. . . and say lots of nice things about Ronald Reagan, like "Ronald Reagan
exemplifies the essence of fly fishing."

Actually, its true. Ronald Rayguns and most of my casts are very similiar.
Very big on presentation, just lacking in payoff. When all the probilities
come into alignment, even a sock puppet can hook something.

--
Frank Reid
Euthenize to respond

"Wolfgang" wrote in message

"Daniel-San" wrote in message

...In defense of the huge breweries (A-B, Miller, etc.) -- They really
do
take
the making of their beer seriously. Yeah, they're mass-produced, but
it's
the same beer all the time. Quality-control is a religion, and not in
the
closet-Catholic sense.

Yeah, but it's probably good to keep in mind that "quality control" is an
inherently misleading term.....it's all about being consistent, and making
bad products consistently and to rigid standards is far from unusual. Nor
is there anything noteworthy about selling them successfully in large
quantities. Where the output of the major American breweries is
concerned,
it's only truly quality control if you happen to value the qualities of
the
product. And that, as you noted, is highly subjective.....purely a matter
of taste.

As to the manufacturers in question, I'd counter that they take the making
of their "product" seriously. But they take the marketing thereof even
more
seriously. I say "product" rather than "beer" because I don't believe it
makes any difference to the upper echelons of the corporate structure what
the product is. It happens to be beer in this instance, but it could be
anything......say, cigarettes for instance.

Agree. But a major change in taste WILL result in a loss of sales =$
I point to "New Coke" as an example. To help with this is why the makers of
"horse ****" make more than one beer and pretty much leave the original
alone. This is to keep the loyal fans happy and try to win over those who
don't like horse ****. (not really a fan of horse **** myself FWIW)

What's interesting about Miller and Anheuser Busch is less their products
than the extent to which they go to establish the tastes and loyalty of
their target market by appealing to underage drinkers.......with
phenomenal
success, one might add. It isn't so much Kennie's insistence on extolling
the dubious virtues of his favorite horse-**** that's amusing......it's
the
fact that his taste was dictated to him when he was sixteen, that he takes
such pains to justify it and, most of all, that he proffers being a
willing
dupe as a sign of some sort of cultural superiority.

Wolfgang

In part I think the success of horse **** is that it IS widely available,
any bar, any store, any place that sells beer (U.S.) WILL have horse ****
you can count on it and don't have to think about it. It is also cheaper
than most "good" beers. As far as taste at an early age... at the ripe old
age of 15 my favorite beer was Little Kings. Why? It was easy to steal.
Simple as that. Favorite beer now...Guinness. I don't see at all how Little
Kings trained me to like Guinness. Or wait maybe I do. I get it... one
tastes like **** one tastes goooooood.

But really how many of us drink now what we did then? Be it stolen or snuck
out of dad's fridge, or friend's dad's fridge.

"This ain't your fathers beer"
Natural Lite {:-? Yuck!

"Goat" wrote in message
news:bjEpe.6931$xI2.1025@trnddc09...

Agree. But a major change in taste WILL result in a loss of sales =$

No doubt about it. Whatever informs or dictates individual tastes, the
result is very real.

I point to "New Coke" as an example.

I recall the outrage (purely a matter of hearsay on my part, as I don't
drink much soda and have no brand preferences) but I don't remember whether
it caused many outright defections to the opposition. I suppose diehard
Coke fans were stymied by the fact that, for all practical purposes, there
were no options but to swallow the new product (and their pride) or switch
over to the loathed Pepsi. It seems to me that AB and Miller never quite so
dominated the beer market in the U.S. as to leave the hapless consumer in
such dire straits. There have always been at least a few other smaller
national and some fairly successful regional brands available. Even today
there are enough of the established generic American beers left to give fans
of the style a number of viable options.....Olympia, Coors, Pearl, PBR, etc.

To help with this is why the makers of
"horse ****" make more than one beer and pretty much leave the original
alone. This is to keep the loyal fans happy and try to win over those who
don't like horse ****. (not really a fan of horse **** myself FWIW)

Aside from the "Lite" beers (an extraordinary phenomenon) most of their
experiments with other styles haven't been all that successful. In large
part, this results from their own efforts at establishing and maintaining a
widespread preference for a certain style. Anything that departs very far
from what their customer base expects will not only leave them cold, but
also make them nervous about the future. Anything that doesn't won't
attract anyone who doesn't care for their flagship brews.

