pageok
pageok
pageok
Glass Control:

From the BBC News:

Plans to replace the traditional pint glass with one made of shatter-proof plastic will not be accepted by drinkers, the pub industry has warned.

The Home Office has commissioned a new design, in an attempt to stop glasses being used as weapons.

Official figures show 5,500 people are attacked with glasses and bottles every year in England and Wales....

An accompanying statistic reports that "[a]pproximately 126 million pints of beer are served a week in the UK"; if the 5500 attacks were all using pint glasses or pint bottles, that would be about one attack per million pints served. Thanks to Kurt Kastorf for the pointer.

mf24 (mail):
If it saves even one child's life ...
8.27.2009 5:56pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
So ordering a pint of beer in a pub in England is substantially safer as flying on an airplane (where one in every two million departures results in fatalities). And this isn't good enough?

Seems they could make more headway by just banning cars and making folks walk everywhere or take mass transit.
8.27.2009 5:57pm
Hedberg:
This strikes me as a very apt metaphor for the benefits obtainable by preventive medicine.
8.27.2009 6:00pm
krs:
This must be Phase 2 of the UK's campaign to eradicate sharp objects....

I suspect that once this succeeds and they confront the problem of blunt weapons, they'll have a bit more trouble crafting the regulations.
8.27.2009 6:04pm
Chicago:
Is there any particular reason to believe that the attackers wouldn't be able to find some equally convenient weapon in place of a broken glass?
8.27.2009 6:05pm
Houston Lawyer:
An unbreakable bottle of beer makes a fine weapon.
8.27.2009 6:08pm
traveler496:
Correction - I think we're talking 5.5E3/(1.3E8*3.6E2) or about 1 in 10 million. Still a tragic waste of resources, but not quite so tragic.

[OK, my real reason for replying is that this reminds me of a very old Mad magazine piece contrasting two descriptions of a fictional barroom brawl that included just such an incident.

The contrast between the local rag's version and that in the NYT seemed hilarious at the time; if you can tell me where I can find this w/o violating any laws, I'd appreciate it.

One excerpt I can recall (not that it's done me much good): "...at this juncture Mr. McSweeney declined to continue the conversation and assumed a horizontal position on the floor of the establishment."]
8.27.2009 6:13pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Next up, pool cue sticks that can be unscrewed into two or more segments......

(honestly they make better weapons than broken beer glasses anyway)
8.27.2009 6:15pm
Steve2:
A more reasonable justification for switching to plastic would be "it will cut down on the amount of pint glasses that get stolen by American tourists."
8.27.2009 6:18pm
Something Wicked:
Pint glasses don't kill people; People kill people. (hope I'm the first)
8.27.2009 6:23pm
traveler496:
I withdraw "Still a tragic waste of resources, but not quite so tragic." (First, only the ratio changed, not the absolution number; second, it is the rare barroom brawler who would use a pint glass as a weapon without first draining it.)
8.27.2009 6:23pm
gab:
2500 acre feet of beer consumed every year in the UK! I wouldn't want them handling glass either...
8.27.2009 6:31pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
What does it say on the bottom of Italian Coke bottles?
8.27.2009 6:49pm
ak47pundit (www):
Well given that some governmental officials are seriously contemplating banning fire extinguishers as they are supposedly too dangerous for the public to use, banning breakable glass pint mugs almost begins to make sense by comparison.
8.27.2009 6:52pm
MrJustice:
There is a new study indicating living is dangerous. It supposedly has a 100% mortality rate. They are preparing legislation to make it illegal to live. Finally, we will all be safe!
8.27.2009 7:07pm
MrJustice:
There is a new study indicating life is dangerous. It supposedly has a 100% mortality rate. They are preparing legislation to make it illegal to live. Finally, we will all be safe!

Sorry, wanted to change living to life.
8.27.2009 7:07pm
LarryA (mail) (www):
This must be Phase 2 of the UK's campaign to eradicate sharp objects...
Britain has already fixed the kitchen knife problem with the "anti-stab" knife.

Every time I object to "reasonable" gun control, someone comes up with "Oh, that's just a 'slippery slope' argument. They aren't valid."
8.27.2009 7:19pm
PersonFromPorlock:
Chicago:

Is there any particular reason to believe that the attackers wouldn't be able to find some equally convenient weapon in place of a broken glass?

