I'm sure that 40 was going to post this link...

Ken, in a reflective mood, sha
===========
There were a
whole lot of Weckers and Steppigs, my relations, who worked
at Anheuser-Busch and to a man they had nothing but respect
and admiration for the Busch family.
=============

I know nothing about the family: they may or may not have been goods
people. But surely your Weckers and Steppigs would have yearned for the
beers of the vaterland.

If the Busch family had stayed with the recipes of the vaterland,
they'd likely be brewing good beers today. And why did they change the
recipe of a good Czech beer. The took the name, why not the recipe?

frtzw906

In article ,
lid says...
Conan The Librarian wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You don't get it. I drink Budweiser because it's a damn good
beer, it's the best classic American lager on the market and
I truly like Budweiser.

I defend Budweiser from dumbass, yuppie beer snobs out of
loyalty, but loyalty is not why I drink it.

Oh, I get it just fine. If someone doesn't like Bud and has the
audacity to say it, you label them as "dumbass yuppie beer snobs", when
all along your loyalty is based on a cute story about how the Busch
empire was good to your family.

You still don't get it. You can say "I don't like Budweiser"
and that's fine, different strokes, whatever. It's when you
say Budweiser is a bad beer, or Clydesdale ****, or vile
excrement, that's when you are indeed a clueless, dumbass,
yuppie, nitwit, stupid, mother****ing moron of a beer snob.

And what's wrong with being a snob/elitist? You have to [be] blind
in one eye and unable to see out of the other not to realize that some
people and some things ARE better than others. Some people are smarter
and more honest than others and some ideas are better than others.
Egalitarianism is seductive, but it seems perverse to deny common sense.

I mean, if it applies to dry fly fishing, Winston rods, Korean POS, etc
surely it make sense to apply this criteria when looking down on crap
beer?

You may be an elitist, but you are a hypocritical elitist. :-)
- Ken

BCITORGB wrote:

If the Busch family had stayed with the recipes of the vaterland,
they'd likely be brewing good beers today. And why did they change the
recipe of a good Czech beer. The took the name, why not the recipe?

It's all about cost. I'm sure that Budweiser has the ability to brew
excellent beer (it's not difficult), but they can't do it at their price
point while at the same time spending gazillions on advertising. To meet
their costs they have to use inferior ingredients (like rice) and
extremely high-volume processes.

Another factor is that their customers, by and large, don't care about
quality. They're the rough equivalent of wine drinkers who buy cheap
muscatel.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

BCITORGB wrote:
Ken challenges:
==============
But here's my challenge to you, Mr. Flatulence In Every Glass
Fancy Shmancy Home Brewer, brew up your best pilsner and we'll
let a dozen random beer drinkers do a blind taste test with your
best and a brewery fresh Budweiser from St. Louis.
=============

No contest. ANYBODY can brew a better beer than the commercial brewers.
Home-built wine may be another matter, but you'd have to be a complete
idiot to do a worse job than any big brewery.

I've been issuing that challenge for going on 20 years now
and no home brewer has *ever* taken it. They'll hem and haw
and change the subject just like dear old Dan'l or they'll
mutter something about walk-in coolers, but they'll never
take you up on it. Beers like Budweiser are *not* easy to
brew at home and it's one hell of a home brewer who can even
get *close* to a pilsner as good as a Budweiser.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Ken, in a reflective mood, sha
===========
There were a
whole lot of Weckers and Steppigs, my relations, who worked
at Anheuser-Busch and to a man they had nothing but respect
and admiration for the Busch family.
=============

I know nothing about the family: they may or may not have been goods
people. But surely your Weckers and Steppigs would have yearned for the
beers of the vaterland.

If the Busch family had stayed with the recipes of the vaterland,
they'd likely be brewing good beers today. And why did they change the
recipe of a good Czech beer. The took the name, why not the recipe?

frtzw906


Because it costs too much. If bud (or Miller or Coors etc..) actually put
enough barley and hops in their recipe to be decent beer or if they actually
lagered their "lager", the cost of goods would skyrocket.

Danl

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

You still don't get it. You can say "I don't like Budweiser"
and that's fine, different strokes, whatever. It's when you
say Budweiser is a bad beer, or Clydesdale ****, or vile
excrement, that's when you are indeed a clueless, dumbass,
yuppie, nitwit, stupid, mother****ing moron of a beer snob.

I guess I'm guilty as charged, though I wouldn't go as far as you
did in my description of Bud. To me it's just watered-down,
virtually-tasteless swill. Mediocre, over-advertised pablum for the
masses who don't have the tastebuds to discern between Budmillors and
real beer.

But please, do go on ... you're getting shriller and shriller ...
and funnier and funnier with each post.


