Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.22])
	by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA08997
	for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:02:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from chmls05.mediaone.net (chmls05.mediaone.net [24.147.1.143])
	by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA29529
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:02:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.109])
	by chmls05.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA00553
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:02:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
To: "Digest Recipients" <judge at synchro.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Digest for the period 07/18/00 - 07/19/00
Message-ID: <SYNC14251C8CE2 at synchro.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:01:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC14251C8B81"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Hops: 1
Status: RO

--Next_Part_SYNC14251C8B81
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Table of contents
------------------------------------------------------
Re: Digest for the period 07/17/00 - 07/18/00 (Bob Sheck)
--Next_Part_SYNC14251C8B81
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <bsheck at skantech.net>
Received: from mail.skantech.com ([208.12.236.243]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC14011C87A1
          for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:53:36 -0400
Received: from lyric.skantech.net [208.12.236.19] by mail.skantech.com with ESMTP
  (SMTPD32-6.00) id A1C2FB901AE; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:57:22 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.0.20000718012104.00c2a550 at mail.skantech.net>
X-Sender: bsheck at mail.skantech.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:48:38 -0400
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
From: Bob Sheck <bsheck at skantech.net>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
Subject: Re: Digest for the period 07/17/00 - 07/18/00
In-Reply-To: <SYNC14011C80D7 at synchro.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message


Judging is not an easy sport! We must evaluate a beer in about 10-12 
minutes time
and go on to the next! In that time, we have to come up with sufficient words
to completely describe the brew that we just consumed. This is not trivial
for many of us. It's difficult for me to capture the correct words to 
describe what
my mouth/nose just felt in that amount of time.

So I Agree that a "world class beer should be able to withstand" whatever. . .
But  we are judging home brewed beers that are made without the skills
of the professional brewers(and the methods they use to preserve the swill
they market) and SHOULD be judged in a REASONABLE amount of time.

Maybe this quest of being a BJCP "oh-my-god" is not for me, but I have
to interject my feelings here. A beer should be entered for judgement with the
full understanding that its ready for judgement!  If the judgement is 
prolonged,
then the organizers of the competition should be held accountable or
some method of equalization should be enjoined.  Actually, what the hell
is the hang-up here, anyway-maybe I just don't understand this whole drill!
<i.e. Haven't grasped the whole aspect of comprehending the brewer's intent>

I submit that I have yet a lot to learn about being a certified judge of 
beers, and request
<humbly> further elucidation.

At 01:02 AM 7/18/2000, JudgeNet - the beer judge digest wrote:
>Re: To Rebrew or not to Rebrew (Jeff Renner)
>--------------------------------------------------------
>From: Jeff Renner  Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:00:10 -0400
>Subject: Re: To Rebrew or not to Rebrew
>
>
>Brian J Walter wrote:
>
> >- A world class beer beer should be able to stand a month or two of aging
> >  and still be drinkable.  In other words, is a beer which ages more
> >  gracefully not a better beer?  It adds another facet where the brewer
> >  has to have good control; handling and packaging the beer post-ferment.
> >  A brewer who does this better has brewed a better beer.
>
>I would certainly nominate most lagers, particularly pale ones and any of



Bob Sheck

bsheck, me-sheck, abednigo! Greenville, North Carolina
email:bsheck at skantech.net or see us at:
http://www.skantech.net/bsheck/
(252)830-1833
-------------
"An independent station - WJAZ - With Jazz and conversation from the foot 
of Mt. "Belzoni
<Donald Fagen- The Nightfly>
-------------

--Next_Part_SYNC14251C8B81--
Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.22])
	by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA08997
	for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:02:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from chmls05.mediaone.net (chmls05.mediaone.net [24.147.1.143])
	by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA29529
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:02:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.109])
	by chmls05.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA00553
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:02:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
To: "Digest Recipients" <judge at synchro.com>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Digest for the period 07/18/00 - 07/19/00
Message-ID: <SYNC14251C8CE2 at synchro.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:01:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC14251C8B81"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Hops: 1
Status: RO

--Next_Part_SYNC14251C8B81
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Table of contents
------------------------------------------------------
Re: Digest for the period 07/17/00 - 07/18/00 (Bob Sheck)
--Next_Part_SYNC14251C8B81
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Return-Path: <bsheck at skantech.net>
Received: from mail.skantech.com ([208.12.236.243]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.4.1123) id SYNC14011C87A1
          for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:53:36 -0400
Received: from lyric.skantech.net [208.12.236.19] by mail.skantech.com with ESMTP
  (SMTPD32-6.00) id A1C2FB901AE; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:57:22 -0400
Message-Id: <4.3.0.20000718012104.00c2a550 at mail.skantech.net>
X-Sender: bsheck at mail.skantech.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:48:38 -0400
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
From: Bob Sheck <bsheck at skantech.net>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
Subject: Re: Digest for the period 07/17/00 - 07/18/00
In-Reply-To: <SYNC14011C80D7 at synchro.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message


Judging is not an easy sport! We must evaluate a beer in about 10-12 
minutes time
and go on to the next! In that time, we have to come up with sufficient words
to completely describe the brew that we just consumed. This is not trivial
for many of us. It's difficult for me to capture the correct words to 
describe what
my mouth/nose just felt in that amount of time.

So I Agree that a "world class beer should be able to withstand" whatever. . .
But  we are judging home brewed beers that are made without the skills
of the professional brewers(and the methods they use to preserve the swill
they market) and SHOULD be judged in a REASONABLE amount of time.

Maybe this quest of being a BJCP "oh-my-god" is not for me, but I have
to interject my feelings here. A beer should be entered for judgement with the
full understanding that its ready for judgement!  If the judgement is 
prolonged,
then the organizers of the competition should be held accountable or
some method of equalization should be enjoined.  Actually, what the hell
is the hang-up here, anyway-maybe I just don't understand this whole drill!
<i.e. Haven't grasped the whole aspect of comprehending the brewer's intent>

I submit that I have yet a lot to learn about being a certified judge of 
beers, and request
<humbly> further elucidation.

At 01:02 AM 7/18/2000, JudgeNet - the beer judge digest wrote:
>Re: To Rebrew or not to Rebrew (Jeff Renner)
>--------------------------------------------------------
>From: Jeff Renner  Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:00:10 -0400
>Subject: Re: To Rebrew or not to Rebrew
>
>
>Brian J Walter wrote:
>
> >- A world class beer beer should be able to stand a month or two of aging
> >  and still be drinkable.  In other words, is a beer which ages more
> >  gracefully not a better beer?  It adds another facet where the brewer
> >  has to have good control; handling and packaging the beer post-ferment.
> >  A brewer who does this better has brewed a better beer.
>
>I would certainly nominate most lagers, particularly pale ones and any of



Bob Sheck

bsheck, me-sheck, abednigo! Greenville, North Carolina
email:bsheck at skantech.net or see us at:
http://www.skantech.net/bsheck/
(252)830-1833
-------------
"An independent station - WJAZ - With Jazz and conversation from the foot 
of Mt. "Belzoni
<Donald Fagen- The Nightfly>
-------------

--Next_Part_SYNC14251C8B81--