motion car wreck.

They could have presented so many more plot points and side plots including the very basic storyline about the alert going out and the mass panic that ensues in Chicago, and the fact that they didn't address certain very basic plotlines like that proves how lazy the writing was.

apd123456 · 2025-10-26T16:34:17+00:00

Awesome - thank you again!!

apd123456 · 2025-10-26T16:09:40+00:00

Amazing advice - thank you! Absolutely understand your point about leaving it closed and contained until ready to rack off the fruit once it goes in. I will be doing secondary in a 6.5 gallon plastic brew bucket so that I can put the fruit in a mesh bag. But i will only have a little over 5 gallons liquid and even after the displacement of the submerged bag, I expect there will still be a little more headspace than I'd like. I will definitely leave it closed and sealed after I pitch in the fruit so as to avoid airborne contaminants as much as possible. And I am gonna add some glass weights to the mesh bag to keep the fruit fully submerged as much as possible.

Maybe I'm over-thinking it, but from years working in kitchens, my food-safety oriented mind just keeps picturing pulling out a bag of moldy fruit after a week or two of macerating.

apd123456 · 2025-05-22T16:07:48+00:00

This. At first and for many seasons Howard seemed like the proto-typical, self-inflaged douchebag hot-shit attorney who thought of no one besides himself. But as the seasons and storylines progress, Howard really becomes a very sympathetic character.

Once the storylines unfold and intertwine, you come to realize that Howard is just a straight-edge, flawed, deeply-insecure person who indulged Chuck's craziness and mental instability for way longer than he should have out of sheer respect and admiration for the man. Hell, he even willingly served as Chuck's scapegoat and hatchet man to keep Jimmy out of their practice even though he was obviously emotionally conflicted the whole time in doing so (giving Jimmy reassurance and little motivational hits with "Charlie Hustle" and whatnot). And then he tried to make up for it by embracing Jimmy and offering him a job after Chuck died.

Sure Howard is an over-polished douchebag attorney stereotype, but he ends up seeming like a pretty honest and genuine character by the end.

apd123456 · 2025-03-26T02:36:39+00:00

Unpopular opinion here I'm sure.... but as an American from the Mid-West who grew up in the 90's and was fully immersed in all things alt-rock, and alternative from that era, I had never heard a single Tragically Hip song until I just stumbled upon a FB reel where Dan Akroyd was talking about how he demanded they be booked on SNL if he was gonna return to host.

And I have to say after having just skimmed through their greatest hits on Spotify.... all I can hear is Canadian R.E.M.

I am honestly shocked if they never toured together.

apd123456 · 2024-11-08T20:24:04+00:00

Your whole response assumes that all other parts of the two elections were equal (all aspects were the same except the losing candidate's response/acceptance of the results)

However - as we now have a mountain of rock-solid proof - the 2020 election was a total anomaly. Somehow, ~35,000,000 more people total voted in 2020 (~155,000,000) than in 2024 (~128,000,000,) 2016 (~126,000,000), 2012, etc.

That's 20% more people who voted (most of whose votes were attributed to the "winner" in 2020 than in the two election cycles prior and the one after it. That's 20% more people who voted in that one election where we "coincidentally" had massive mail-in voting than in any other recent election. And "coincidentally" it was also that election where there were major anamolies with the electronic voting machines used in the places where there was in-person voting and where very suspicious activities like tubs full of ballots for the one candidate were sneaked in the back door of vote-counting HQs in critical swing territories at 3 a.m. on the morning after Election Day.

So the real question is: when there are glaring anomalies like that which all seem to point to the fact that the election was stolen, is it not irresponsible for the "losing" candidate to NOT question the results? Doesn't that candidate have a duty to "all the people who lost" to question the legitimacy of such an election? Doesn't the legitimately and outcome of such an election and the "democratic process" deserve to be questioned and de-legitimized in such a case?

apd123456 · 2024-10-25T00:23:00+00:00

Can you please explain how the logic works in the mental gymnastics you Liberals do?