I have often felt that David Galway should be beaten severely about the head and shoulders with Jean-Pierre Rampal.
8.27.2009 7:22pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Larry A:

By coincidence, I am cutting beef tendons tonight for tomorrow's dinner. Cutting these is really difficult but I use a REALLY sharp knife. The knife might not work well for stabbing (it is an asian-style chef-knife) but it would make a truly gruesome weapon if I wanted to chop at someone with it, slice at someone with it, etc. Any knife that cuts through tendons with ease......

Sharp edges are just as effective at any attacks as sharp points.
8.27.2009 7:27pm
ArthurKirkland:
I enthusiastically support a ban with respect to pint glasses . . . so long as they are replaced by two-pint glasses.
8.27.2009 7:35pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Traveler496: It's 126 million pints per week, not per day.
8.27.2009 7:37pm
PC:
Any knife that cuts through tendons with ease......

Sharp edges are just as effective at any attacks as sharp points.


Sort of, but the point stands.

The Mrs. gave me a very nice cleaver recently and using it to break down a whole chicken is great. I was hoping to share a timely picture of a British warning sign about knives posted in front of a silverware display, but I can't seem to find it again. The UK has really gone down the slippery slope and is exploring the deep end.
8.27.2009 7:46pm
Kevin P. (mail):
The United Kingdom... where Great Britain used to be.
8.27.2009 7:57pm
ras (mail):
New plastic beer mugs could have CCTV built right in!

Um, or am I giving them ideas...?
8.27.2009 8:00pm
PC:
The United Kingdom... where Great Britain used to be.

Have you seen the recipes? It was never that Great.
8.27.2009 8:08pm
ShelbyC:
einhverfr:

By coincidence, I am cutting beef tendons tonight for tomorrow's dinner.


Keep plugging away on that software and you'll be able to afford better cuts of meat :-).
8.27.2009 8:10pm
Archon (mail):
From gun control to glass control...
8.27.2009 8:16pm
Martha:

Britain has already fixed the kitchen knife problem with the "anti-stab" knife.

I followed the link hoping for a good laugh (do these knives collapse into their handles or something?) but I actually think these knives are a decent invention. They won't prevent *all* injuries, of course, but if a common household object can be made more safe without a loss in effectiveness, I'm in favor. For example, I'm delighted with the safer can opener design, and I'm keeping an eye out for one of these box cutter thingies.
8.27.2009 8:18pm
Archon (mail):
This whole thing is pathetic...to think they once ruled the world is astonishing.

In about ten years the Muslims will send one guy with a pointy stick to take them over and the English will be done.
8.27.2009 8:34pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
ShelbyC:

Actually, although I enjoy steaks etc from time to time, my wife makes REALLY, REALLY good curried beef tendons.
8.27.2009 8:38pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
PC:

My point is that these rules are STUPID. They address perceived problems "folks using X to cause injury to others" and failing to realize that folks denied X will use Y to cause injury to others. The problem is that humans can be violent sometimes, and unless everyone is stuck in padded rooms from birth with no contact with others, this will not change.
8.27.2009 8:42pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Fast forward to 2040:
In other news, the UK government has announced that they will be banning bars of soap and clothing for sale starting next week. Apparently one can make a bl*ckjack out of a bar of soap and a sock, or strangle folks with shirts or pants. The simple solution is to require that nobody can obtain such horribly dangerous items....... This follows the ban ten years ago of all tools of all kinds......
8.27.2009 8:45pm
ShelbyC:

...and unless everyone is stuck in padded rooms from birth with no contact with others, this will not change.

DON'T GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS!!!
8.27.2009 8:45pm
Bama 1L:
Every single bar in the college town I inhabit--you figure out which one--requires that drinks consumed on the patio be served in plastic cups. God help you if you head for the door holding a bottle. The bouncer will chase you down with a cup. It is ridiculous.
8.27.2009 9:19pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
As a liberal who thinks a lot of government regulation is beneficial, not authoritarian "nanny-state," I'll say this is idiotic. Now if one of our many 2d Amendment activists will concede individuals don't have the right to own and carry Trident missiles, we may be making some progress.
8.27.2009 9:39pm
licrimlawyer:
Why do I keep thinking this is a Monty Python routine? Maybe I am just hoping it is a Monty Python routine. Maybe they should tattoo "potential killer" on every newborn baby's ass [or "arse" if you are a Brit.]
8.27.2009 9:49pm
Steve McQueen:
When glass pint glasses are outlawed, only outlaws will have glass pint glasses?
8.27.2009 9:57pm
ArthurKirkland:

Every single bar in the college town I inhabit--you figure out which one--requires that drinks consumed on the patio be served in plastic cups. God help you if you head for the door holding a bottle. The bouncer will chase you down with a cup. It is ridiculous.