Miller experimented rather heavily with a number of "micros" back about ten
years ago. Some of them actually made it to the marketplace, where they
promptly failed. Their customer base wasn't interested because they were
too different, others weren't interested because they weren't different
enough. Both camps were highly suspicious. They also tried some things
that never made it to market. I got to try some of them by way of a friend
who was in management at Miller. Some of each group were actually pretty
decent. Miller dropped all of them because it was deemed that they just
weren't worth the trouble. They preferred to continue to go after market
share by tried and true methods.....marketing, price cutting, buying up the
competition, advertising, etc. rather than extending the product line.

In part I think the success of horse **** is that it IS widely available,
any bar, any store, any place that sells beer (U.S.) WILL have horse ****
you can count on it and don't have to think about it. It is also cheaper
than most "good" beers. As far as taste at an early age... at the ripe old
age of 15 my favorite beer was Little Kings. Why? It was easy to steal.
Simple as that. Favorite beer now...Guinness. I don't see at all how
Little
Kings trained me to like Guinness. Or wait maybe I do. I get it... one
tastes like **** one tastes goooooood.

Personally, I think Guinness is grossly overrated......but, to each his own.
:)

But really how many of us drink now what we did then? Be it stolen or
snuck
out of dad's fridge, or friend's dad's fridge.

"This ain't your fathers beer"
Natural Lite {:-? Yuck!

What makes the whole thing even more interesting is the impossibility of
determining for certain that ANY of them is your father's beer. Aside from
deliberate changes in formulas (or recipes, if you prefer), something we
know happened a lot throughout the history of brewing in America, there is
also undetectable incremental change in basic ingredients. Even today it is
expensive and extremely difficult to ensure that the barley going into one
batch is identical to what went into the last.....the fact that a brewer has
identified certain parameters does not, can not, guarantee that others, as
yet unidentified, won't make a difference over time.

Then too, individual perceptions change over time. I don't know whether any
of the beers I drank when I was in my teens are the same products (in any
meaningful sense) today as they were in the 60s, but they sure taste
different to me.

Wolfgang

But really how many of us drink now what we did then? Be it stolen or
snuck
out of dad's fridge, or friend's dad's fridge.

"This ain't your fathers beer"
Natural Lite {:-? Yuck!

Yes, very true. If we all drank what our parents drank, I would still be
drinking PBR. Ewwwhuuhhu!

--
Frank Reid
Euthenize to respond

Wolfgang wrote:
What makes the whole thing even more interesting is the impossibility
of determining for certain that ANY of them is your father's beer.

Putting on his nerd hat, he hauls out the (slightly modified for this
conversation) *Matrix Quotation*:
Mouse: "How do the machines know what Bud tasted like? Maybe they got it
wrong. Maybe what I think Bud tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal, or
horse urine. That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken,
for example: Maybe they couldn't figure out what to make chicken taste like,
which is why chicken tastes like everything!"
--
Stan Gula
http://gula.org/roffswaps

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Daniel-San wrote:

1) "Knotless" leaders... huh??? I buy these things, nip the loop off, and
tie up. WTF is the loop for?

Some people find it convenient to have a short piece of mono that is
nail-knotted to the fly line on one end and has a loop on the other. Use
of loop-to-loop then allows easy change of leaders. Unless I know that I
will frequently change leaders I prefer the seamlessness of directly tying
the leader butt to my fly line via nail knot. I carry a nail knot tool
with me on most of my trips.

6)I've been using an Albright to connect the leader to tippet. Seems good to
me, small knot, fairly strong, easy to tie. Good? Bad? I know knot choice is
a personal thing, but is there any reason "not" to use it?

I think the albright works better with disimilar materials or greatly
different line diameter.

Learn the surgeon's knot.

Mu

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:39:51 GMT, "Goat" wrote:

(snipped)

Agree. But a major change in taste WILL result in a loss of sales =$
I point to "New Coke" as an example.

