Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.21]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA25256 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 01:02:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.109]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA27788 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 01:02:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 06/30/00 - 07/01/00 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 01:00:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC9931BF2AB" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC9931BF2AB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Re: Digest for the period 06/28/00 - 06/29/00/ fruit beers etc (OudBruin at aol.com) Guidelines (Nathaniel P. Lansing) re: BJCP purpose (Gordon Strong) Barleywines (Nathaniel P. Lansing) --Next_Part_SYNC9931BF2AB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from imo-r20.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.162]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC9531BE074 for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:37:07 -0400 Received: from OudBruin at aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id u.70.a8c2de (3316) for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:37:02 -0400 (EDT) From: OudBruin at aol.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Message-ID: <70.a8c2de.268caafd at aol.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:37:01 EDT Subject: Re: Digest for the period 06/28/00 - 06/29/00/ fruit beers etc To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 56 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Al- has hit on a raw nerve for many brewers and judges. As judges, we sit and have to (at least we are expected to ) follow a fairly set of guidelines about a given beer..I think that if we gave the brewer a chance to expound on what he is doing with his product, there would be less confusion. Also, we still have judges who don't have the foggiest clue on certain catagories. I had the distinct displeasure of sitting opposite from a "lord high mucky-muck of the moose lodge" (-All we need are the silly hats and the secret handshake.. maybe the comitee felt I couldn't be trusted with the handshake) Anyway, hislordship pronounced that this historic porter was not a good examp;e of the style.. and proceeded to make commentary about crapola like oxidation and hop rates.. His lordship didn't know it, but I knew the brewer and the product.. it was as fine an example of a historic porter as you will find on this side of the pond- in fact ir was based on John Harrison's Rx in the historic beers book.. I can't wait till some butthead says the sake with a asian pear flavor or hazlenut flavor isn't to style?? Excuse me?? who died and made and made butthead god?? So I have to produce a bottle of asian pear flavored sake from momokawa?? Once again, i submit that certification in style is the only way to avoid flaming off neophyte brewers and experienced brewers. It will also make us avoid getting doodoo and caca on our respective selves.. If we're gonna judge something, at least have the courtesy to the brewer to know what you're talking about, as it reflects on the BJCP as a whole group. nuff said.. HBH PS looks like sake may be a catagory in next years competition- warm up your rice cookers... --Next_Part_SYNC9931BF2AB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from spdmgaad.compuserve.com ([149.174.206.137]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC9541BE0C3 for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:05:44 -0400 Received: (from mailgate at localhost) by spdmgaad.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) id KAA25594 for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:05:15 -0400 From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Subject: Guidelines Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-ID: <200006291005_MC2-AA91-2805 at compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message AK said, >>Firstly, I'd like to thank Del for his pointers to ambiguities= in the guidelines. Nobody's perfect, and a committee is just a collection of of imperfection, no (I just made that up, so I'd better (TM) it)? Hope you didn't take it as criticism! I think I mentioned 3 points, out o= f 29 pages that's not too shabby; wish our ball team had that kind of = record ;-) Personally I feel ambiguities are worse than out and out errors because at least with an clear error a judge can say "hey look, it says *no diacetyl*" if things are vague then the judge doesn't know which way to score and the entrant is not getting the feedback intended. A good f'rinstance; overheard at our BOS round where a BOS judge had to judge a barleywine (not his) that made the 1st BOS he resented that the other guys BW won, sour-grapes maybe, but maybe 1 was a better "English Style" and the other was an "American style". So I guess there is a 4th point. I see that good use splitting off seperate styles; English vs American barleywines. Yeah, now-a-days there's a_lot_of overlap; but giving a dividing line would help reduce the judging error of "bigger is better"= . And help out if a judge just plain old _likes_100+ IBUs in a beer he woul= d think to himself "hmmm, English style, it *should be this soft, I'll giv= e it a 34." Just some thoughts... N.P.