Chuck Vance (BTW, do you see any irony here in the fact that you,
the self-proclaimed elitist, are the *only* one defending the
big-corporation, mass-produced, beer-for-the-masses?)

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

I've been issuing that challenge for going on 20 years now
and no home brewer has *ever* taken it. They'll hem and haw
and change the subject just like dear old Dan'l or they'll
mutter something about walk-in coolers, but they'll never
take you up on it. Beers like Budweiser are *not* easy to
brew at home and it's one hell of a home brewer who can even
get *close* to a pilsner as good as a Budweiser.

Out of curiosity, I looked up a homebrewer discussion of how to clone
Budweiser:

http://hbd.org/discus/messages/1/28768.html

It's fairly hilarious. The most interesting advice was to use Minute
Rice (because it's pregelatinized) and almost no hops at all. Here's a
post that sums up the problem of cloning Budweiser:

"I am a big fan of cloning brews. I have made heiniken, newcastle brown
ale, and various other homebrews that imitate commercial beers. I have
always received the same response from my college peers, "Wow, tastes
almost exactly like it, except better!" Bear in mind that as a
homebrewer your product as well as the ingredients you use will be
fresher than the commercial version. Imagine it like this. Try to
duplicate a McDonalds double cheeseburger in your kitchen. Since
McDonalds uses such crap ingredients and microwaves everything, it would
be very hard for you to make the same exact product. Instead you would
make something that tasted similar to it, but your burger would probably
taste ten times better. You would use better beef, fresher cheese, and
probably use a grill over a microwave. I found that the parallel between
McDonalds for food, and Bud for beer is quite scary. My friends ask me
why my beers have such flavor and bud tastes like water. My answer is;
how can McDonalds make a double cheeseburger for 99cents, when a small
soft drink from them is $1.30? The same way Bud can make a beer for a
fraction of a penny by using virtually little to no ingredients. Scary huh?"


--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Conan The Librarian wrote:

... (BTW, do you see any irony here in the fact that you,
the self-proclaimed elitist, are the *only* one defending the
big-corporation, mass-produced, beer-for-the-masses?)

Irony ? No, I don't see any irony. What's ironic about a
group of fly fishermen being dumbass, yuppie beer snobs ?
Sounds more like business as usual to me.

--
Ken Fortenberry

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
I've been issuing that challenge for going on 20 years now
and no home brewer has *ever* taken it. They'll hem and haw
and change the subject just like dear old Dan'l or they'll
mutter something about walk-in coolers, but they'll never
take you up on it. Beers like Budweiser are *not* easy to
brew at home and it's one hell of a home brewer who can even
get *close* to a pilsner as good as a Budweiser.

Out of curiosity, I looked up a homebrewer discussion of how to clone
Budweiser:
snip

Nitwits quoting nitwits is supposed to mean what ? That even
a ****in' putz can do a Google search ? Congratulations on your
accomplishment.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Conan The Librarian wrote:

... (BTW, do you see any irony here in the fact that you, the
self-proclaimed elitist, are the *only* one defending the
big-corporation, mass-produced, beer-for-the-masses?)

Irony ? No, I don't see any irony. What's ironic about a
group of fly fishermen being dumbass, yuppie beer snobs ?
Sounds more like business as usual to me.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Flyfishers are basically a group of
elitist snobs.

Some would even say things like:

Doesn't make a damn bit of difference what a majority of people
think. If a majority of people thought a "Dogs Playing Poker"
painting was a better painting than the Mona Lisa, the majority
of people would be wrong.

Or:

"That one does not fish for trout with spinning lures or
live bait is taken for granted, along with toilet training."

-William Humphrey-

I drown worms myself fishing for catfish. You're right
it's a gas. Put the Cardinal game on the radio, drink
beer, kick back in the lawn chair. But if you're talking
about trout, I gotta admit to being an elitist snob that
agrees more with Mr. Humphrey.

Or maybe:

Leader links are tacky little doodads for those who are
too lazy or incompetent to tie good knots.

You wouldn't hang a velvet Elvis in the Louvre, why put
tacky **** on your flyline ?

Or:

Since when has elitism become a pejorative ? Why does it seem that
slapping the elitist label on someone is enough to push their
arguments beyond the pale of polite discussion ?

You have to blind in one eye and unable to see out of the other
not to realize that some people and some things ARE better than
others. Some people are smarter and more honest than others and
some ideas are better than others. Egalitarianism is seductive,
but it seems perverse to deny common sense.

It is a better thing we do to fish with dry flies rather than
corn kernels, and if that makes me an elitist, I am proud to be
an elitist.

Or is it acceptable to be elitist only when you agree with Ken?


Chuck Vance (don't worry ... that's a rhetorical question; you've
already given your answer loud and clear)