Cause we all need a lil' controversy

I did pack a lot of stuff into that one paragraph. I wish you had asked me about it originally.

And if you don't mind , I am stopping here and will not address the rest of your post. This is long enough. If there's another point that you'd like me to consider, just let me know in this thread. You could just copy and paste that part into a new post. There's no need to retype anything.

No actually, this is a well considered and expressed take on Roger's article and I don't think I would have ever questioned it if it had been your original post. That's why I asked if your first post was "fake outrage" because it leaped right over any supporting analysis and straight to condemnation. It didn't seem in keeping with what I've come to expect from you.

I see why some people (not my Bud loving friends) would be upset by the characterizations in the article and yet I still don't think those characterizations were meant to be the point. If they weren't the point, they definitely can get in the way of it in my opinion. If you consider the audience at which the piece was aimed, I doubt many Bud lovers were in attendance.

However, as Roger hasn't chosen to address that himself, it has moved into the status of conjecture on my part. I haven't reread the article as I'm in the middle of 28hrs of online continuing education and I would like to see some clarification from Roger first if he is willing before I do so.

Steve, I wasn't saying you weren't accountable because you wouldn't come meet me. I was saying that I didn't find your initial responses to be anymore enlightening than your first post. I really wanted to understand where you were coming from. Now I do. Thanks for that!

Roger's point about gender demographics/stubbornness is represented on this board. I've tried to make the following point subtly on a number of occasions: the really contentious debates on this forum (including the current ones) are dominated by male voices. It seems at times that Robin is in charge of babysitting a college frat that is comprised of individuals(men) who equally cherish argument, antagonism, and stubbornness. To call it a "testosterone" measuring contest would not sometimes be very far off target.

All the while, there's a wonderfully (mostly) pleasant population of women who contribute the majority of the really meaningful (i.e. helpful) posts. Quality over quantity, perhaps...

I know I am stereotyping. I know I am painting with a broad brush. I know there are (and have been) antagonistic women on the board, just as there are helpful men (including those who posted regarding where to feed the swimming team). But, I don't think I am wrong. Just look back at the really combative threads. Not that any of what I am saying is all that surprising given research on how gender influences online participation/engagement.

And I'm guilty as charged, although I've tried to change that...

Very poignant post, Matthew. I see it on this board at times, and sometimes want to join in and "be like one of the guys". But it's a better position for me (when I actually listen to my voice of reason), personally, to identify and avoid an irreconcilable argument. I truly respect all figures in this debate and am happy to be a lady right now.

However, as Roger hasn't chosen to address that himself, it has moved into the status of conjecture on my part. I haven't reread the article as I'm in the middle of 28hrs of online continuing education and I would like to see some clarification from Roger first if he is willing before I do so.

Appreciated, but further clarification from me likely will be deferred until together, we all can share a center ring for barbecue, half-price wine and session ale.

I once climbed a Himalayan mountain to ask a Taoist high priest about the Craft/Macro brew divide. He asked me if I only make sexy time with pretty girls or sometimes with ugly girls too? I take that to mean I can drink a Bud sometimes if options are limited.

Beer, I like it.

Steve, I wasn't saying you weren't accountable because you wouldn't come meet me. I was saying that I didn't find your initial responses to be anymore enlightening than your first post. I really wanted to understand where you were coming from. Now I do. Thanks for that!

Well, I did practically beg you to point out which part you needed to have clarified. The only feedback offered was "inane, the whole thing".

It is nice to have this under the bridge though.

If you consider the audience at which the piece was aimed, I doubt many Bud lovers were in attendance.

Sorry about circling back around on this again, but this is another peeve that I have with Roger. He does things to make fun of his disfavored groups behind their backs. This rubs me the wrong way too.

Oil and water I suppose.

[Robin Garr]

Oil and water ...

... and half-price wine! It's a good thing ...

Going back to the beginning of the thread, I enjoy reading here, but the sniping/controversy/yelling at each other is why I don't come around much. I enjoyed that sort of thing ten or fifteen years ago, but given such folderol fills the television, radio, and many workplaces, I don't really need another avenue to see it.

