or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › things that are making you happy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

things that are making you happy - Page 2713

post #40681 of 46978
I just got this e-mail from a colleague, which sounds really dirty when taken out of context.
Quote:
You’ve just taunted me with a good time. I’ll really try to contain myself, though.
post #40682 of 46978
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post


Ah, thanks for that.

I realize language changes. Sometimes for the worse, which is why I think 'growler' is an abhorrent anachronism at best and overly-pervasive marketing at worst. To me it's a way for craft beer nerds to discuss whatever flavored syrup they try to one-up one another about.

I prefer my beer to come from a brewery that's been doing it since the Middle Ages rather than some guy's basement since last Christmas. Craft beer doesn't even taste like beer any more, but I guess that's a topic for a different thread.

 

What are you talking about? Sure there are some disgusting beers out there but the most popular are traditional brews like pale ales, bocks and stouts. 

post #40683 of 46978
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post


I prefer my beer to come from a brewery that's been doing it since the Middle Ages...

This comment is making me happy. I wonder if you prefer if your beer comes with a little dysentery or cholera too if the Middle Ages is where it's at? Do you feel ale cannot have hops in it?
post #40684 of 46978
I tried a beer once it was called "Wheach." It was a peach wheat beer and it was awful. If that's indicative of what the beer nerds are putting out there on the market these days, I will stick to my byrrh thank you very much. (Byrrh comes in a container called "bottle.")
post #40685 of 46978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

This comment is making me happy. I wonder if you prefer if your beer comes with a little dysentery or cholera too if the Middle Ages is where it's at? Do you feel ale cannot have hops in it?

Beer prevented the dysentery or cholera!

It probably didn't make the beer taste good, but no little buggies can live through the fermentation process.
post #40686 of 46978
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

Beer prevented the dysentery or cholera!

It probably didn't make the beer taste good, but no little buggies can live through the fermentation process.

That and boiling tended to be part of the brewing process. Hops in ale = no no though for the English until brewing became more commercial and artisan. Put hops in ale and the English now called it "beer." Hops are now allowed in ale and have been for centuries, but original ale meant only water, malt and yeast. Also, part of what makes me chuckle at why's statement is all kinds of stuff got added to beer in the middle ages prior to some standardization that allowed the correct portion of hops to be added on a commercial scale.
post #40687 of 46978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

This comment is making me happy. I wonder if you prefer if your beer comes with a little dysentery or cholera too if the Middle Ages is where it's at? Do you feel ale cannot have hops in it?

He likes honest beer.
post #40688 of 46978

I stack all of my beer on the floor of my cave because that is the only place I can keep it cold. 

post #40689 of 46978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Veen View Post

This is such a trivial thing to get worked up over. It's not like redefining "literally" or accepting mispronunciation of "nuclear." It's not an eye roll–inducing portmanteau. It's a historically-informed term with a specific, unambiguous definition: a reusable jug used for carry-out draught beer. You obviously have something against the "crap beer" industry.

Just save the bolded and repost it after why says anything.
post #40690 of 46978
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

The word growler seems a rather odd thing to call abhorrent whether or not you think it's an anachronism.

Really tho when does a word stop being an anachronism and starts being a "chronism"? Considering people have been using it for several decades now

When its use in the past was in a slang term less pervasive than it currently is and refers unambiguously to something in the present yet was a catch-all in the past, I consider it a byproduct of trends and an anachronism. Language changes and all that, I get it, but this word doesn't fill a gap in vocabulary, it just re-appropriates meaning to get some additional clout (no matter how erroneously) to promote a product, or, perhaps what bothers me more -- to promote a certain kind of lifestyle surrounding a product. It's the same reason why when people talk about a wine's 'legs' or other such nonsense that I roll my eyes -- it's as if knowing the lingo is some password into a special club. Listening to people talk about some flavored swill as if it's something special is insufferable. I'd rather hear people discuss the virtues of Kool-Aid flavors or their favorite color M&Ms -- at least it's more original and lacking the pretension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Veen 
It's a historically-informed term with a specific, unambiguous definition: a reusable jug used for carry-out draught beer. You obviously have something against the "crap beer" industry.

That's where our opinions on it differ.

