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 BAA03093
	for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 01:07:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105])
	by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA06806
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 01:07:29 -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 6/5/01 - 6/6/01
Message-ID: <SYNC915330644A at synchro.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 01:04:55 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC9153306440"
X-Hops: 1
Status:   


--Next_Part_SYNC9153306440
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Table of contents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Help with BJCP Guidelines (Joel Plutchak)

--Next_Part_SYNC9153306440
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC9153306440"


--Message_Part_SYNC9153306440
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <plutchak at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Received: from brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu ([141.142.22.64]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC89722FE662
          for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 29 May 2001 12:07:04 -0400
Received: from localhost (plutchak at localhost)
	by brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA30011
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Tue, 29 May 2001 11:07:53 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu: plutchak owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 11:07:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joel Plutchak <plutchak at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Help with BJCP Guidelines
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10105291058520.29967-100000 at brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message



   I'd like some clarification of the description of
category 19E, Belgian Specialty Ale, as it relates to
judging in competition.  The description is basically
wide open, and the only suggestion for judging is
"Brewer should specify commercial equivalent for entry,
if appropriate."
   Hypothetically speaking, if one were judging a
competition and a Belgian Specialty were encountered
that had no accompanying description, how would it
reasonably be judged?  Strictly hedonically?  Should
the entrant be required to provide some sort of
description to judges?  As it currently reads it's
not required, and it seems at odds with the kind
of stylistic judging we do for most other categories--
seems like it fits more in the Specialty/Experimental/
Historical category, and should be accompanied by some
sort of statement of intent by the brewer.
   Thoughts?
 
Joel Plutchak <plutchak at uiuc.edu>


--Message_Part_SYNC9153306440--

--Next_Part_SYNC9153306440--
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 BAA03093
	for <spencer at srvr5.engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 01:07:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105])
	by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA06806
	for <spencer at engin.umich.edu>; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 01:07:29 -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 6/5/01 - 6/6/01
Message-ID: <SYNC915330644A at synchro.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 01:04:55 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC9153306440"
X-Hops: 1
Status:   


--Next_Part_SYNC9153306440
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Table of contents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Help with BJCP Guidelines (Joel Plutchak)

--Next_Part_SYNC9153306440
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC9153306440"


--Message_Part_SYNC9153306440
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-Path: <plutchak at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Received: from brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu ([141.142.22.64]) by synchro.com
          with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC89722FE662
          for judge at synchro.com; Tue, 29 May 2001 12:07:04 -0400
Received: from localhost (plutchak at localhost)
	by brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA30011
	for <judge at synchro.com>; Tue, 29 May 2001 11:07:53 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu: plutchak owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 11:07:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joel Plutchak <plutchak at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" <judge at synchro.com>
Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com
Sender: judge at synchro.com
To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest <judge at synchro.com>
Subject: Help with BJCP Guidelines
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10105291058520.29967-100000 at brew.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Hops: 3
X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message



   I'd like some clarification of the description of
category 19E, Belgian Specialty Ale, as it relates to
judging in competition.  The description is basically
wide open, and the only suggestion for judging is
"Brewer should specify commercial equivalent for entry,
if appropriate."
   Hypothetically speaking, if one were judging a
competition and a Belgian Specialty were encountered
that had no accompanying description, how would it
reasonably be judged?  Strictly hedonically?  Should
the entrant be required to provide some sort of
description to judges?  As it currently reads it's
not required, and it seems at odds with the kind
of stylistic judging we do for most other categories--
seems like it fits more in the Specialty/Experimental/
Historical category, and should be accompanied by some
sort of statement of intent by the brewer.
   Thoughts?
 
Joel Plutchak <plutchak at uiuc.edu>


--Message_Part_SYNC9153306440--

--Next_Part_SYNC9153306440--