(Del) Lansing --Next_Part_SYNC9931BF2AB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.18]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC9771BEE21 for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:11:41 -0400 Received: from DARIA (ip146.dayton11.oh.pub-ip.psi.net [38.31.203.146]) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA01053 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 06:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000f01bfe294$e60f68f0$b963fea9 at DARIA> From: "Gordon Strong" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: re: BJCP purpose Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:12:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Al K asks about BJCP being in the education business and also about contacting the BJCP webmaster. I'd like to respectfully disagree about some of the points (just like we're in a BOS, right Al?). First, the easy one. Scott Bickham is the web master (webmeister at bjcp.org). It's on the web site, but under "Regional Reps" rather than the traditional webmaster mailto: link at the bottom of the main page. Second, I think it is the purpose of the BJCP to *encourage* education but not to directly educate. Maybe this could be worded better in the mission/purpose statement. All the things Al mentioned that the BJCP does is correct, but it also does provide the excellent BJCP Study Guide. The study guide (in addition to the new Style Guide) is an outstanding tool for education. BJCP members also hold study classes for exams, and often speak to groups about brewing and beer styles. So, while the BJCP doesn't directly sponsor education events, it does encourage it's members to share their knowledge and raise the overall beer literacy of the public. Maybe our mission/purpose statement could clarify this distinction. Finally, a strong agreement about the AHA NHC. It was a great time, particularly the club-driven events. Although I think the national conference has morphed somewhat into something that felt more like a large regional event (due to the strong local club presence), I think that's one thing that made it fun. I also liked how the role of the AHA seemed to be more of a facilitator and supporter and less of a director (read: more clubs, less Charlie). Certainly a positive trend. From a judging standpoint, the competition was very well run and the quality of the beers and judges was very high. It's great to finally meet some people you only know electronically. I only have one other data point ('97 conference in Cleveland) but I thought the talks, while generally quite good, weren't as oustanding this year. In '97 I thought they had more variety and depth, and showed more preparation. For instance, in '97 Ray Daniels talked about Old Ales and provided detailed technical handouts, had hard-to-find examples, and led a well-researched discussion. This year's IPA talk was good but not to the same depth. Likewise, in '97 a woman from Siebel led a sensory perception talk and had doctored samples. This year, Morton Meilgaard talked about the flavor wheel but didn't involve the audience in the same manner. In '97, Michael Jackson talked about his life as the beer hunter and Mark Dorber gave a talk and demo on cellarmanship. This year, the keynotes were a bit more angry and political and less about beer. For instance, they seemed to dwell on either (1) the sorry state of homebrewing, (2) the lack of interest in drinking American beer, or (3) the increasing crackdown on beer drinkers. Yes, I found them interesting/informative and I'm glad I went but I thought they weren't quite up to the same level as '97. Sort of like reading Zymurgy instead of BT. Lest it sound like I'm being overly critical, I did learn things at every talk and look forward to the next conference. These events obviously involve a lot of effort, and those who donate their time to make them happen deserve our heartfelt thanks and appreciation. Gordon Strong Beavercreek, OH strongg at earthlink.net --Next_Part_SYNC9931BF2AB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from spdmbaaa.compuserve.com ([149.174.206.153]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC9771BEE34 for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:13:54 -0400 Received: (from mailgate at localhost) by spdmbaaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) id JAA15656 for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:13:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:13:02 -0400 From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Subject: Barleywines Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-ID: <200006300913_MC2-AAAF-8DD2 at compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message On rereading what I said about barley wines it could be misunderstood. I didn't get an acknowledgement then as I when to send a corrected versi= on the acknowlegement was there....oh poop. The descriptions for Amer. vs English BW are identical except for the k= ind of hops used. There does seem to be a difference in the IBUs, at least to= my palate. None of the Brits are as brashly bitter as the American versio= ns. This could be from the cohumulone levels in the American hops but the imp= ression I'm left with is, taking that into consideration, the Americans still are= more highly bittered. This could be that the British one I get are that much older an= d had time to mellow vs the *fresh American versions that are still jumping with hop= s. Was the 50 to 100 IBUs derived from actual published specs for the exampl= es? I prefered the old descriptions that left a distinction in the hop rat= es. N.P. Del) Lansing = --Next_Part_SYNC9931BF2AB-- Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.21]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA25256 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 01:02:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.109]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA27788 for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 01:02:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 06/30/00 - 07/01/00 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 01:00:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC9931BF2AB" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC9931BF2AB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------ Re: Digest for the period 06/28/00 - 06/29/00/ fruit beers etc (OudBruin at aol.com) Guidelines (Nathaniel P. Lansing) re: BJCP purpose (Gordon Strong) Barleywines (Nathaniel P. Lansing) --Next_Part_SYNC9931BF2AB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from imo-r20.