The best beer package (other than a pigtail from the production line), according to most of the experts I trust, is a non-twist-off, nonreturnable, dark glass bottle.

At home, avoid clear glass (the reason a lime wedge accompanies Corona is not a palatable one), twist-offs, green glass (unless you prefer lightstruck, skunked product), and returnables. Cans are better than plastic, and for longer storage might even be better than glass bottles.

But glass is a poor choice in several circumstances, and plastic (or sometimes metal) packages are strongly indicated in some contexts, including outdoor venues such as sheds (grass) or parking lots (paved), hard-to-monitor venues (stadiums, arenas) and volatile venues.

Prohibiting bottles on grass or a paved surface, or on a college-bar patio, is generally a good practice. The enjoyable atmosphere should outweigh any diminution in flavor. And most people at stadiums, sheds, parking lots and college bars are drinking mediocre beer (or malternatives) to begin with.
8.27.2009 10:23pm
ArthurKirkland:
P.S. Always wipe the top of your can before opening it (even to pour the contents into a cup or glass), and the top of your bottle if you didn't open it.
8.27.2009 10:28pm
one of many:
licrimlawyer
Maybe they should tattoo "potential killer" on every newborn baby's ass [or "arse" if you are a Brit.]

it would only pass muster if none of them were ever to kill anyone, if one were to kill someone the tattoo would have to be removed as unfairly stigmatizing the poor unfortunate killer.

I am not certain about the utility of replacing glass pint glasses with plastic ones, if they are solid enough to stand being washed and reused they will be pretty sturdy. From my own experience reading on the subject, the use of a glass pint glass is as a bludgeoning instrument not a cutting one. Sometimes they shatter when used as a bludgeon but that's incidental and the bludgeoning injuries inflicted by shatterproof plastic pint serving vessels (cannot really call the glasses if they aren't made of glass now can we?) may very well exceed those of shattering glass pint glasses. I demand the project be put on hold until a study can determine if the switch will lessen the injuries or at least not make them worse.
8.27.2009 10:29pm
traveler496:
EV; "Traveler496: It's 126 million pints per week, not per day."

Sigh. I hereby withdraw the rest of the substantive portion of my post. Leaving only the bleg, which I will now (heh heh) preemptively withdraw before someone less diplomatic than EV points out how off-topic and excessively frivolous it was.
8.27.2009 10:55pm
Off Kilter (mail):
...then only criminals will have pint glasses.
8.28.2009 12:25am
Matthew Carberry (mail):

As a liberal who thinks a lot of government regulation is beneficial, not authoritarian "nanny-state," I'll say this is idiotic. Now if one of our many 2d Amendment activists will concede individuals don't have the right to own and carry Trident missiles, we may be making some progress.


Even most of the most extreme of us might say you have the theoretical "right" to keep and bear a Trident...

...provided you had the money to actually find one for sale and purchase one at market prices (the big issue) and then met all applicable local, state and Federal rules, laws, ordinances, regulations and zoning et al regarding said purchase, storage, maintenance, security (for nuke material already a matter of US and Int. law), shielding, launching, legal landing/detonation and such and so on.

Prior restraint of inanimate objects by the sane and law-abiding (covered in the purchase rules BTW) isn't actually necessary to restrict/control actual unsafe possession and use in the really, real world if you have half a mind or think about it for more than a minute or so.

Even if some idiot could theoretically totally above-board afford to meet all the rules on purchasing or building, keeping/maintaining and then launching even an intercontinental-capable plain rocket (which they can't in reality, as with or without a nuclear warhead that is already covered by US Federal and international law on space traffic mind you) and then find a safe, legal landing site for it, why in the hell do we need more redundant and duplicative regulations?

If some rich idiot could meet all those regs, where's the harm in theory or actuality? If what they did was illegal (and thus harmful) then the cops of any number of nations would by definition be all over them long before they managed any steps forweard, this isn't "Dr. No" after all.

