On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:18:37 +1000, David Strike <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>On Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:46 AM, Reef Fish wrote:
>
>Michael wrote:
>> >Yup, but you still owe me a pint of phycoplonk for mentioning me and Nick
>> >in the same sentence.
>(snip)
>> Do I now owe you TWO pints of phycoplonk, or NONE?   :-))
>> I need to know, to let Strike let Julian know how many extra pints
>> we'll need at the Strike Reef party.   :-))))
>
>Mate!  We've decided to go up-market with Phyco-Plonk and produce a full
>range to suit all palates and preferences.  There's even a non-alcoholic
>version!

Produced in a drysuit rather than Julian's BCD?  :-)  No fair!!

>(I don't know what that one tastes like!  Nobody's been game to
>try it!

I don't know why I am getting the feeling that Sue and I are about
to the victim of some untested process in the Phyco-Plonk factory!

>We usually rely on the high alcohol content of the original version
>to numb the taste buds and make it quaffable.)  :-)

Given the choice of the two, we just might decide to numb our taste
buds a bit too rather than risk the non-alcholic version that comes
out of the P-value of Julian's drysuit!   :-)))))

Afterall, in my early graduate school days, I've been treated to
making mixed drinks out of what my chemistry-major room-mate brought
back from the lab, which he said was 197%-proof alcohol, as "pure"
as they could produce at the lab, and could melt one's esophagus
if drunk straight.  :=))  We decided to call that grad-student-
made-volka "benzine", and lived after drinking screw-drivers made
from it to tell the tale.   :-)

We have now toned down to only about 170% proof vodka and rum in
our liquor cabinet, in the event we need to disinfect the floor
or a wound.  <BWG>
>
>And just to add a touch of class, we've even created our own distinctive
>wine label!  :-))))

THAT'll certainly be worth to keep as "collector's items".  <G>

-- Bob.