From synchro!judge-request at uu6.psi.com Sun Feb 19 06:31:54 1995 Status: O X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil t nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["15906" "" "19" "February" "1995" "05:12:47" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "396" "JudgeNet Digest #974 (Feb 19, 1995)" "^From:" nil nil "2" nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.3) with X.500 id GAA28866; Sun, 19 Feb 1995 06:31:51 -0500 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by totalrecall.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.3) with SMTP id GAA28862; Sun, 19 Feb 1995 06:31:50 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA11405 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Sun, 19 Feb 95 06:31:40 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA24325 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 95 05:22:31 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA26439; 19 Feb 95 05:12:47 EST (Sun) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9502190512.AA26439 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #974 (Feb 19, 1995) Date: 19 Feb 95 05:12:47 EST (Sun) JudgeNet Digest #974 Sun 19 Feb 1995 THE BEER JUDGE DIGEST digest submissions: judge at synchro.com administrative requests: judge-request at synchro.com send cancellations & rank updates to the administrative address messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored FTP Archives: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu in /pub/judge WWW Archives: http://guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu/Beer/Judge Gopher Archives: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu Editor: Chuck Cox Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publishers: SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery Contents: Re: Dr. Beer phenol (BrewsMead) Dr. Beer? Nope. How 'bout BAD BEER ("Roger Deschner ") BJCP ESSAY QUESTIONS(Tom Fitzpatrick) ("PATRICK N. BAKER") BJCP Financial Statement (Chuck Cox) For want of an apostrophe (Rich Lenihan) Re: #1(5) JudgeNet Digest #973 (Feb 18, 1995) (GSMITHBEER) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 Feb 95 05:41:26 PST From: BrewsMead at eworld.com Subject: Re: Dr. Beer phenol Jay, I'm a day or two late with this but I do know that many pharmacysts have still got phenol to use as the solvent in ointments and gels that are for topical cures? I got some from the local store in town with a Rexall sign out front that coincidentally had a Beer judge for a pharmacist.....small world eh? Since I demonstrated severe respect for the chemical potential of the substance and a BS ChE from Northeastern (his pharmacy school) , we got along famously and he dispensed me 30 mls for experimental use. Now this is not for ingestion as you well know and a quick flip thru the MSDS will tell you so. Spill phenol on your skin in a 64 in2 area and you die retching in 30 minutes. Wonderful! Better living thru chemistry! Praise the Lord and E.I.DuPont de Nemours! ! ! Wonder why we use it as a solvent ? Cuz it gets in fast! OVER? Anyhoo if you label it correctly and sniff it only , I guarantee knowledge will be given to your students. When I find my notes , I'll tell you how much I used . Some heathen stole my Beer Briefcase last summer in Cow Hampshire and I still suspect that BFD had me followed to get it and the information on my recipes for mead . Regards , Brews Stevens - Past Prez soon-MALT ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 10:15:20 CST From: "Roger Deschner " Subject: Dr. Beer? Nope. How 'bout BAD BEER Hard to believe, but I've been following the recent thread about Dr. Beer with more interest than the "Schism Business" which frankly is starting to get boring. You know, like watching CNN Headline News for 31 minutes - you've seen this earthquake once already. I have a problem with using doctored beer to train judges. The problem is that in a judging situation, you are not going to be judging doctored beer, you are going to be judging real beer that developed the flaw unintentionally. So I think we would do better at training judges using real beer which we know has that flaw. Some examples are obvious: Skunky Bottled Heinekin (leave in sun to enhance effect) Acetylaldehyde Special Export Estery any high-quality Munich Weissbier Yeasty any bottle-conditioned beer - Shaken Alcoholic Eisbock (available commerically in Canada), any "xxxator", Colt 45 Malt Liquor Sweet M.G.D. Watery Lite Sour Berlinner Kindl Weissen or Pinkus Meunster Alt Some of the flaws are harder to find reliably in commercial examples, but there is usually a good supply of every defect in the losing entries at any competition. How many times have you judged a homebrew, and said "This guy defines phenolic!" I have been known to write down its entry number and grab the other bottles of it when the competition was over. Real beer does, of course, have the disadvantage that it most often has more than one flavor/aroma characteristic. S.A.TrippleBock, for instance, is a riot of competing flavors. But hey, that's reality. In a judging situation, you will be picking these things out of a complex of many flavors and aromas. You could wind up training people that phenolic is not present unless it comes against a background of Budweiser. They would become excellent judges of Budweiser, and could work in the A-B Quality Control Department. ;) =============== "Civilization was CAUSED by beer." ===================== Roger Deschner University of Illinois at Chicago rogerd at uic.edu Aliases: u52983 at uicvm.uic.edu U52983 at UICVM.BITNET R.Deschner at uic.