Let go of the short term thinking and drop the puerile arguments, there are thousands of laws already regulating any rational soundbite weapons restriction you might think of, if you take the time to think of or research them.
8.28.2009 12:28am
James Kolan:
Apparently this is such an issue in the UK and Commonwealth countries that here in Australia they have added the verb "to glass" to the vocabulary. It just goes to show what happens when people don't have guns to settle their disputes.
8.28.2009 12:54am
Kirk:
Sorry, Leo--as far as I'm concerned, any person that can carry a Trident missile is welcome to do so, and to do so proudly!
8.28.2009 1:25am
Fub:
They can have my pint glass of brew when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
8.28.2009 1:45am
Danny (mail):
Aren't we supposed to try to move away from plastic, since it is so bad for the environment? Plastic is also harder to recycle than glass.
8.28.2009 1:52am
Leo Marvin (mail):
Kirk:

Sorry, Leo--as far as I'm concerned, any person that can carry a Trident missile is welcome to do so, and to do so proudly!

I can live with that.
8.28.2009 2:00am
Roscoe (mail):
First they came for the beer glasses, but I wasn't a beer drinker, so I did nothing . . .
8.28.2009 2:35am
Leo Marvin (mail):
Matthew Carberry, I was kidding. I didn't think anyone would believe the right to own a Trident missile could be defended with a straight face. Silly me.
8.28.2009 2:39am
egd:
einhverfr:

Apparently one can make a bl*ckjack out of a bar of soap and a sock...

I think you meant sap
8.28.2009 8:50am
Houston Lawyer:
At my first construction job I was given a tool belt to wear. After a couple of weeks, they said I would have to give it up to its owner. He was getting out of prison and coming back to work. They said that while in prison he had beaten the crap out of someone with a can of sardines placed in the end of a sock. I gladly purchased my own tool belt later that day.
8.28.2009 9:41am
klw (mail):
In Venezuelan jails , blue jeans and belts are banned to avoid suicide. Still , inmates are able to made guns, real guns, with the wood of bed. If they cant get guns or grenades passed by their mattes
8.28.2009 9:52am
George Smith:
Laugh it up, folks. This is what we will soon be. Just don't try selling a dangerous beer glass at a garage sale!
8.28.2009 10:40am
DCP:

They can have my pint glass...when they pry it from my cold, drunk hand
8.28.2009 12:52pm
Prof. S. (mail):
Hearing these stories lets me know that while it may be bad in this country it could will inevitably be worse.
8.28.2009 1:24pm
Frank Skog (mail):

It just goes to show what happens when people don't have guns to settle their disputes.


Actually, it shows what happens whenyou don't have to worry that the guy you are about to glass might have a gun.
8.28.2009 2:54pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
'They said that while in prison he had beaten the crap out of someone with a can of sardines placed in the end of a sock.'

My former boss, who was from Council Bluffs, used to brag about what a tough town Council Bluffs was. I didn't believe him until the story came over the wires about a robber who went into a C.B. bar with a shotgun, which he fired into the ceiling to get everyone's attention.

He sure did. One patron threw a full can of beer, which hit him between the eyes, after which he fell to the floor. The other patrons then beat him nearly to death with pool cues.

Moral: The dangerousness of pint glasses depends on which bar you're in.
8.28.2009 6:52pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Harry Eager:

That is a cool story.
8.28.2009 7:10pm
ArthurKirkland:
Tough? Tossing a beer can? Tough?

I once interacted with a guy (about 30 years ago) who arranged an escape from custody by castrating himself.

That's tough.

Stupid. Insane.

But tough.
8.28.2009 7:29pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
Houston Lawyer:

They said that while in prison he had beaten the crap out of someone with a can of sardines placed in the end of a sock.

For variations on this theme, see Bad Boys (the one with Sean Penn, not Martin Lawrence) and The Grifters. Both excellent flicks.
8.28.2009 7:45pm
ShelbyC:

I once interacted with a guy (about 30 years ago) who arranged an escape from custody by castrating himself.


Wow. That takes balls.

(Sorry :-))
8.28.2009 7:52pm
ArthurKirkland:
His name was James "Sonny" Watson.

He once misunderstood the terms of a murder contract and killed the wrong guy. When informed of the mistake, he shrugged, drove to the home of the intended victim and promptly executed the agreement in accordance with its terms.

Another time, cornered by police, he was urged to surrender by a former girlfriend (very former, I suspect) police had brought to the scene. Sonny asked an officer to bring her to a spot at which he could see her. When told it wasn't necessary to see her to know it was her, Sonny replied that he knew damn well it was her, and that was why he wanted them to bring her out, because he wanted a clear shot at her.