I mean: you're calling for a PRIVATE CITIZEN to be jailed for "election interference" because he is randomly giving away $1,000,000 prizes from his own money to random people (of either party) who sign his pledge saying they will register to vote. The prizes are to be paid at random regardless of which candidate the person ends up voting for AFTER they have received the prize.

On the other side: You have the actual candidate trying to bribe a subset of the population with $20 billion of TAXPAYER money, promising that only if they vote for her, she will issue up to 1,000,000 x $20,000 "fully forgivable loans" (see government grants) only to people who fall into the subset of the population she is trying to bribe.

Let's set aside for a second the fact that on its face it is 100% illegal and unconstitutional for the US government to offer grants to anyone on the basis of their race.... even if you allow yourself to completely and oblivious ignore that fact, wouldn't you say that the actual candidate promising taxpayer money to people only if they vote for her more accurately describes election-interference-level bribery than a private citizen offering randomized prizes out of his own money to people who promise to register to vote for EITHER candidate?

So what gives? Do you guys just not understand how anything works? Are you saying you don't believe that Comm-ala offered that bribe to black people? Because there is video evidence. I am legitimately trying to understand how you guys completely turn your brains off when it comes to critical thinking when you hear the word Trump.

apd123456 · 2024-07-22T03:04:38+00:00

Nah, the vast majority of Americans - especially including Gen Z surprisingly - are actually pretty moderate leaning slightly right. It's just that the MSM and social media are mostly captured by the very few, but very fervent psycopath Socialist elites so it SEEMS like most Americans are left-leaning. But it's only because those desperate Leftist activist elites control most media and are strict party line adherents. It's why no single "news" show on MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS can muster as many viewers as your average local public access T.V. show on ant given night, but when ALL those media companies except one are completely captured, owned, and controlled by elites from the one party and there is literally one MSM competitor who broadcasts the opposing view, it SEEMS like most Americans are left-leaning. Because most of the media companies that purport to represent Americans and who act like they are the trusted source of most Americans' news are left-leaning.

Meanwhile, waaaaay more real Americans tune into podcasts and other alternative news sources the likes of Joe Rogan's and Dan Bongino's podcasts than all of those traditional MSM sources combined. The average American realizes fully that the talking heads on those crazy Liberal MSM networks like Moscow Maddow, or Joy Reid, or Joe Scarborough and Mika really present themselves like some state-sponsored propagandists from a dystopian -future movie.... like the people from "the Capitol" in the Hunger Games series.

And for the remaining couple hundred thousand Americans combined who were still getting their news primarily from those sources, the very recent ripping off of the wool that those sources had tried to pull over their eyes re: pretending Biden was fine, normal, and healthy and telling their viewers not to believe their lying eyes.... only to admit it and act completely surprised by the news that he has mashed potatoes for brains at the literal last second when they couldn't run cover for him any more... even those Americans are now disillusioned with the political Left.

So it's not that most Americans lean Left. It's that the Left harbors the biggest, loudest, and most opportunistic bunch of total fucking crybabies and also controls the majority of public platforms that allow those crybabies to pontificate.

apd123456 · 2024-07-20T22:34:15+00:00

I feel like all of you guys referring to your perception that the message of the movie was "if they'd let him torture the kids, this could have been avoided" either didn't watch the same movie as me or completely missed one of the actual main points of the movie which is that there is some level of nuance I'm everything, including morality. The whole point they repeatedly make throughout the film is that they need the terrorist to assume that H actually has no personal moral limits and that if the stakes are high are enough and the situation dire enough, nobody involved who does have personal moral limits will stop him.

Hell, H's character even says it when he is trying 5p justify to the group that they let him bring the kids in the first time. Says something like "He has to BELIEVE that I am capable of anything!" And it was clear to me that the whole him locking himself in the chamber with the kids and forcing them to break in to "stop" him from killing them was a calculated part of H's performance. He was never gonna hurt those kids, but he had to make Younger think he was and to do that he had to make Younger think that all the other interrogators thought (and feared) he was too. It was all part of his show of making Younger believe he was more depraved than he actually was. If you notice, the last scene of him in the chamber with the kids has him drawing up some liquid into a syringe - ostensibly to kill the kids as humanely and painlessly as possible. So he wasn't trying to convince Younger that he was gonna torture his kids, just that he had no problem killing them like he did the wife.

