The big merger

Could you give me one reason, please, why he/I/we would need to justify what we consume, be it expensive or not?

Joriswondering

Just throwing this out there from howstuffworks.com/beer:

"For 13 years, starting in 1920, a constitutional amendment banned the production of alcoholic beverages in the United States. Before Prohibition, America had thousands of breweries producing many different types of beer. But Prohibition forced most breweries out of business. By the time the laws were repealed in 1933, only the largest breweries had survived. These breweries sought to brew a beer with universal appeal so that it could be sold everywhere in the country. And then came World War II. With food in short supply and many of the men overseas, breweries started brewing a lighter style of beer that is very common today. Since the early 1990s, small regional breweries have made a comeback, popping up all over the United States, and variety has increased."

It wasn't until 1978 that homebrewing was made federally legal and it took a while for microbreweries to evolve back into existence in this country. I grew up in rural Michigan and didn't even know about the variety of good beer available, until just a few years ago. Most of my family and friends are against it even now because it seems too strong. As hard as it may be to believe, they give me a hard time about drinking micros, as if I think I'm too good for not drinking the mass-produced bud lights, etc.

I have no idea why a few of us are obsessed with justifying the purchase of expensive beer. Dick and Steve are focused on proving that most beer drinkers consume undrinkable beer they call swill. According to them that swill is produced by companies wsuch as Anheuser who do not know how to produce beer. They repeat that nonsense so frequently that they give the impression they are intent on proving they are knowlegable beer drinkers while the great masses are not. They justify their beer purchases by tearing down someone elses choice in beer. It would help the discussion a lot if they would focus more on the specific reasons they enjoy certain beers and less on this adolescent name-calling (swill beer).

And just what did you bring to the discussion.

...

Thanks for adding that. I take for granted that people in the US discussing beer in a serious way know the history of North American Industrial Lager (NAIL), and hence why some dismiss it for what it is-- a blandification of a traditional beer style to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

You are a master in befuddling issues, are you not? You join things together that aren't linked, and certainly not the same. "most beer drinkers consume undrinkable beer they call swill". No, most consumers (I cannot call them beer drinkers) consume beer that is virtually tasteless. It is swill allright, but it certainly isn't undrinkable. "by companies wsuch as Anheuser who do not know how to produce beer" Anheuser-Bush knows as no other - except some of their collegues - how to produce beer that lures the masses, by making their products as inoffensive as possible. I happen to have met some technical people from A-B, Coors, and InBev over here, and they certainly know their matter! Nobody disputed that, did they? "they are intent on proving they are knowlegable beer drinkers while the great masses are not." The great masses certainly aren't. Otherwise they would carry their money elsewhere - not to A-B, M-C, but neither to McDonald's, Burger King, or Heinz. Need they prove that they do? If they prefer Russian River, Lost Abbey, Hair of the Dog or 3 Fonteinen, as well as homemade relish, there is little else to prove, no? "and less on this adolescent name-calling (swill beer)" It is swill, so that doesn't rank as name-calling, in my book.

berichtnews: snipped-for-privacy@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

You are misinformed my friend. Anheuser Busch, Coors and all the other large brewers from around the world did not overwhelm their smaller competition and take a commanding part of the beer market by selling beer that was not demanded by a great proportion of the public. They are providing beer that is considered to be desirable by a huge majority of the worlds beer drinking population. In otherwords they could not have become so overwhelmingly successful by providing swill or tasteless beer. Ask yourself how many businesses remain in business by providing only products that their customers detest. Swill beer for instance. If share of market defines success one could easily argue that the large brewers are more successful and in touch with the needs and desires of the beer drinking public than their smaller and less successful micro-brewwer competition.

Nobody disputes that big brewers brew a lot of beer. Nobody disputes that a lot of people buy and presumably drink that beer. Nobody disputes that those big brewers have achieved some form of success (although your implication that success equates to volume has little merit; is an independent Amish woodworker whose business produces hand- crafted furniture on a local scale all his life less successful than a huge factory that churns out cheap plastic patio furniture? I would assert the Amish guy doesn't think so, nor do his customers). What is in dispute is that people are drinking all that beer because it's really, really tasty. We are asserting that people drink NAIL because (a) it gets them buzzed, (b) it has very little nasty beer-like flavor, (c) it's cheap, and (d) it's marketed effectively (including predatory practices, manipulation of the distributor system, manipulation of the political system, etc.) And could you drop the "microbrew(w)" term? It's rather meaningless, and often simply incorrect as you use it. E.g., Sierra Nevada Brewing Company is by no means "micro," yet they craft flavorful beer.

North American Industrial Beer is certainly a precise sounding name and I'm sure it's history is quite interesting. You seem to know a lot about their beer. Do you have a link to the NAIL website? I sure couldn't find one.

"John S." schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

Burps. Truth to tell, I'm getting tired of this shouting match. Just let you munch (if you know what I'm speaking of, that is) on one little thing, in consideration of your remark above.

Ever heard of the Westvleteren Trappist abbey ales?

Can't speak for Dick, but for me: nope. Never once did I say the big American lagers were undrinkable nor swill.

Nope. Never said that. In fact, I have said many, many times over the years (not in this thread) that they are some of the most proficient beer makers on the planet. I may not personally choose to drink what they produce, but I don't for a second question that they know how to produce beer.

Except when we don't even say any of the nonesense you claim is being said.

It would help the discussion a lot if you'd brush up on your reading comprehension and address what's actually said, and not the straw men you construct.

Or, of course, please show me where I've said "swill," "undrinkable," talked about why what I drink is better, or anything of the sort. I won't hold my breath waiting for your "proof."

All I said is that these companies succedd by providing a product that most people want. And a big part of why they want that product is because they know what it is, they know they like it, and they know it's not going to be different. And for many people, that's fine. That's all they need.

Nowhere in there is there any comment about the quality of the product they like. The only thing that could be faintly interpreted that way is my use of the adjective "subpar" when citing McDonald's and the quality of their burgers.

Again, you've constructed an argument that no one has made, through whatever biases and suppositions you're bringing to the table. You seem to think that my pointing out that many people prefer to stick with what's predictable and known as a bad thing, and you've conflated that into a bunch of nonsense that I never said. I never said it was a bad thing for people to stick with what's known, and your interpretation of it as such says more about your attitudes to people who make that choice than mine. You're the only one acting as if it's a shameful thing to have said.

Oh, and you know what: I kind of like Coors. I don't drink it much, but I certainly didn't mind it when I visited relatives in Denver recently and that's what they had. And when I used to play softball regularly, I drank all sorts of big-brand beers. And liked it, because it was refreshing on a hot, humid summer's day. Please try to prevent your head exploding from trying to wrap that around this nice little straw man you've constructed.

-Steve

berichtnews: snipped-for-privacy@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

So we are going to play a game of Guess The Beer now? come on.......

Just so that you understand I enjoy well made tasty beers from a range of brewers. I've made several trips to a local new brasserie with Belgian influence and an extensive list of beers. I've not had a Coors or Bud for a couple of decades but I realize there are a lot of people who do enjoy them. So I wish them well in their enjoyment of well made light flavored beer. As I wish you well in your enjoyment of beers from wherever you call home.

Yes, that's what I stated.

At this point I have to assume you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I'll ignore your strawmen rantings from hence forth.