From synchro!judge-owner at uu6.psi.com Mon Mar 27 03:27:36 1995 Status: RO X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7083" "" "27" "March" "1995" "02:17:55" "EST" "JudgeNet Administrator" "judge-owner at synchro.com" nil "162" "JudgeNet Digest #1007 (Mar 27, 1995)" "^From:" nil nil "3" nil "JudgeNet Digest #1007 (Mar 27, 1995)" nil nil] nil) Received: by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.2) with X.500 id DAA07571; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 03:27:33 -0500 Received: from goodman.itn.med.umich.edu by truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.6.9/2.2) with SMTP id DAA07566; Mon, 27 Mar 1995 03:27:32 -0500 Received: from uu6.psi.com by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA28687 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at umich.edu); Mon, 27 Mar 95 03:27:30 -0500 Received: from synchro.UUCP by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA20174 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 95 03:17:54 -0500 Received: by synchro.com (smail2.5) id AA14918; 27 Mar 95 02:17:55 EST (Mon) Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet) Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Message-Id: <9503270217.AA14918 at synchro.com> From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator) To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients) Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1007 (Mar 27, 1995) Date: 27 Mar 95 02:17:55 EST (Mon) JudgeNet Digest #1007 Mon 27 Mar 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: from Scott Birdwell (Jeff Greer) My two =A2ents worth: elections, $$$, time, & Bluebonnet Re: JudgeNet Digest #1006 (Ma... (BrewerCam) Additives in Beer (Garofalo) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 10:28:43 -0600 From: jeffg at rice.edu (Jeff Greer) Subject: from Scott Birdwell from Scott Birdwell: - --------------------------------------- =46rom: Birdwell (via jeffg at rice.edu) Date: Thur 23 March 1995 Subject: My two =A2ents worth: elections, $$$, time, & Bluebonnet I wasn't aware that we (the current BJCC) were going to determine this national versus regional issue. Basically, what we have here is a classic "chicken and the egg" dilemma: Do we decide on the regional/national format and then go about the election? Or do we simply get the committee elected at large (nationally?) and allow the duly elected committee determine the format? Personally, I would like to see the regional approach given a try. I have some reservations about how well this will work: e.g. Will some regions be very well run and organized while others languish in chaos? I don't honestly know. . . this might not really be a problem. I guess we won't know until we give it a try, eh? So, if we are gonna' vote on this question, then let me cast my vote for the regional approach. If it doesn't work, then we ("they?") can always change it later. I find the idea of regional representation attractive, and it has the added bonus of streamlining and economizing our election process. I haven't heard the formal proposal regarding the creation of voluntary voting membership for $5, but I like the concept. This way those folks that feel that they shouldn't have to pay to remain in the program don't have to fork over the buck$, but if they want to have a say regarding the way the program is run and who makes the decisions, they can do so for this nominal fee. I think that it is important that the amount be kept at this low level. If only half of the 1300 or so judges elect to participate, it will provide substantial funding for the "new" program. I don't think that $5 is too much to ask to be really "enfranchised" (Heck, even I'll fork over!). Put me down for an "aye" on the $5 voting membership issue. If we can decide on these two issues a.s.a.p., then it will facilitate the composition of the mail-out to the membership. I think you will agree that time is of the essence. By the way, the Bluebonnet Competition will take place in Dallas/Ft. Worth on March 31 and April 1. Charlie Papazian and Karen Barela will both be there. Karen has asked for ten minutes to address the attendees, ostensively to update the judges on why the AHA has decided to withdraw from the program and to talk about the "new" AHA judge program. The competition organizers have asked me if I would also like ten minutes to speak about the status of the independent program. I said "yes," of course! What do you guys think I should talk about? It would be nice if the issues just mentioned were resolved by then. An honest-to-God election date would be wonderful! Anyway, I would very much appreciate your thoughts regarding my "ten minutes of fame." Cheers, Scott ***************** (via jeffg at rice.edu) ***************** ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 12:10:04 -0500 From: BrewerCam at aol.com Subject: Re: JudgeNet Digest #1006 (Ma... I can hold my tongue no longer. This continued discussion around whether a competition has an entry that is "worthy" of a ribbon is getting out of hand. Not just at this forum, but many others as well. It is rediculous to think that any competition would consider not awarding any place While brewers are brewing towards the perfect model that resembles a given style, they are actually competing against other brewers doing the same at a given competition. One of these entries is the best of the bunch. This should be the first place for this competition. Using the best beer ever brewed by anybody as the benchmark or standard for each competition eliminates the need for so many events. Let's just all send in our entries once a year and see what happens. Use Olympic swimmer Pablo Morales as an analogy. He swam a 200 meter butterfly. He was attempting to, as all swimmers do everytime they brew, er, race, set a new world record. He took first place. He didn't break the world record, but he beat all the other swimmers. He was justly awarded the gold medal. Nuff said, Cam Ireland ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 1995 21:22:08 -0500 From: Garofalo at aol.com Subject: Additives in Beer Following a recent competition in which I judged, I was informed by an entrant that his entry (labeled as an IPA) contained caffeine. At first, I was surpriseded and somewhat amused. "Why?" I asked. "I just wanted to see what it would be like," was the reply. As I later pondered the situation, I became more agitated at the thought that somebody could add who-knows-how-much of a presumably "safe" ingredient to the beer that I might end up drinking. I would never try to stifle creativity, but I have a real problem with some bone-head putting pharmacologically active ingredients in a beer that is not labeled as such. I bring this matter up to the forum for the following reasons: 1) As brewers, we have an obligation to forewarn anybody who may drink our beer of any unusual ingredients, simply as a matter of courtesy. While most "special" ingredients pose no risk, it is my decision whether or not to ingest them. I'll take mine in my coffee, please. 2) As competition directors/judges, we must consider the possible liabilities of accepting such entries without sufficient labeling. Caffeine, especially in large doses, may have some very serious side effects. I know of people who have very adverse reactions to this compound. As a member of the pharmaceutical industry, I am especially wary of such additives being wantonly added to beer. I don't intend to make a mountain of a molehill, but I believe this is a potentially harmful situation, for brewers, competition organizers, and judges. Any thoughts on regulating additives? Peter M. Garofalo Certified Judge ------------------------------ End of JudgeNet Digest ************************