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 BAA17209 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:04:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from chmls05.mediaone.net (chmls05.mediaone.net [24.147.1.143]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA12599 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:04:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105]) by chmls05.mediaone.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f5H54kx18206 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:04:46 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 6/16/01 - 6/17/01 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:02:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC941735BDF1" X-Hops: 1 Status: O --Next_Part_SYNC941735BDF1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Style Guidelines (George Pajari) --Next_Part_SYNC941735BDF1 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC941735BDF1" --Message_Part_SYNC941735BDF1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from zeus.faximum.com ([216.232.11.41]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC939635B6FC for judge at synchro.com; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 04:34:54 -0400 Received: from pavilion (btgr13jsy19th.bc.hsia.telus.net [216.232.162.26]) by zeus.faximum.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA11169 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:36:12 -0700 Message-ID: <005701c0f63f$65d7fc00$1aa2e8d8 at faximum.com> From: "George Pajari" 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: Style Guidelines Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:36:11 -0700 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 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message As a relatively inexperienced amateur brewer and BJCP judge my comments are not based on a wealth of empirical evidence but I should think most amateur brewers would want the Style Guidelines to balance on one hand the need to fairly compare brews while not reducing competitions to merely "who can duplicate commercial brand X the best" contests. Obviously we need to encourage brewers to fully explore their talents and creativity while still making it possible for them to receive quality judging and feedback on the result. Unfortunately I do not have sufficient experience yet to make any concrete suggestions as to how to accomplish this other than to suggest that wider is probably better than narrower. In reference to this I am concerned about David Houseman's comments: > Developing a California > Common style guide that was so wide certainly would have provided wide > latitude to the brewers but would not have challenged the brewers as closely > as the more tightly defined guide that is wrapped around the Anchor Steam > archprtototype example. I am sure it was not his intention to suggest the only important challenge for brewers is the ability to hit a very narrowly defined target (i.e. duplicate a commercial beer). What about the challenge to utilise the infinite palette possible using the ingredients available to deliver a balanced, complex, and intriguing taste experience? Surely that is what we want to encourage. To use a bad analogy, are we not after artists rather than draughtsmen? George Pajari BJCP Certified and Member, Institute and Guild of Brewing --Message_Part_SYNC941735BDF1-- --Next_Part_SYNC941735BDF1-- 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 BAA17209 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:04:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from chmls05.mediaone.net (chmls05.mediaone.net [24.147.1.143]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA12599 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:04:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105]) by chmls05.mediaone.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f5H54kx18206 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:04:46 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 6/16/01 - 6/17/01 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:02:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC941735BDF1" X-Hops: 1 Status: O --Next_Part_SYNC941735BDF1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Style Guidelines (George Pajari) --Next_Part_SYNC941735BDF1 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC941735BDF1" --Message_Part_SYNC941735BDF1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from zeus.faximum.com ([216.232.11.41]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC939635B6FC for judge at synchro.com; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 04:34:54 -0400 Received: from pavilion (btgr13jsy19th.bc.hsia.telus.net [216.232.162.26]) by zeus.faximum.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA11169 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:36:12 -0700 Message-ID: <005701c0f63f$65d7fc00$1aa2e8d8 at faximum.com> From: "George Pajari" 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: Style Guidelines Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:36:11 -0700 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 6.00.2462.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message As a relatively inexperienced amateur brewer and BJCP judge my comments are not based on a wealth of empirical evidence but I should think most amateur brewers would want the Style Guidelines to balance on one hand the need to fairly compare brews while not reducing competitions to merely "who can duplicate commercial brand X the best" contests. Obviously we need to encourage brewers to fully explore their talents and creativity while still making it possible for them to receive quality judging and feedback on the result. Unfortunately I do not have sufficient experience yet to make any concrete suggestions as to how to accomplish this other than to suggest that wider is probably better than narrower. In reference to this I am concerned about David Houseman's comments: > Developing a California > Common style guide that was so wide certainly would have provided wide > latitude to the brewers but would not have challenged the brewers as closely > as the more tightly defined guide that is wrapped around the Anchor Steam > archprtototype example. I am sure it was not his intention to suggest the only important challenge for brewers is the ability to hit a very narrowly defined target (i.e. duplicate a commercial beer). What about the challenge to utilise the infinite palette possible using the ingredients available to deliver a balanced, complex, and intriguing taste experience? Surely that is what we want to encourage. To use a bad analogy, are we not after artists rather than draughtsmen? George Pajari BJCP Certified and Member, Institute and Guild of Brewing --Message_Part_SYNC941735BDF1-- --Next_Part_SYNC941735BDF1--