No Longer a Guinness Virgin...

...

Aye, just ask whatsisname,that ex-Congressman from South Dakota... Janklow. He spent years making light of his notorious failure to obey traffic laws.

I'm most of the way there-- I make sausage, and smoke stuff (including half of one of my batches of cheese). I really need a better (more expensive, of course) smoker for the kind of cool-smoking needed for sausage.

When's the party?

Smoked cheese, damn. I sure would love to make sausage. Maybe I need a by-God smoker.

Next time we're in Portland; Frane loves mustard.

Physics. I don't have the right type of oven to get my ideal results. And, seeing how I don't live someplace I can install a brick oven, it's never going to happen. Which is fine. I enjoy what I make anyway.

-Steve

BOOSHWAH! I'm a dedicated, evangelizing, experienced, award winning (not bragging, just making a point) homebrewer, but if you think homebrew _in general_ is better than commercial beer, you must be living somehwere with pretty shitty commercial beer. I love the dunkel I brew, for instance, but I'd be delusional to think it was better than an Ayinger dunkel.

------->Denny

Hiya Denny.

OK, since everyone seems to keep missing the "..with few exceptions.." part of my post, no matter how many times I repeat it, I'll elaborate. Are some commercial beers just so darn good they are almost impossible to improve upon? Certainly. You gotta hand it to those Belgians, they can make some seriously good beer. Does my friend ever miss his mark and make a less than sterling batch? Certainly. But, by and large, most of his clones are better than the stuff on the shelves. How?

Just like any professional brewer, which as I have said before, he has been one, he pays attention to detail. He uses only the best, most fresh ingredients (yes, all grain/whole hops). He treats his water, not just to correct any local deficiencies, but to bring it as close to the original water profile as possible. He uses the correct yeasts. He is scrupulously sanitary. His conditioning times and temps are spot on. In short, he brews beer like a professional.

This whole perception that professional brewers are endowed with some sort of magical gift that home brewers can never asire to is preposterous. Many pros started as home brewers and many still brew at home. If I can come up with an IPA recipe that is better than any I've tasted, does that mean it's not a better IPA because I'm not a "professional brewer"? Don't be ridiculous. Is all this very subjective? Oh Hell yes! :)

nb

I don't think it has anything to do with "something special" the pros have...it has more to do with objectivity. You brew your own beers to your own tastes, so you like them better. I can certainly brew beers better tham lousy/mediocre craft brews, but there are WAY too many really good commercial beers out there for me to say that that with "few" exceptions mine are better. There are many exceptions.

-------->Denny

Whew. For a moment there, I just thought you hated them because they were such notorious trolls. I feel better now.

scrupulously

Well, those are all certainly marks of a good brewer. And that's a lot more attention and care than a lot of homebrewers pay to their craft.

Part of the reason that homebrewed beer can seem "better" (whatever that means, really; it's an awfully subjective term) is that it can be crafted to the brewer's particular tastes. I once wanted to experiment with a malty IPA, so I brewed one using nothing but Munich malt; try finding that commercially.

The other, perhaps more important, factor is freshness. With the exception of brewpubs, you're just not going to get commercial beer that is that fresh very often. It gets handed off to distributors who may or may not take good care of it. They send it to stores who may take even worse care. Most beer is better when it's fresher, and homebrew often has that advantage.

It can also turn out to be a muddy mess, as too many kitchen-sink (recipe) beers I've sampled over the years shows. But I've had brewpub beers like that too. It's all a crapshoot.

No, but they often have better equipment at their disposal. The tools do play a role.

Many

Bingo.

-Steve

BINGO!

If you "like them better", then they ARE better! ...end of story. Would someone else agree? Who cares.

In the case of my mentor, I am being objective. His beers are not my beers. But, as one who currently still buys many beers, I think his beers are, for the most part (

Eh? When I was homebrewing, I always used gravity to get my siphons going. Never touched the things with my mouth, 'cause of the risk of infection.

Guinness Draught Stout = Gas in guts thunders out!

No...it just means you _like_ them better.

I brew for the challenge of trying to get things to happen like I want them to happen, and for the enjoyment I get by sitting back and drinking a damn good beer I made. I brew all grain, and I have to tell you, my system is "cheap 'n' easy"

I buy commercial beer all the time in order to give me ideas about what to brew and to compare my attempts to the commercial beers to see how close I got. I've been racking my feeble brain trying to come up with a single beer I've brewed to imitate a commercial beer that's better than the commercial example, and I can't think of a single one.

------------->Denny

Bullpucky! A "prophylactic purpose" would be to strive to reduce drinking in the first place. Nothing could further from reality. HELLO! ...were discussing this in a alcohol related ng.

Then we'd better do something about how we view drinking in this country (US). Why isn't there a social movement to vilify drinking the same as smoking? While corporate participation has become non-existent due to litigious reasons, social drinking is being promoted more and more. Liquor licenses are easier than ever to come by, heavy alcohol promotion is being encouraged, overall consumption is way up. It's almost like a conspiracy to generate govt revenues. Make sure everyone is encouraged to drink so the local constabulary is ensured of steady income.

Try California. Your first offense is 2 days minimum in jail and then a whole slew of penalties/programs guaranteed to cost you at least $3K for the first offense. Just because they don't label it a felony doesn't make it any less of an imposition.

nb

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. But, if you think that laws (in general) aren't designed just as much to prevent undersirable behavior from happening in the first place, and not just sanctioning after the fact, then I'd argue that you have a very simplistic view of the legal system.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention, then. Because that's what kids are taught via programs like DARE (not that drinking is the equivalent of smoking, but it's the equivalent of smoking crack). That's what the whole neo-Prohibitionist movement is about.

I'd like to see where you get your figures. Because consumption has been, at best, flat for years, and taken over longer terms (30-40 years), is down. Ease of getting liquor licenses is a red herring, because in many jurisdictions it's more difficult. For every "easy" place you can cite, I can point to places like Chicago where entire precincts are going dry.

I don't see this encouragement to drink that you keep pointing to.

I never argued it wasn't an imposition. I said it wasn't a felony. Which is why they don't call it that. Imposition does not equal felony, and if it was a felony-level offense you'd be talking years of imprisonment, not days.

And I really don't get why you get so worked up about the fact that a DWI is no longer a $25 fine and a slap on the wrist. It's serious business. And even if the penalty is way out of wack, it's still your own damn fault if you do it. I'm aware of the BAC levels here in California, the possible repurcussions and violating them, and I act accordingly. And if I am sloppy or ignore my own best judgement, I deserve what I get.

-Steve

Perhaps you are blind. Who is the biggest advertiser of the biggest sport in America. Last time I looked it was beer.

No disagreement there. My only problem is with what you get! Should I hafta' pay $3k-5K for driving from here to there without causing any problems? I think not. If it's such a big crime, why is it not discouraged?

nb