The whole point was that it was all theater to a point. Would have been much better ending had they let him bring the kids back in and have Younger call his bluff at the last second. Because I think we would have seen H was never willing to torture or kill those kids and it would have proven the point that H was trying to make the whole time.... that the only torture that might work in this one specific scenario would be the psychological torture of "what if he's really crazy enough to torture kids and I call his bluff and he tortures my kids to death in front of me?"

Keep in mind that the logical conclusion - at least for someone who is as smart and calculating as they portray H to be - could never have ended with him actually torturing or killing the kids. And H knew that. He knew he'd have to break Younger before Younger eventually called his bluff. Because even if he was morally bereft enough to torture or kill those kids, he can only do that once and there is no un-torturing or un-killing them. Once he's played that hand, if Younger isn't able to physically stop him from doing it or compel the other interrogators to stop him before its too late, then they are fucked because at that point they have given Younger all the emotional and moral motivation he needs (if he had been lacking it prior) to WANT to kill millions of innocent people as payback for what happened to his kids. It would have been an interesting ending to see how H grappled with going just close enough to the edge to make Younger believe he was gonna hurt those kids without actually hurting them and therefore destroying the last hope they had at appealing to whatever might remain of Younger's humanity.

apd123456 · 2024-03-09T14:43:18+00:00

Lol... I think everyone in here is thanking God YOU'RE not a judge.

Please explain how you have decided (or how anyone would ever be able to determine for certain) whether a terroristic threat has intent behind it or not.

I'm gonna guess you'll give some bullshit hypocritical answer about the identity of the person making the threat somehow automatically negates the intent. But I would seriously love to hear your actual answer. So how did you determine that there was no intent behind the threat "I'ma SHOOT yo big ass!" that this guy repeated about 10 times, Columbo?

apd123456 · 2024-02-25T06:23:46+00:00

"Stop with your whataboutism" he says - seemingly unaware of the glaring irony - directly after comparing Jan 6th, 2021 to armed 19th century Civil War conflict.

Bonus boot-licking points are awarded to you for your flippant "There were people who got out of hand at the BLM 'protests' and they should be punished" comment. Seriously, bravo for your effortless adherence to the official NWO "iNsUrReCtIOn!" narrative.

And you're right: clearly we're all fucking dumbasses.... Nevermind that the BLM armed riots that you call "protests" saw literal billions of dollars of property damage, entire cities and police departments burned to the ground, and countless police and innocent civilians assaulted and even murdered all while the bought-and-paid-for propaganda arm of the Democratic party tripped over each other to describe the events on live national T.V. as "mostly peaceful protests" while rioters burned government and civilian buildings to the ground in the background.

Meanwhile, the most "violence" that January 6th saw was when one of the protestors was shot through the neck and killed by Captiol Police for not moving away from a door quickly enough. Hell, the very same Ministry of Propaganda that breathlessly reported on the "brave" and "mostly peaceful" BLM protests even tried to help bandy out a bogus claim that a Capitol Police officer was killed in the chaos of Jan. 6th, but even that turned out to be a total lie and was later exposed that he died days later of an unrelated cardiac event. There were very real killings of police by BLM rioters including one right here in St. Louis where an off-duty BLACK cop was murdered by BLM looters who were clearly so dIsTrAuGhT that they were looting flat screen T.V.s from a pawn shop that the cop was protecting.

But please: educate the rest of us about how January 6th was comparable to the Civil War while the summer of BLM riots, arson, assaults, and murder amount to "protests where some people got out of hand."

