Coworker thought hops added alcohol
#1
Posted 29 May 2009 - 10:55 AM
#2
Posted 29 May 2009 - 11:07 AM
Wow...that was a close one. Good job buddy!Apparently it stemmed from an incorrect assumption that since IPA's were hoppier and had more alcohol than pale ales that the hops were causing it. All is right in the world again.
#3
Posted 29 May 2009 - 11:07 AM
#4
Posted 29 May 2009 - 11:09 AM
#5
Posted 29 May 2009 - 11:16 AM
Dude I need to get me some of those temperature activated bottles so I can brew GOOD beer!I actually thought it was temperature...but what do I know; I'm new here.
#6
Posted 29 May 2009 - 11:21 AM
Try an association. Like uh... let's say the average person uses 10% of their brain. How much do you use? One and a half percent. The rest is clogged with malted hops and bong resin.
#7
Posted 29 May 2009 - 11:24 AM
#8
Posted 29 May 2009 - 11:50 AM
#9
Posted 29 May 2009 - 12:23 PM
#10
Posted 29 May 2009 - 12:26 PM
We should correct those BMC drinkers when they refer to all flavors and strengths of beer as "really hoppy" or "dark beers". To echo a sentiment from Greg Koch's keynote speech at the AHA conference in Orlando a couple years ago....we are not only homebrewers, but ambassadors of good beer....it's our responsibility to educate the uninformed to good beer.I have an acquaintance who is normally a BMC light drinker, who picked up on some conversations about beers between a few of us who are beer geeks. He seized on the term hoppy, and assumed that it meant dark and strong. So now, anything he tastes that is darker in color than Coors light, he offers up his expert assessment of that beer as being "intense and hoppy, kind of good but really, really hoppy, and although he normally likes the hoppy beers, this one may be just a little bit too intense and hoppy." He's used that description for beers ranging from Guinness Draught to Bass Pale Ale. We never correct him, I think because we are too amused.
#11
Posted 29 May 2009 - 12:29 PM
#12
Posted 29 May 2009 - 12:37 PM
#13
Posted 29 May 2009 - 12:38 PM
#14
Posted 29 May 2009 - 12:47 PM
#15
Posted 29 May 2009 - 12:48 PM
I guess you are right. The truth is that I don't relish correcting and embarrassing someone in front of a group of people he is trying to impress. If he had asked what hoppy meant I would have gladly explained it to him, in a manner that isn't condescending. But to correct him without embarrassing him would probably require more tact than I am capable of.We should correct those BMC drinkers when they refer to all flavors and strengths of beer as "really hoppy" or "dark beers". To echo a sentiment from Greg Koch's keynote speech at the AHA conference in Orlando a couple years ago....we are not only homebrewers, but ambassadors of good beer....it's our responsibility to educate the uninformed to good beer.
#16
Posted 29 May 2009 - 12:52 PM
Over the past weekend I was back in Chicago and someone asked me how do I know how much alcohol is in my beer...I started answering the question and the others laughed at me...bastardsI guess you are right. The truth is that I don't relish correcting and embarrassing someone in front of a group of people he is trying to impress. If he had asked what hoppy meant I would have gladly explained it to him, in a manner that isn't condescending. But to correct him without embarrassing him would probably require more tact than I am capable of.
#17
Posted 29 May 2009 - 12:53 PM
Oh I do understand where you are coming from completely on that. It's difficult situation to be in, but as you said it can be done in a way that is not condescending.I guess you are right. The truth is that I don't relish correcting and embarrassing someone in front of a group of people he is trying to impress. If he had asked what hoppy meant I would have gladly explained it to him, in a manner that isn't condescending. But to correct him without embarrassing him would probably require more tact than I am capable of.
#18
Posted 29 May 2009 - 01:21 PM
#19
Posted 29 May 2009 - 01:36 PM
I was actually having this conversation on the phone with my sister yesterday.I also tried to convince a co-worker that a Guiness type stout was actually healthier for you (he was doing Atkins Diet at the time) because the style actually utilized less sugars than other styles with higher OG's that he would normally go for. The rich flavor of a stout, I think WE all agree, has nothing to do with the alcohol content. But for the BMC drinkers... flavor must mean higher alcohol content.I find it intriguing how the uneducated do equate dark to high alcohol and strong. I bet someone could drink more stouts than pale ales before they might feel the effects.
#20
Posted 29 May 2009 - 01:39 PM
This makes me die a little inside.I have an acquaintance who is normally a BMC light drinker, who picked up on some conversations about beers between a few of us who are beer geeks. He seized on the term hoppy, and assumed that it meant dark and strong. So now, anything he tastes that is darker in color than Coors light, he offers up his expert assessment of that beer as being "intense and hoppy, kind of good but really, really hoppy, and although he normally likes the hoppy beers, this one may be just a little bit too intense and hoppy." He's used that description for beers ranging from Guinness Draught to Bass Pale Ale. We never correct him, I think because we are too amused.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users