That said, I think it's perfectly fine if people want to do it, as long as they don't mind if Robin screams at them politely.

Sorry about circling back around on this again, but this is another peeve that I have with Roger. He does things to make fun of his disfavored groups behind their backs. This rubs me the wrong way too. Oil and water I suppose.

Or, there's the possibility that you just plain don't get me, what I do, or where I'm coming from, because as Frank Zappa once said, "I figure the odds be 50/50" as to this distinct (perhaps likely) possibility.

Understanding that I lack self-awareness (must have been the book-readin'), it remains that I've been occupying this trench, mining this lode, and getting all polemical about beer for almost 30 years now, through five US presidents, six New Albany mayors and a net gain of 1,900+ American breweries. In all this time, I've never been charged with hate crimes, jaywalking, littering or even public intoxication. My relationships with friends and loved ones are profuse and solid, and they are reciprocated. Whomever the members of my "crowd" happen to be, they seem broadly appreciative of what I try to be in my life, and do with my work.

If my habit were to do these sorts of things behind anyone's back, it seems unlikely that the music fest organizers would have been so annoyed with me owing to the stridency of my advocacy. But, as another wise man noted: Whatever. For the second time, I'll offer to leave this thread, standing peacefully on the bridge as the abandoned plonk floats wistfully downstream.

Now, there's a fine

Sorry about circling back around on this again, but this is another peeve that I have with Roger. He does things to make fun of his disfavored groups behind their backs. This rubs me the wrong way too. Oil and water I suppose.

Or, there's the possibility that you just plain don't get me, what I do, or where I'm coming from, because as Frank Zappa once said, "I figure the odds be 50/50" as to this distinct (perhaps likely) possibility.

Well honestly, I have gone back and forth as to whether the online Roger A. Baylor is some kind of personae you put on as a means to an end. But every time we engage, you usually double down on asshole, and then often brag about it. You could go a long way to clear this up right here and now, but you won't.

Understanding that I lack self-awareness (must have been the book-readin'), it remains that I've been occupying this trench, mining this lode, and getting all polemical about beer for almost 30 years now, through five US presidents, six New Albany mayors and a net gain of 1,900+ American breweries.

Your lack of self awareness aside, , thank you for promoting craft beer all this time, at least for the folks who are not Republicans or blue collar A-B customers anyway.

In all this time, I've never been charged with hate crimes, jaywalking, littering or even public intoxication. My relationships with friends and loved ones are profuse and solid, and they are reciprocated. Whomever the members of my "crowd" happen to be, they seem broadly appreciative of what I try to be in my life, and do with my work.

I'm glad you have a fulfilling and rich social life. But it's not the treatment of those in your "crowd" that rubs me the wrong way.

If my habit were to do these sorts of things behind anyone's back, it seems unlikely that the music fest organizers would have been so annoyed with me owing to the stridency of my advocacy.

I meant a couple of things by this. The first, if I recall the particular thread correctly, was the position that it was okay to denigrate Republicans and other conservatives because they would be unlikely to have seen your odious advertisement. And the second, was in this thread where the argument was offered (not by you) defending your Louisvillebeer.com article because it would be unlikely to be read by those targeted by your scorn. That's the it's-okay-because-it's-behind-their-back excuse.

But, as another wise man noted: Whatever. For the second time, I'll offer to leave this thread, standing peacefully on the bridge as the abandoned plonk floats wistfully downstream.

Now, there's a fine

As always, you are free to drop in or out at your pleasure.

I meant a couple of things by this. The first, if I recall the particular thread correctly, was the position that it was okay to denigrate Republicans and other conservatives because they would be unlikely to have seen your odious advertisement.

(putting on predicating hat)

Considering the probable result of today's election, the majority of the people who saw the ad didnt agree with Roger. Regardless of intent, it wasnt behind anyone's back.

(takes off hat before I get something wrong)

I meant a couple of things by this. The first, if I recall the particular thread correctly, was the position that it was okay to denigrate Republicans and other conservatives because they would be unlikely to have seen your odious advertisement.

(putting on predicating hat)

Considering the probable result of today's election, the majority of the people who saw the ad didnt agree with Roger. Regardless of intent, it wasnt behind anyone's back.