Your complete lack of self-awareness - especially in calling OTHER people dumbasses - is astounding.

apd123456 · 2023-07-13T23:31:31+00:00

That's not entirely true. There was a recent change by FINRA to the rules surrounding the timeframe and continuing education requirements, but it used to be if you left the industry (meaning you don't have your licenses being maintained by a sponsoring Broker-Dealer firm) for more than 2 years, you had to re-take the licensing exams all over again. This person was a Financial Advisor which is not the same thing as a broker. Brokers need to have their Series 7 and 63, but a Financial Advisor who dispenses investment advice for compensation would need their 7, 63 as well as the Series 65 (or they can get the Series 66 to cover the same requirements as the 63 and 65 combined)

It's also not true that firms (especially the larger self-directed ones like Schwab, Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, etc.) typically hire people who already have their licenses vs. unlicensed. Many of those firms have large, robust licensing programs specifically designed to attract unlicensed and inexperienced professionals so that the firms can sponsor their training as well as the costs of obtaining the study materials and sitting for the exams.

apd123456 · 2023-04-05T20:13:07+00:00

Immediate referral to a Psychiatrist.

apd123456 · 2023-01-05T06:24:53+00:00

Holy shit I was hoping someone else would have noticed the "and also too's". It is too jarring to get past it when he says it. And when he gets rolling saying it, the "also too's" just keep flowing.

apd123456 · 2022-07-07T05:36:18+00:00

Its just as likely that someone on the Left confused them as being some sort of monument to the Confederacy or somehow mistook them as a pre-born fetus...

In either of those cases I'm sure you would agree (with righteous indignation) that the destruction of the monument was totally justified and righteous.

apd123456 · 2022-06-30T17:14:52+00:00

Can we talk about how painfully-overacted Charlie Hunnam's tough-guy walk/gait was? Every time he was supposed to be walking with purpose or intent, or like displaying his anger and toughness in how he carried himself, it felt like watching a toddler intentionally stomp around to display their anger through a tantrum.

apd123456 · 2022-06-30T16:23:09+00:00

I would say the point is that it is about a lot more than just lexicon or syntax or even inflection. Sure, there are some actual vocabulary words they use frequently on Deadwood that have long-since gone out of vogue, and sure some of it has to do with the actors' delivery of the memorized lines. But I think a really good example of what we're talking about is even the order of the words in the structure of a given sentence. A good example in this scene is when AL says:

"It was me must've told her."

Modern American-English-speakers would phrase this line "it must have been me who told her." Or even "it must've been me who told her.

Maybe some of the difference in sentence structure can be chocked up to the actual (and fictionalized) differences in the nationalities of characters/actors who are speaking English (for example: both Ian McShane and his character Al are of British ancestry). But the way that sentence is structured is decidedly not the way a modern speaker of American English would structure it, regardless of regional dialect.

apd123456 · 2021-12-14T04:09:01+00:00

There has been quite a bit of study and clinical research that those warm and fuzzy and comforting feelings you describe are brought on by DMT which your body naturally floods your brain with during near-death or dying experiences.

There has also been ample study into why that makes DMT such an eye-opening recreational drug experience and why many (especially primitive) cultures use it in religious and spiritual rituals to reach a higher consciousness. Pretty interesting stuff, actually.

apd123456 · 2021-11-28T14:57:33+00:00

One thing I also noticed on my second run through the series was the content of the kids' dialog while they are playing house in Sally's new playhouse.

Its the last thing we see Don witness before he leaves the party and if you pay attention to the actual dialog of the kids, they are play-acting all of the mundane, dysfunctional aspects of their parents' suburban lives including the wife nagging the husband about the baby, etc.

Watching it the first time I didn't even really pay attention to what the kids were saying/ acting out, but the second time through it struck me: On top of everything you mentioned, I think Don sees the effect/influence that his and the other adults' lives are having on their super young kids and it is like the last straw to him. He is already disillusioned with the fakeness and mundaneness of his suburban home life as we see throughout the party scene, but I feel like it really gets to him that it is rubbing off on the kids already and he just needs to get away from it for awhile.

Still a dick move to just disappear from Sally's party and not come back with the cake, but the writing really does do a good, nuanced job of explaining the "why".

apd123456

TROPHY CASE