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.162]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC9531BE074 for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:37:07 -0400 Received: from OudBruin at aol.com by imo-r20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id u.70.a8c2de (3316) for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:37:02 -0400 (EDT) From: OudBruin at aol.com Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Message-ID: <70.a8c2de.268caafd at aol.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 09:37:01 EDT Subject: Re: Digest for the period 06/28/00 - 06/29/00/ fruit beers etc To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Mac - Post-GM sub 56 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Al- has hit on a raw nerve for many brewers and judges. As judges, we sit and have to (at least we are expected to ) follow a fairly set of guidelines about a given beer..I think that if we gave the brewer a chance to expound on what he is doing with his product, there would be less confusion. Also, we still have judges who don't have the foggiest clue on certain catagories. I had the distinct displeasure of sitting opposite from a "lord high mucky-muck of the moose lodge" (-All we need are the silly hats and the secret handshake.. maybe the comitee felt I couldn't be trusted with the handshake) Anyway, hislordship pronounced that this historic porter was not a good examp;e of the style.. and proceeded to make commentary about crapola like oxidation and hop rates.. His lordship didn't know it, but I knew the brewer and the product.. it was as fine an example of a historic porter as you will find on this side of the pond- in fact ir was based on John Harrison's Rx in the historic beers book.. I can't wait till some butthead says the sake with a asian pear flavor or hazlenut flavor isn't to style?? Excuse me?? who died and made and made butthead god?? So I have to produce a bottle of asian pear flavored sake from momokawa?? Once again, i submit that certification in style is the only way to avoid flaming off neophyte brewers and experienced brewers. It will also make us avoid getting doodoo and caca on our respective selves.. If we're gonna judge something, at least have the courtesy to the brewer to know what you're talking about, as it reflects on the BJCP as a whole group. nuff said.. HBH PS looks like sake may be a catagory in next years competition- warm up your rice cookers... --Next_Part_SYNC9931BF2AB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from spdmgaad.compuserve.com ([149.174.206.137]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC9541BE0C3 for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:05:44 -0400 Received: (from mailgate at localhost) by spdmgaad.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) id KAA25594 for judge at synchro.com; Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:05:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:05:15 -0400 From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Subject: Guidelines Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-ID: <200006291005_MC2-AA91-2805 at compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message AK said, >>Firstly, I'd like to thank Del for his pointers to ambiguities= in the guidelines. Nobody's perfect, and a committee is just a collection of of imperfection, no (I just made that up, so I'd better (TM) it)? Hope you didn't take it as criticism! I think I mentioned 3 points, out o= f 29 pages that's not too shabby; wish our ball team had that kind of = record ;-) Personally I feel ambiguities are worse than out and out errors because at least with an clear error a judge can say "hey look, it says *no diacetyl*" if things are vague then the judge doesn't know which way to score and the entrant is not getting the feedback intended. A good f'rinstance; overheard at our BOS round where a BOS judge had to judge a barleywine (not his) that made the 1st BOS he resented that the other guys BW won, sour-grapes maybe, but maybe 1 was a better "English Style" and the other was an "American style". So I guess there is a 4th point. I see that good use splitting off seperate styles; English vs American barleywines. Yeah, now-a-days there's a_lot_of overlap; but giving a dividing line would help reduce the judging error of "bigger is better"= . And help out if a judge just plain old _likes_100+ IBUs in a beer he woul= d think to himself "hmmm, English style, it *should be this soft, I'll giv= e it a 34." Just some thoughts... N.P.