One of my former colleagues called last week and said Sonny not only had been released but had just been arrested again . . . at 70, I would guess.
8.28.2009 8:34pm
Leo Marvin (mail):

One of my former colleagues called last week and said Sonny not only had been released but had just been arrested again

Belies the notion that crime is a testosterone problem.
8.28.2009 8:59pm
ArthurKirkland:
I found a recent article about Sonny, and provide a link for anyone interested in his adventures.
8.28.2009 9:22pm
rc:
How 'bout pint waiting periods? Order after work Monday, get yer beer Friday. Next Friday.

Or how bout shots packaged in bubble wrap? It's protection, then it becomes sweet intoxication.

But I prefer the Barney method. No glasses, just tip your head underneath the tap and let 'er rip!
8.29.2009 12:10am
lonetown (mail):
Well if you take away the guns and knives, what will they hit each other with, pool cues and snooker balls?

Perhaps the root cause is not the implement.
8.29.2009 9:52am
ArthurKirkland:
I love Barney -- particularly when he is searching for his toothpick, or explaining the logistics of beer inventory -- to the point at which he might even be able to redeem Rupert Murdoch at a Judgment Day, but not even the Barney method could get me to endorse draft beer.

Exceedingly few American establishments maintain their draft lines in a manner consistent with ordering or recommending draft beer. Cleaning schedule and technique is one issue. Improper pouring technique (dunking the spigot in the beer already in the glass) is another. The velocity issues associated with the trend toward 15- to 30-tap systems (I have yet to encounter the establishment whose sales volumes sustain fresh product in the least popular lines of a 24-tap system) are a substantial problem.

Non-twist-off, nonreturnable, dark glass bottles.
8.29.2009 11:57am
rc:
ArthurKirkland:"Non-twist-off, nonreturnable, dark glass bottles."

Covered in bubblewrap.
8.29.2009 12:10pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
Arthur, what's wrong with twist-offs?

(By the way, I'm beginning to doubt you're who you say you are. The Arther Kirkland I knew wasn't very fussy about his beer.)
8.29.2009 7:47pm
ArthurKirkland:
Twist-off crowns attach (relatively) loosely to the bottle and consequently do not create an effectively air-tight (or, more pertinent in the case of submerged bottles, water-tight) seal. This promotes oxidation or (as in the case of bottles submerged in a bath of ice, water and worse) worse.

Remarkably reliable rule: The better the beer (and, perhaps related, the more the brewer cares about the product and the consumer), the more likely an opener is required.

A fine accompaniment to a fine beer would be My Cousin Vinny, currently offered on A&E. Among law-related entertainments of the most recent three decades, it ranks alongside The Verdict , The Firm, Philadelphia, Liar, Liar and . . . well, modesty restrains me . . .

If you can't reach a television, here is Vincent LaGuardia Gambini's initial courtroom appearance.
8.29.2009 9:11pm
rc:
ArthurKirkland: bottles are best, blah blah

So are you the one I have to blame for Sierra Nevada going from twisties to regular caps? I skinned my friggin' hand!

Twisties never stopped Sierra from being one of the best brews in the land... But now you tyrant beer snobs demand that a tool get between me and my beer :P
8.30.2009 12:26am
Leo Marvin (mail):

My Cousin Vinny

I couldn't agree more, the Karate Cousin and Judge Munster notwithstanding.
8.30.2009 1:32am
ArthurKirkland:
I think Fred Gwynne was wonderful in My Cousin Vinny. He's probably STILL the best judge in Alabama, even after his death.

I am not responsible for Sierra Nevada's standard crowns. Ken Grossman is, and he knows what he is doing.

The pry-off package has more integrity, homebrewers can refill standard bottles (in line with Sierra Nevada's environmental concerns), and Sierra wanted to ditch the PVC liners associated with twist-offs (ditto). It was surprising that Sierra Nevada stayed with the twisties so long.

Negotiating a beer bottle is like the annual maintenance of a corporation . . . anyone unwilling to take a small amount of time and effort to do it right does not deserve a good result.
8.30.2009 2:19am
Leo Marvin (mail):

I think Fred Gwynne was wonderful in My Cousin Vinny.

We'll have to differ there, but in the overall scheme of things it's a quibble. Even if the judge had been played by Sylvester Stallone, there's no ruining a movie with Marisa Tomei in it.
8.30.2009 5:14am
ArthurKirkland:

there's no ruining a movie with Marisa Tomei in it



. . . just as there's no ruining a thread with self-castration, tips on beer delivery systems, weaponry debates ranging from broken glass-vs-pool cue to the anti-stab knife, And Justice For All, an ode to curried beef tendons, and Marisa Tomei in it.