(takes off hat before I get something wrong)

I think I remembered it a little wrong before. This post from that thread does a pretty good job of explaining what I meant. You have to read all my comments all the way to this last one that caps it off:

Maybe it is a shtick. How am I to know? I only know Roger by his writings and postings. And by now the pattern is set and never varies. This is the image that he wishes to present. He is not just an advocate of craft beer. He either doesn't have the desire or the ability to promote craft beer without tearing something else down. He get's a potential customer to his company's Web Site, then mocks him behind his back at another one. Assholely or adolescent? You be the judge.

Well honestly, I have gone back and forth as to whether the online Roger A. Baylor is some kind of personae

I think I remembered it a little wrong before. This post from that thread does a pretty good job of explaining what I meant. You have to read all my comments all the way to this last one that caps it off:

Maybe it is a shtick. How am I to know? I only know Roger by his writings and postings. And by now the pattern is set and never varies. This is the image that he wishes to present. He is not just an advocate of craft beer. He either doesn't have the desire or the ability to promote craft beer without tearing something else down. He get's a potential customer to his company's Web Site, then mocks him behind his back at another one. Assholely or adolescent? You be the judge.

Oh this is just too much fun to leave go. So Steve you think Roger's behavior is a personae? You, the self-appointed voice of outraged Republicans and A-B customers – which you are neither. Who's taking on the personae here?

You who responded to my comments with such mature comebacks as “some douche in a bar,” and “you start with the verbal diarrhea again,” feel you have the gravitas to label Roger “ass-holey or adolescent?” You are the one resorting to bathroom barbs here.

You say you only know Roger by his writings and postings. Yet you are comfortable judging him, not just his writings and postings. How are you to know? You could meet him and look him in the eye. The prospect of meeting someone face to face seems to be out of the question for the most verbally venturesome on this forum. The heckler in the crowd role is more comfortable.

You say that either he doesn't have the desire or ability to promote craft beer without tearing something else down? By something else you mean beer that is not craft beer and to carry that further, people who like beer that is not craft beer?

Well, what could be more honest than promoting something he believes is great over something he believes is awful. He makes and sells this great product after all. He pretty much has an obligation to this position if he believes in what he does. By the way, he doesn't just say his product is great, he frequently demonstrates it at events and tastings. You don't really deny that what Roger says is true. You are just offended that he says it and you question his sincerity.

It would be much easier for him to not rock the boat and come over all Molly Manners but that isn't who he is. That's not who you are either apparently. Yet even when you call him names and suggest he is lying he doesn't respond in kind. I look at Roger's responses next to yours and I know who I judge to be acting the immature asshole.

I'm putting smiley faces in here so you know not to take offense. I'm giving you what you gave Roger. Like you - I mean it and like you, I don't mean that you should take offense.

Steve, you can have the last word – I just couldn't let it be that last ass-holey or adolescent quote!

Oh this is just too much fun to leave go. So Steve you think Roger's behavior is a personae?

Actually, what I said was that I go back and forth thinking that Roger's online presence is a personae. i.e. I'm not really sure. Either way, the online presence is obnoxious. I suggest you go read that thread from beginning to end, and follow the links and read those to. Go now. We'll wait till you get back before moving on.

You, the self-appointed voice of outraged Republicans and A-B customers – which you are neither.

I'm not a self appointed anything. Sometimes Roger posts links and sometimes I click through and read what he has to say. I disagree with much of what he says, and I disagree with many of his conclusions. <shrugs>

Who's taking on the personae here?

As Popeye would say, "I am what I am."

You who responded to my comments with such mature comebacks as “some douche in a bar,” and “you start with the verbal diarrhea again,” feel you have the gravitas to label Roger “ass-holey or adolescent?” You are the one resorting to bathroom barbs here.

As you should remember, you basically engaged me in this conversation by calling my entire comment "inane". When queried as to which part you'd like to have clarified, you said "the whole thing is inane".

Then we went back and forth for awhile with your making longer and longer posts about things completely unrelated to what I originally said. And then you suggested that we meet in a bar to settle it. And then when I declined, you implied that I didn't stand behind my opinions as I didn't do it in person. I believe it was at that point, that I got a little snippy. And I'm not sorry that I did.

