Which means what? I'm reasonably certain he had very little to do with this idiotic bit of post-Repeal alcoholphobia. Like I always say about A-B, Miller, et al: they got enough to answer for, no need to make shit up.
Which means what? I'm reasonably certain he had very little to do with this idiotic bit of post-Repeal alcoholphobia. Like I always say about A-B, Miller, et al: they got enough to answer for, no need to make shit up.
You can see it that way if you like. Or you can see it my way.
cat scratch fever on this dudes c*ck.. he's getting a hardon about HIS point of view. Do yo have a mirror attached to your monitor so you can tell yourself how great you look as you type your elitest responses?
too bad Gew Breyson doesn't give a shit about accuracy.
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:55:16 -0500, Steve Jackson wrote (in article ):
Hmmm, I have a buddy that works at Red Star Yeast that's coming back into town. I'll have to pick his brain on that. He has to keep up on all the new info so he should be more up to date than the reference stuff I have. He help me out isolating the Chimay brewing yeast from the bottling yeast.
I agree with the Purity Laws when it comes to using rice malts, just shouldn't be done. Complex sugars from fruit is another story and can be a great addition even in simpler fruit beers. The New Glarus cherry & raspberry are fantastic fruit beers, but are no where near as complex as a lambic.
Chimay brewing yeast IS the bottling yeast.
There's absolutely no reason not to use rice if that will give you the result you desire.
---------->Denny
I have no objection to the use of rice or any other grain or sugar in beer. It's all in the way it's used. When you use it as 30, 40 percent of the grist (like Budweiser, or similar prortions of corn for Miller or Molson or any other similar beer), then I have a problem with it. But sugar, corn, etc. can be used to great effect in a lot of beers, as any number of Belgian beers (lots of sugar usage in those, especially golden ales like Duvel or Trappist beers) or English beers (frequent use of a bit of corn or sugar in all manners of bitter and other ales) prove regularly.
Agreed that they're nowhere near as complex as lambics, but OTOH, it's intended to be simply a fruit beer. And on that front, they succeed admirably. (As does, just for discussion's sake, one of the most maligned lambics: Lindemann's. Not so great as a lambic; very, very good as a fruit beer.)
-Steve
"Steve Jackson" schreef in bericht news:VAKXc.107781$Lj.75802@fed1read03... (As does, just for discussion's sake, one of the most maligned
Who gave you that idea? Lindemans lambics are VERY much in demand - not in the least by the blenders... They rank amongst the best, as Girardin, and not that long ago, De Neve. OTOH, I'm not at all that wild from their fruitbeers, even not from the draught unsweetened cherry. JorisP
Yeah. Me say: Cuvee Rene. Damned good.
Damn, never had that. Like to try it. Even after that unenthusiastic review.
Me say: That's the exception that proves the rule. At least as far as what I've seen in the States.
I like the Cassis, as long as I don't think of it as beer.
Its one of my faves of any gueuze.
The cassis just tastes weird to me. But I'll take the framboise, when as you say, I don't think of it as beer.
Now if only beersel and cantillon were sold in KS.
Sloppy writing on my part. Many American beer geeks turn their noses up at the Lindeman's fruit lambics. The other lambics are respected, and they are quite good. But the fruit ones often get a bad rap for being too sweet.
-Steve
DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.