And yes, I think craft beer sucks and most people don't even know what beer tastes like anymore. It's just boozy syrup now. It has, in my opinion, completely jumped the shark. Even a decade ago the microbreweries were filling voids not provided by classic European breweries and offered a distinct taste of some American interpretations of the product (Great Lakes Dortmunder, for example, was something different even if not particularly enjoyable for me all the time). But the products have changed (Dortmunder's recipe, from what I can tell, has been adjusted to meet craft beer trends), and now seasonal beers are offered everywhere and every Joe Schmo offers pumpkin pie-flavored beer (why?) for Thanksgiving, molasses and nutmeg syrup for Christmas, fruit cocktail for summer. Why refine the process within limitations (think German Purity Law) when you can add strawberry flavoring and call it something new, or hit someone over the head with alcohol and hops so that they can see how 'particular' the product is?

It's simply easier to sell a product to people with no 'taste' (i.e. ability to appreciate and consider things for what they are, not what they represent) so naturally products are marketed toward followers of fads because that's where the buyers are. In short, my gripe with it is the same gripe I have with a lot of trends and the products of them -- they focus on the 'what', not the 'how'. I think people from SF more than anyone should be the ones to appreciate that important difference.
post #40691 of 46978
I'm confused. First, I can't recall anyone ever referring to a giant shit as a growler...so it must not have been unambiguous slang in my part of the country.

Second, the things you are saying you don't like about craft beers are the things that a lot of beer nerds don't like either. They would all agree that that shit is designed to placate the masses who want to take a ride on the craft beer trend without actually being into it.

Pumpkin ales almost all suck. Molasses and nutmeg syrup? Sounds gross. Fruity ass beers? Really?
The 4 key ingredients are still the 4 ingredients in most craft beers.

Sure there are people who are into craft beer who are in it for the wrong reasons (like the ones who push IPA bitterness past the point being any good), but that's certainly not everyone.
post #40692 of 46978
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

I'm confused. First, I can't recall anyone ever referring to a giant shit as a growler...so it must not have been unambiguous slang in my part of the country.

Ditto for beer buckets, but whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc 
Sure there are people who are into craft beer who are in it for the wrong reasons (like the ones who push IPA bitterness past the point being any good), but that's certainly not everyone.

Oh, I totally recognize that. It's enough for me to be fed up with it, though. And quite honestly, craft beers don't offer anything special or even anything particularly palatable to me. If I want a heavier beer there are plenty of better beers that, now that I've had them, have since replaced any personal desire for American microbrews (of which, I think it says something that they all tend to be heavier and higher in alcohol). I haven't had a craft beer in years that was anything I'd want to drink more than a trial taste of.

For what it's worth, if I drink American stuff I get High Life. Otherwise it's European lagers (varying depending on selection and what I feel like having) or Guiness. Belgian beers are good at times, but the selection is often pretty paltry (St. Bernardus Abt 12 is my beloved Belgian staple but I rarely see it).
post #40693 of 46978
I hate Southern Comfort and would never drink it but I also wouldn't post on a message board a NY Times length article about how bad it is and why everyone who drinks it are inferior to me.
post #40694 of 46978
i think arguing with why is going down the same path as idfnl.

claims to know beer better than "craft beer nerds". drinks miller high life and guinness...

you're right that there are shitty beers out there flavored with fruit syrup (or more usually fermented with extract), but the vast majority of craft beers out there keep it simple. malt, water, yeast, hops.

you're also right that americans tend to make beer heavier and boozier but there are also tons of US breweries out there keeping it at UK levels (one of my favorite brewpubs nearby has their IPAs at less than 5% abv) just like there are tons of belgians doing bourbon barrel aged quads

also fruity syrups in beers practically started in germany so...

i dont understand how you can make these broad generalizations about beer and coffee in the US yet it appears you've never really experienced much of it outside of places like applebee's and starbucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

That and boiling tended to be part of the brewing process. Hops in ale = no no though for the English until brewing became more commercial and artisan. Put hops in ale and the English now called it "beer." Hops are now allowed in ale and have been for centuries, but original ale meant only water, malt and yeast. Also, part of what makes me chuckle at why's statement is all kinds of stuff got added to beer in the middle ages prior to some standardization that allowed the correct portion of hops to be added on a commercial scale.

from what i understand ales usually also had bittering agents like gruit not just water, malt, and yeast. which is why they made a distinction in the 16th century to call hopped beers "beer" when the dutch brought it along. some english people really opposed hopped beers tho claiming that it should only be malt, water, yeast, but gruit has a much longer tradition than records of people that claimed that
post #40695 of 46978
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

claims to know beer better than "craft beer nerds". drinks miller high life and guinness...

As opposed to the people that know beer from blogs and repeat the same trite 'truths' verbatim?

I provide reasons for liking some stuff. I hope I provided some information along with it. Take it or leave it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › things that are making you happy