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Feb 95 13:06:22 EST From: "PATRICK N. BAKER" <74443.3040 at compuserve.com> Subject: BJCP ESSAY QUESTIONS(Tom Fitzpatrick) Spencer Thomas' answer to Tom Fitzpatrick's query about proper approach to BJCP essay questions is right on. The challenge of open ended questions is to organize and prioritize the really important information, and express it on approximately one page. I would only add don't forget commercial examples, particularly classic examples of the style. This knowledge is quite indicative of depth of understanding. Pat Baker ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Feb 95 15:21:06 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: BJCP Financial Statement No need to bug Pat Baker, here is the latest BJCP Financial Statement. Any errors are my fault or the fault of my OCR software. In this message I am simply presenting the data as received from the BJCP Operating Committee. I will present derived data and my analysis and commentary in future messages. =============================================================================== ***** BJCP FINANCIAL STATEMENT - 2/18/95 ***** =============================================================================== HISTORICAL DATA 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 TESTS GIVEN 13 14 16 22 22 29 28 39 TAKERS 106 84 133 153 159 186 201 361 BASE TEST FEE $35 $35 $35 $35 $40 $40 $40 $40 GROSS REVENUE $3,884 $2,894 $4,638 $5,200 $6,270 $7,120 $7,840 $14,563 LESS FEES ADMIN/GRADERS 1,396 1,560 1,567 1,780 1,865 3,641 SPONSORS 923 1,040 784 890 980 1,820 NET BJCP REVENUE 1,942 1,447 2,319 2,600 3,919 4,450 4,995 9,097 PLUS PIN SALES 0 0 360 842 986 680 820 680 PLUS EP FEES: HWBTA 0 0 317 493 566 580 543 463 AHA 0 0 0 0 1,200 1,200 1,200 0 DIRECT REVENUE 1,942 1,447 2,996 3,935 6,671 6,910 7,558 10,240 DIRECT COSTS: PAYROLL 2,696 1,827 2,123 2,368 3,707 2,162 4,294 3,739 OFFICE 1,618 1,001 1,324 1,441 2,364 3,049 4,701 4,759 TOTAL 4,312 2,828 3,447 3,809 6,071 5,211 8,995 8,498 DIRECT MARGIN (2,370) (1,381) (451) 126 600 1,699 (1,437) 1,742 DISCRETIONARY COSTS: BJCP BROCHURE 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,010 0 ADVERTISING 0 0 1,200 0 0 0 0 0 COMPUTER CHANGE 0 0 0 878 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 1,200 878 0 0 2,010 0 BALANCE (2,370) (1,381) (1,651) (752) 600 1,699 (3,447) 1,742 CONTRIBUTIONS: AHA 0 0 1,200 1,200 0 0 0 0 HWBTA 0 0 1,200 1,425 245 0 0 0 OTHERS 0 0 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 PROGRAM NET (2,370) (1,381) 749 1,873 2,845 1,699 (3,447) 1,742 CUMLATIVE (2,370) (3,751) (3,002) (1,129) 1,716 3,415 (32) 1,710 =============================================================================== PROJECTED AND ESTIMATED DATA 1994P 1994E 1995P TESTS GIVEN 40 40 40 TAKERS 400 356 400 BASE TEST FEE $50 $50 $50 GROSS REVENUE $20,000 $16,880 $20,000 LESS FEES ADMIN/GRADERS 6,000 5,064 6,000 SPONSORS 2,000 1,688 2,000 NET BJCP REVENUE 12,000 10,128 12,000 PLUS PIN SALES 700 900 700 PLUS EP FEES: HWBTA 350 350 300 AHA 0 0 DIRECT REVENUE 13,050 11,378 13,000 DIRECT COSTS: PAYROLL 4,500 4,500 5,000 OFFICE 5,000 4,000 5,000 TOTAL 9,500 8,500 10,000 DIRECT MARGIN 3,550 2,878 3,000 DISCRETIONARY COSTS: BJCP BROCHURE 2,000 0 0 ADVERTISING 0 0 0 COMPUTER CHANGE 2,000 0 0 TOTAL 4,000 0 0 BALANCE (450) 2,878 3,000 CONTRIBUTIONS: AHA 0 0 0 HWBTA 0 0 0 OTHERS 0 0 0 PROGRAM NET (450) 2,878 3,000 CUMLATIVE 1,260 4,138 =============================================================================== LINE ITEM EXPLANATION WHERE NECESSARY: GROSS REVENUE: Funds received from judges for exams. ADMIN/GRADERS: Funds paid for exam administration and grading. SPONSORS: Funds paid to sponsors of exams. PIN SALES: Sales of Recognized and Certified Judge pins at $20 each by the AHA. EP FEES: >From the HWBTA, $1 is received for each person for whom experience points are entered at all recognized regional competitions. No payments for experience point filing have been received from the AHA in 1993 and 1994. A lump $1200 payment was received from the AHA in 1990, 1991 and 1992. DIRECT COSTS: Charges for normal program administration from the AHA. DISCRETIONARY COSTS: Major expenditures authorized by the BJCC. CONTIBUTIONS: Contributions received from various sources during the start up phase of the program. COMMENTARY: REVENUE: Planned number of exams given, but average