The essential factor seems to be Marisa Tomei.
8.30.2009 1:01pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
ArthurKirkland:

Twist-off crowns attach (relatively) loosely to the bottle and consequently do not create an effectively air-tight (or, more pertinent in the case of submerged bottles, water-tight) seal. This promotes oxidation or (as in the case of bottles submerged in a bath of ice, water and worse) worse.


I don't think that is a big factor. If the seal isn't air tight the first thing that would happen would be that the beer would go flat. There is more pressure in the bottle than outside it. Since I don't notice a lack of carbonation in twist-offs, the seal must be airtight even under pressure.

However, I don't know what the bottling process for twistoffs is and how it differs from pop-tops. Certainly a simple pop-top setup won't properly seal a twistoff bottle. I don't know how these requirements might affect quality.

There are a couple major reasons I prefer to go with pop-tops though. The first is that I brew beer and I can reuse the bottles (after properly washing and heat-sterilizing them-- I don't chlorine-sterilize).

Another is that I just prefer drinking out of them if I am drinking straight from the bottle.
8.30.2009 2:56pm
rc:
ArthurKirkland: "I am not responsible for Sierra Nevada's standard crowns. Ken Grossman is, and he knows what he is doing."

Maybe so, but you're providing aid and comfort.

ArthurKirkland:"It was surprising that Sierra Nevada stayed with the twisties so long."

It was prolly due to the ruffian influence of people like me.

But in this age of twistie vs poptop strife, it's good to know that we can all agree on Marisa Tomei.
8.30.2009 3:36pm
ArthurKirkland:
I never worked in the field beer packaging, but have discussed these issues with people who worked exclusively in the field, and they have described gas permeability and light transmittance as big factors.
8.30.2009 3:39pm
ArthurKirkland:
There was a guy -- Norm -- at Anheuser-Busch (probably a casualty of the Brazilian machete-wielders, although that is merely a guess) whose career consisted of attempting to improve packaging, by shaving one-five-hundredth of an ounce from an aluminum can's pop-top mechanism without sacrificing effectiveness or safety, or calculating the minimum effective thickness of a bottle's wall, or determining how a bottle's shoulder should be best shaped, or gauging whether two-liter plastic would work for beer.

There will always be twist-offs, for people who don't know or care about the advantages of standard crowns or for whom convenience is the ace of trump. There will always be cans, for circumstances in which glass is inappropriate or affordability is key. There will be, probably with increasing frequency, plastic containers, perhaps even two-liter containers.

Even clear glass will, apparently, be not only available but indeed popular. The beauty of the market is that, despite reason and evidence, someone willing to make Corona and someone willing to drink it are free to find each other and transact. Meanwhile, someone able to deliver a quarter-millenium's wisdom (Guinness Stout) in an ingenious pressurized-widget can and the person who appreciates that achievement are transacting elsewhere.

Different flavors for different folks, as it should be.
8.30.2009 4:51pm
Leo Marvin (mail):
Should a Trappist monk be made the custodial parent if his ex-wife is teaching their 10 year old daughter to put home-brew into clear bottles?
8.30.2009 6:02pm
rc:
Leo Marvin:"...teaching their 10 year old daughter to put home-brew into clear bottles?"


Only if the child in question hasn't been exposed to other brewing and bottling points of view.

It's not that I think clear bottles are WRONG, per se. And it wouldn't be right for a government to take a position like that concerning spiritual issues (spirit? See what I did there?).

But I do think that such attitudes concerning clear bottles reveal the soft 'beerism' of lowered expectations.
8.30.2009 7:11pm
ArthurKirkland:
It depends. Does the child look at every issue through clear-glass bottles? Does the child demand a counselor study clear-glass bottling minutiae? Is the child open to reasoned analysis of bottling issues, or is the child instead regurgitating parent-installed dogma? Does the child's entire world view revolve around an imaginary bottling line? Does one parent use fairy tales about clear bottles to alienate the child from the other parent? Does the other parent object to the custodial parent's indoctrination of the child?

The proper course would be to consider those issues over a beer.
8.30.2009 8:45pm
NickM (mail) (www):
I disagree with Arthur.

The proper course would be to consider those issues over several beers.

Nick
8.30.2009 9:10pm
ArthurKirkland:
This is no air-tight vindication of no-twist crowns, but today's in-box brings Sierra Nevada's best numbers in years -- up seven or eight percent in a market barely treading beer (total volume down approximately one percent).
8.31.2009 5:48pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.