Yes, but the whole New Coke, Old Coke, back to, supposedly the
original Coke was, when seen in total, a very good way to change the
taste of the supposed original Coke by substituting cheaper corn syrup
for sugar. If they'd gone straight to it, they'd have lost more than
they did with the fool around marketing that seemed to be so
unsuccessful. One step back, two forward for the eventual bottom
line. And I've a hunch the bottom line was in the eyes of the very
top bosses the whole time. Very clever.

I no longer drink Coke. Not because of that, but because of the
change in taste. The only cola I can stand any more, unless it's ice
cold (and then they all seem to taste alike) is Dr Pepper, which also
has corn syrup, but I can deal with it. Some day someone's going to
market something a couple of cents a can more expensive than the
present colas and make it with real sugar and have a word of mouth hit
on their hands.

Most of my friends seem to think that Diet Pepsi is an adequate
beverage. Gah. The rest seem to like Mountain Dew. I take my own Dr
Pepper to gatherings. Well, and a small bottle of Jack Daniels.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

If you live anywhere in the neighborhood, the Dr. Pepper bottler at Dublin,
Texas was still using pure cane sugar as per the original recipe as opposed
to of corn syrup.


"Cyli" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:39:51 GMT, "Goat" wrote:

(snipped)

Agree. But a major change in taste WILL result in a loss of sales =$
I point to "New Coke" as an example.

Yes, but the whole New Coke, Old Coke, back to, supposedly the
original Coke was, when seen in total, a very good way to change the
taste of the supposed original Coke by substituting cheaper corn syrup
for sugar. If they'd gone straight to it, they'd have lost more than
they did with the fool around marketing that seemed to be so
unsuccessful. One step back, two forward for the eventual bottom
line. And I've a hunch the bottom line was in the eyes of the very
top bosses the whole time. Very clever.

I no longer drink Coke. Not because of that, but because of the
change in taste. The only cola I can stand any more, unless it's ice
cold (and then they all seem to taste alike) is Dr Pepper, which also
has corn syrup, but I can deal with it. Some day someone's going to
market something a couple of cents a can more expensive than the
present colas and make it with real sugar and have a word of mouth hit
on their hands.

Most of my friends seem to think that Diet Pepsi is an adequate
beverage. Gah. The rest seem to like Mountain Dew. I take my own Dr
Pepper to gatherings. Well, and a small bottle of Jack Daniels.

Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

"Wolfgang" wrote:

"Goat" wrote:

Agree. But a......

No doubt about it. Whatever ........

....[snipped]...

Personally, I think Guinness is grossly overrated......but, to each his
own.
:)

I can understand the taste is not for everybody. And really, who wants us
all thinking alike anyway. Sure as hell not me. I agree whole heartedly with
the statement "to each his own" [adding} "as long as nobody gets hurt".
However... Do you think it is overrated based on what it is or based on the
increase in popularity over the past couple of years. Your not bohemian
beatnik snobbing it are you.( I am NOT saying you are ) We all know
people... "hottest new, you've never heard of". If and when it gains in
popularity they bitch about how uncool it is now and how the mainstream
killed a good thing.
True there are lots of people who will drink a beer just becase the 'cool
guy' on the corner drinks it.(Yeah I live on the corner. What can I say...
It's a bitch being meG) but this doesn't make the beer good or bad it just
makes the person looking at the cool guy silly.(but let us not forget...most
'cool guys' are silly too, or down right asses)

So... What beer do you like? And no beer snob. I mean something I could
have, maybe, possibly have heard of, and a person can buy it with looking at
no more than 2 stores.
This means it can't be "Uncle Hairy's Garage Closet Basemet Wicked Amber
Honey Cider Hopscotch Snozberry Semi-Stout Leg of The Cat Brew"

Just curious...ya know... so I know what to buy you when we BBQ. ;-)

We should all drink (do) what we like. And think for ourselves.

-------------------------------------
Do not believe in anything (simply)
because you have heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is
spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything (simply) because
it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority
of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis
when you find that anything agrees with reason
and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all
then accept it and live up to it.
-Buddha
-------------------------------------
That's right. I did it. I busted out a Buddha quote on ROFF.
I wish we were allowed to discuss fly fishing.
;-)
~Chad

So... What beer do you like?

I'm very pedestrian. I'll have a Yuengling.
--
Frank Reid
Euthenize to respond