Eventually, you decided to quote one of my original and according to you, inane, paragraphs and finally ask what I meant by that. I provided my explanation, and the last I heard you were happy with that.

You say you only know Roger by his writings and postings. Yet you are comfortable judging him, not just his writings and postings. How are you to know? You could meet him and look him in the eye. The prospect of meeting someone face to face seems to be out of the question for the most verbally venturesome on this forum. The heckler in the crowd role is more comfortable.

I'm just going by Roger's rules here. I judge him like he judges others. Seems fair to me.

You say that either he doesn't have the desire or ability to promote craft beer without tearing something else down?

Yes I have said that.

By something else you mean beer that is not craft beer and to carry that further, people who like beer that is not craft beer?

Hey, you say you read Roger's link. And a bit ago, you said that I had a well reasoned opinion about it. Did you have a beer blackout since then?

Well, what could be more honest than promoting something he believes is great over something he believes is awful. He makes and sells this great product after all.

My beef has never been with Roger's honesty or his products. Can I ask you to go through the archives and read some of this history? You are treading some very old turf here.

He pretty much has an obligation to this position if he believes in what he does.

He has an obligation to denigrate A-B customers and Republicans to promote his products?

By the way, he doesn't just say his product is great, he frequently demonstrates it at events and tastings.

Good for him.

You don't really deny that what Roger says is true.

Actually, I deny many things that Roger says is true. That was some serious beer blackout, huh?

You are just offended that he says it and you question his sincerity.

Well, I don't remember having ever questioned Roger's sincerity.

It would be much easier for him to not rock the boat and come over all Molly Manners but that isn't who he is.

Yep. Manners are optional with Roger. I will grant you that.

That's not who you are either apparently.

I do try to use my manners. Sometimes I can be provoked into forgetting them. Then I usually feel bad about it. I like to think that's what normal people do.

Yet even when you call him names and suggest he is lying he doesn't respond in kind. I look at Roger's responses next to yours and I know who I judge to be acting the immature asshole.

I am guilty of judicious name calling, especially if I think people deserve it and can take it. Douche comes to mind, for example. I have never called Roger a liar though.

I look at Roger's responses next to yours and I know who I judge to be acting the immature asshole.

It's a free country. <shrugs>

I'm putting smiley faces in here so you know not to take offense. I'm giving you what you gave Roger. Like you - I mean it and like you, I don't mean that you should take offense

Well, as you know. You say anything you want, and it's okay if you put a smiley face in there. That's Internet rules, not mine.

Steve, you can have the last word – I just couldn't let it be that last ass-holey or adolescent quote!

Hmmm... Now I'm thinking you didn't follow the links to see what Roger said that elicited those epithets.

It must've been an oversight, as I remember telling you at the top that we'd wait while you got caught up with your background reading. It would be soooo unlike you to comment about something without understanding the background material. </sarcasm>

And with that distinguished commenting, you have officially obtained the rank of Loyal Roger-bot, with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto.

Congratulations.

I know, I said you could have the last word but - oh well.

No blackout. I said your final response to me was well-considered and expressed. You made a couple of points that time rather than just pronouncements but I didn't say I agreed with all your conclusions. Even so, I would have left it there if you hadn't pulled up your old quote as if it was some sort of stamp of validity.

Me too wordy. Sure, but someone should count the words in this post to see who has used more of them.

Again the mature one here ends with name calling. Roger-bot? Well I've been called much worse. I disagree with Roger on some things and have said so. I just don't think it fair for you or anyone else to accuse him of affecting a schtick or personnae or whatever you want to call it without one shred of evidence to back it up. You accuse him of talking behind his customer's back. Of course this back talking is done on public forums which you and everyone else has access to. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it. You call him an asshole and adolescent while your own posts are full of potty insults and name calling.

Steve, there is no substance to your complaints in my opinion. Just base dislike. I have no problem with that. I read that original thread back when it happened. My opinion then was it was just attempts to bait Roger by people who do not understand him and attempts to label him with things that are untrue. I see it the same now.