size slightly below plan. Average revenue per taker below plan because of mix of first timers and retakes. Other sources of revenue close to plan. DIRECT COSTS: Exam grading, sponsoring and administration costs according to plan. Program Administrator direct costs close to plan. DIRECT MARGIN: Close to plan. DISCRETIONARY COSTS: The authorized spending of $2000 to reprint the BJCP brochure has not yet been spent because BJCC and AHA friction and delays. The authorized spending of $2000 for computer upgrade has not yet been spent for the same reason. CUMULATIVE PROGRAM NET: The cash assets of the BJCP currently held by the AHA are estimated at $4,538. - -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems / Riverside Garage & Brewery - Cambridge, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 14:35:07 -0500 From: rich at lenihan.iii.net (Rich Lenihan) Subject: For want of an apostrophe Here's my 2 cents on the AHA/BJCP schism: I'm afraid that like it or not we're probably stuck with an AHA controlled judge program. As others have pointed out, the costs involved in running an independent BJCP as a self-supporting organization are not trivial. Fred Hardy was too conservative, IMO, when he estimated the costs for such an organization in JudgeNet #967. From the fussin' in the last few digests I think we can agree that we can't expect to raise fees much beyond their current level to fund such an effort. Consider this: two separate judging organizations - one controlled by the AHA with fees at or about the current BJCP fees; another run by the new independent BJCP with annual membership fees and/or fees for recording judging points, etc. Which organization do you think has the better chance for survival, especially if competition organizers welcome judges from either program? There are alternatives, of course, to a centralized system of administration. One would be for the BJCP to evolve into a loosely-knit confederation of regional BJCP organizations, with the bulk of the work done by unpaid volunteers. Elected representatives from each region could meet at regular (annual?) intervals to set/review (inter)national standards. Again, the logistics involved in this type of effort would not be trivial and there would always be the old problem of distributing representation fairly among all of the regions. And I don't see this happening overnight. Not by April 19, anyway. Which kind of leaves us, for now, with the AHA's new program. At this point, I'm not ready to condemn it or endorse it without seeing what they have planned. It may be better than the current imperfect organization, how can we know? My own advice, FWIW, is to keep an open mind and don't burn any bridges. For want of an apostrophe: Of course, none of this addresses the major deficiency in the American Homebrewers Association [note the lack of possessive apostrophe in the second word of this title] at this time - lack of member representation. This is the main reason why I have recently decided to let my AHA membership expire. It doesn't represent me and it doesn't serve my interests as a beer-lover or homebrewer. If the AHA doesn't get its act together and start treating its members as first-class citizens it may well spur a grassroots beer-lovers' organization (not just for judges but for anyone who give a sh*t about good beer). If that were to happen, I would welcome it and support it. Until that day.... -Rich Lenihan ...Beer, not Boycotts! AHA member (1990-1994) BJCP recognized judge (1994-?) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Feb 95 17:59:46 PST From: GSMITHBEER at eworld.com Subject: Re: #1(5) JudgeNet Digest #973 (Feb 18, 1995) Well We've really got a rhubarb here don't we. First, I'd like to comment on the remark made about Chuck Cox and the judge.NET after reading the messages placed in this forum it seems clear the administration (editing) of the NET is balanced and fair. I can even say that I've pestered Chuck and he has been quick to respond. Next, (and this is as a new member of the BJCC) I am unaware of the amount of communication which took place between and among the BJCC and BCJP directors before all hell broke loose (I was appointed two days before the withdrawl notice) but I can assure you there has been daily communication since. (I'm fearing my next phone bill; I'm sure my wife will brain me.) The BJCC is working at this and moving forward. Unfortunately, this is not always evident. All parties involved in this do have a few things in common. They care about the program, they're grateful for the work that's been done in the past, and they want to improve the program. After all isn't that what all this is about? Hot heads and in fighting aren't going to help anyone or the program. Let's try to calm down and approach this as a problem we want fixed. It's not the baseball strike, it's not war, it's not AIDS and it's not world hunger. IT"S ONLY BEER! Let's not forget that..... ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************