(Del) Lansing --Next_Part_SYNC9931BF2AB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.18]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC9771BEE21 for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:11:41 -0400 Received: from DARIA (ip146.dayton11.oh.pub-ip.psi.net [38.31.203.146]) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3-EL_1_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA01053 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 06:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000f01bfe294$e60f68f0$b963fea9 at DARIA> From: "Gordon Strong" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: re: BJCP purpose Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:12:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Al K asks about BJCP being in the education business and also about contacting the BJCP webmaster. I'd like to respectfully disagree about some of the points (just like we're in a BOS, right Al?). First, the easy one. Scott Bickham is the web master (webmeister at bjcp.org). It's on the web site, but under "Regional Reps" rather than the traditional webmaster mailto: link at the bottom of the main page. Second, I think it is the purpose of the BJCP to *encourage* education but not to directly educate. Maybe this could be worded better in the mission/purpose statement. All the things Al mentioned that the BJCP does is correct, but it also does provide the excellent BJCP Study Guide. The study guide (in addition to the new Style Guide) is an outstanding tool for education. BJCP members also hold study classes for exams, and often speak to groups about brewing and beer styles. So, while the BJCP doesn't directly sponsor education events, it does encourage it's members to share their knowledge and raise the overall beer literacy of the public. Maybe our mission/purpose statement could clarify this distinction. Finally, a strong agreement about the AHA NHC. It was a great time, particularly the club-driven events. Although I think the national conference has morphed somewhat into something that felt more like a large regional event (due to the strong local club presence), I think that's one thing that made it fun. I also liked how the role of the AHA seemed to be more of a facilitator and supporter and less of a director (read: more clubs, less Charlie). Certainly a positive trend. From a judging standpoint, the competition was very well run and the quality of the beers and judges was very high. It's great to finally meet some people you only know electronically. I only have one other data point ('97 conference in Cleveland) but I thought the talks, while generally quite good, weren't as oustanding this year. In '97 I thought they had more variety and depth, and showed more preparation. For instance, in '97 Ray Daniels talked about Old Ales and provided detailed technical handouts, had hard-to-find examples, and led a well-researched discussion. This year's IPA talk was good but not to the same depth. Likewise, in '97 a woman from Siebel led a sensory perception talk and had doctored samples. This year, Morton Meilgaard talked about the flavor wheel but didn't involve the audience in the same manner. In '97, Michael Jackson talked about his life as the beer hunter and Mark Dorber gave a talk and demo on cellarmanship. This year, the keynotes were a bit more angry and political and less about beer. For instance, they seemed to dwell on either (1) the sorry state of homebrewing, (2) the lack of interest in drinking American beer, or (3) the increasing crackdown on beer drinkers. Yes, I found them interesting/informative and I'm glad I went but I thought they weren't quite up to the same level as '97. Sort of like reading Zymurgy instead of BT. Lest it sound like I'm being overly critical, I did learn things at every talk and look forward to the next conference. These events obviously involve a lot of effort, and those who donate their time to make them happen deserve our heartfelt thanks and appreciation. Gordon Strong Beavercreek, OH strongg at earthlink.net --Next_Part_SYNC9931BF2AB Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Received: from spdmbaaa.compuserve.com ([149.174.206.153]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC9771BEE34 for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:13:54 -0400 Received: (from mailgate at localhost) by spdmbaaa.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.9) id JAA15656 for judge at synchro.com; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:13:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 09:13:02 -0400 From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Subject: Barleywines Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Message-ID: <200006300913_MC2-AAAF-8DD2 at compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message On rereading what I said about barley wines it could be misunderstood. I didn't get an acknowledgement then as I when to send a corrected versi= on the acknowlegement was there....oh poop. The descriptions for Amer. vs English BW are identical except for the k= ind of hops used. There does seem to be a difference in the IBUs, at least to= my palate. None of the Brits are as brashly bitter as the American versio= ns. This could be from the cohumulone levels in the American hops but the imp= ression I'm left with is, taking that into consideration, the Americans still are= more highly bittered. This could be that the British one I get are that much older an= d had time to mellow vs the *fresh American versions that are still jumping with hop= s. Was the 50 to 100 IBUs derived from actual published specs for the exampl= es? I prefered the old descriptions that left a distinction in the hop rat= es. N.P. Del) Lansing = --Next_Part_SYNC9931BF2AB--