Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 01:10:02 -0400
Message-Id: <199604110510.BAA17227 at synchro.com>
To: judge-recipients at synchro.com (JudgeNet Recipients)
From: judge-owner at synchro.com (JudgeNet Administrator)
Reply-To: judge at synchro.com (JudgeNet)
Errors-To: judge-error at synchro.com
Precedence: bulk
Subject: JudgeNet Digest #1252 (Apr 10, 1996)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

JudgeNet Digest #1252                              Wed 10 Apr 1996

                               JudgeNet
                        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

        WWW Archives: http://www.umich.edu/~spencer/beer/judge

                 Editor: Chuck Cox <chuck at synchro.com>
             Archivist: Spencer Thomas <spencer at umich.edu>

      Publishers: SynchroSystems and the Riverside Garage & Brewery

            Anti-Prohibitionists may also be interested in 
                LiBeerty: The Libertarian Beer Digest
           Subscription info: libeerty-request at synchro.com

     For BJCP General Information contact: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents:

  Thanks                                   (John A. DeCarlo)
  Purposes,By-laws and Finances            (lmatt)
  AHA sanctioning                          (Btalk)
  yes he did; no he didn't blahblahblah    (Robert Paolino)
  AHA Sanctioning                          ("JOHN A. JR. CARLSON ")

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 08:07:00 -0400
From: jdecarlo at mail04.mitre.org (John A. DeCarlo)
Subject: Thanks 

I just want to say thanks to all those working constructively for the BJCP. 
After reading rants that have no substance to them from the likes of Bill
Giffin, it makes me appreciate those who are working hard to help.

Also, I appreciate those who take the time to bring up specific questions or
complaints that can be addressed.  Note Dennis Davison's helpful posting of
the Incorporation papers after Brian Walter's straightforward and
substantive request.  Both of these people were helpful.

Thanks again.


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:11:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: lmatt <lmatt at nando.net>
Subject: Purposes,By-laws and Finances

Good morning to all,
   Being a new judge and online with Judgenet for only 4-5 months, I 
reluctantly enter my first post.
   First I appreciate the quick response from Dennis Davison on posting the 
purposes of BJCP from the articles of incorporation. Bases upon them. I 
have a better platform from which to vote on and discuss the new set of 
by-laws that have been established. Based upon the time elapsed since 
the departure of BJCP from AHA/HWBTA, I was expecting a more 
thorough/complete set of by-laws. The majority of the by-laws deals with 
the very centralized management and election of board members and the 
decisions they may render. No where is it stated the dates for our 
fiscal year although you might assume it's from June 1-May 31st. It 
appears that the only difference between "active status" and regular 
members is/could be dues. If you can maintain "active status" without 
paying dues, do you receive a "BJCP Reporter" or does this only go to 
regular members? It appears that the regular members will only vote on 
regional directors and if a membership referendum is successful. I've 
never been in an organization where only the BOD may alter the by-laws.I 
assume that is what 7.1 means? In effect, the regular members are 
notified of the amendment so that some input can be made to your regional 
rep on the BOD.
   That's enough on the by-laws for today but maybe it begins some civil 
discussion. On finances, I would like to see online at least quarterly, a 
balance sheet and some statement of income/expenses. To my knowledge, 
I've not seen any of this information within the last few months. Thanks, 
in advance for this information. Since we are quickly moving toward June 
1 and the beginning of a new fiscal year ( I assume), has the BOD 
proposed a budget and set of goals for the next year. Again, if these are 
currently ready, I would like to see these published.
   Has BJCP ever calulate the % of members who are online and receive 
judgenet. I guess I feel sad for those judges who don't have access and 
who currently receive little or no information about BJCP. I just 
received my membership card from BJCP along with the status report. 
Wouldn't this have been a logical time to include more information than 
just the by-laws and my results from the Jan 20th test. It would have 
been great to have included some information about subscribing to 
judgenet for those newer members who may not have monthly contact with 
other BJCP members through club meetings. Just a thought! Well that's 
enough for one post. Thanks for all the work that goes on behind the 
scenes. I know from being a member of two clubs what work has to go on to 
make a successful organization.
                                Larry Matthews
                                Raleigh, NC 
                                lmatt  at nando.net

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:11:10 -0400
From: Btalk at aol.com
Subject: AHA sanctioning

Dion asks about AHA sanctioning of contests.

A year ago we ran an AHA sanctioned contest. The paper work and sketchy info
provided was nearly worthless.
The contest listing in Zymurgy's calendar drew absolutely ZERO response.
This was all reported back to the AHA on the feedback form they provide.

near-sightedly yours,
Bob "I only did it til I needed glasses" Talkiewicz
Binghamton, NY <btalk at aol.com>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:15:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Paolino <rpaolino at execpc.com>
Subject: yes he did; no he didn't blahblahblah

Bill wrote:

<deleted>

And Scott replied:

<deleted>

and on and on and on.

Can we get this personal attack crap off the digest?  Bill, to the extent that
you have a legitimate gripe or want to make a critique, please stick to the
issues without the name-calling.  Scott, the same for you when you respond,
and if you think Bill is full of, ummm, Bud, just ignore him.

And if the two of you can't behave and be a little more civil in public (say
what you want to each other privately), someone's just going to have to sit
the two of you down at a judging table together to judge a flight of Red Light
Dry Ice Dog piss American Swillseners until you can be civil to each other :-)


Now go have a beer,


Bob Paolino                                     
Madison                                    rpaolino at earth.execpc.com
You may now go back to your regularly-scheduled beer


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:21:42 -0600 (MDT)
From: "JOHN A. JR. CARLSON " <jcarlson at odin.cair.du.edu>
Subject: AHA Sanctioning

Dion Hollenbeck asks why a competition organizer should sanction with the 
AHA.

I have several reasons:

You get up to date materials i.e. style guidelines that are widely 
available and understood by the majority of contest participants.

I got some great prizes donated by the AHA, which in my mind more than 
made up for the sanctioning fee.

The AHA provides a free entry coupon to the NHC for your Best-of-Show Winner.

The email calendar helped our competition draw entries. (Yes we could of 
got this for free)

But probably the biggest reason to sanction with AHA (for our 
competition) was the fact that by being AHA sanctioned the majority of 
participants could understand our competition. 95% of the folks out there 
in the homebrew world really don't have a firm grasp on what the BJCP 
is.  Therefore, if you sanction with AHA you draw from a larger pool of 
potential participants than if you did not sanction.  Why make it 
difficult for people to enter your competition?  By using AHA materials 
our competition was run in the most "uniform" manner available.  Because 
of this I feel we reached more people than we would have if we had not 
sanctioned.  BTW, we were also BJCP recognized.

Many participants used our competition as a "dry-run" for the 1996 NHC to 
see how their brews would perform.  Had we used a different format we 
might have lost those entries.

At this point I will continue to both AHA sanction and BJCP recognize.  
With luck the two programs will *help* one another and the organizer will 
not have to make the choice.  

- --John Carlson
  National 

------------------------------

End of JudgeNet Digest
************************
-------