devilsfan26

Haha it's not that crazy, here's a picture I just took.

 

--Bunch of Sierra Nevada Bigfoot from 2011, 2012, and 2013
--Weyerbacher Insanity from 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012
--Brooklyn Monster Ale from 2011 and 2012

--Boulder Killer Penguin barleywine from 2011

--Dogfish Head Immort Ale from 2011

--Dogfish Head Olde School from 2012

--Oskar Blues Ten Fidy from 2012

--New Holland Pilgrim's Dole wheatwine from 2010

--Avery The Beast from I think 2010

--Dogfish Head 120 Minute IPA from 2011

--Sam Adams Triple Bock from 1997 (see footnote two posts below)

--Founders KBS from 2012 (didn't get any this year )

--Founders Backwoods Bastard from 2012
--Founders Bolt Cutter

--Dogfish Head 75 Minute IPA (letting it sit a few months to see how the maple flavor takes over the hops)

--and the big bottle in front is the new bourbon barrel-aged imperial stout from Kane, A Night to End All Dawns

Yeah hoppy beers you want to drink fresh.  The flavor of the hops fades over time so it won't taste as good later on.  It won't be bad for you like spoiled milk or anything like that, just won't taste the way it's meant to.  Big beers like imperial stouts, quads, and barleywines can be aged as the hops aren't really the focal point in those beers and the harshness of the high alcohol content will mellow out. 

 

There is some disagreement on certain varieties though, for example many say if it's a coffee stout it should be had fresh before the coffee fades out.  Bourbon barrel-aged stouts some say are better fresh before the bourbon flavor fades, but the rest of the beer sometimes will improve if you let it age for a while, so it's up to you to do some experimenting and see what aspects of these beers you want magnified when you drink it.  Sometimes for bourbon barrel-aged stouts I let them sit a few months so it mellows out without the bourbon flavor disappearing.

I like to age beers and then when I'm going to drink it I buy a fresh one so I can do a comparison.  When you do this with the same beer of a few consecutive years, it's called a vertical.  It's interesting to see how the beer changes from year to year.

 

If you're going to age beer, ideal conditions are a cool, dark place I think around 50 degrees.  Keeping beer refrigerated will slow down the aging, so if you're aging beer you don't want it just sitting in the back of the fridge for months.  The top shelf of a closet or something is probably a good spot.  I keep my aging beers in a kitchen cabinet.  It's probably not the perfect conditions since it gets hot in there sometimes, but I don't have a basement so it's good enough for me.

I'm glad she was out of there DF26.........

Thanks.  Stuff like this really becomes more than a news story when it comes that close to affecting people you care about.

I say no to bigger nets, leave the rink the way it is.  If they can't slim the goalies down at all then just leave it the way it is.  The game is fine, it doesn't need to be constantly changed.

I honestly don't remember...did the Rangers celebrate all of Graves' contributions on and off the ice, or was it another indirect celebraion of 1994?

I don't remember that specific ceremony but it's a pretty safe bet that the Cup was there and Messier cried.

In my opinion, the best solution is to just get one of the old style CCMs on ebay. You can usually find them for like $50 and you don't have to resort to wearing a counterfeit, which ALL have the wrong font, usually in addition to bubbling, wrong shade of red, wrong spacing in the stripes, and/or a crooked crest.

I certainly understand not wanting to buy one of the new Edge jerseys. I refuse to buy one as well. The replicas are crappy quality compared to the pre-Edge CCMs and Kohos, and the authentics are too expensive and I still think the shape of them looks ridiculous and I hate what Reebok has done to hockey jerseys, forcing teams to come up with stupid designs with vertical piping and dumb sleeve designs, etc. Meanwhile, I also refuse to buy a jersey that looks like garbage, so that rules out the knockoffs.

Also, the pre-Edge CCM jerseys were awesome. They felt great, the cut actually looked like what a hockey jersey should look like and not a dress shirt or baseball jersey, and they were much more durable than the crap floating around these days. Not to mention, you can get a Stanley Cup patch on it from a year that we actually won the whole thing, as well as a player that will never go out of style--Stevens, Daneyko, Niedermayer, Brodeur, Elias, etc.

Seriously, anyone who really doesn't care wouldn't be checking this thread.

If you do award the cup to some other league this season,the NHL will lose much of it's power/importance...

Oh well. The Stanley Cup is more important than the NHL.

Disappointed no devils arent in this. They are "Jerseys team". If i owned the Devils, I'd be asking or paying them to do charity work, handing out supplys, raising money etc, to make the team more likeable (that sound kinda evil, like taking advantage of the situation but it 'd be a win win for everyone.) In a lockout when your team cant fill a stadium, its a great oppurtunity to gain interest in hte team (still sounds evil but you see what i mean).

Well since they are being locked out I'm pretty sure the teams can't make them do stuff like that, the players have to take it upon themselves, which hopefully some of our guys who aren't currently playing on a different team will do.

I understand this. However, there is no third party candidate running this year that will make any sort of noise in the election. The problem is that third party candidates have no way to get their msg across so the uninformed never learn about them. Is it any wonder why a third party candidate hasn't been in a debate in 20 years? Voting for Johnson or Stein now does nothing but help one of the major party candidates get in or stay in. The system isn't going to change by voting for the guy who gets a percentage of the vote below 5. There has to be a universal "coming together" for this sh!t to change.

Like I said it's a long climb, it's not going to happen in one election. Do you understand why there are no third party candidates in the debates? It's not because they don't appeal to people, it's because the Democrats and Republicans run the CPD and since everyone watches the debates they can make themselves the only viable choices by keeping everybody else out and making sure their voices don't get heard by the masses. If you're waiting for the Democrats and Republicans to allow a third party candidate to be in the debates, you're going to be doing a lot of waiting. I'm not going to support this corruption and monopolization of our elections by voting for a Democrat or Republican. I'd rather be part of the solution than part of the problem.

The system has to be changed from within or, an outsider has to play by their rules (i.e. Perot), which I think is going to be the way a third party gets in. Someone who has a grassroots system (i.e. a more effective Ron Paul) and completely new way of running a campaign that can completely change the game, which neither Johnson or Stein have. Campaign finance laws are still ridiculous and voting third party this year isn't going to change anything. I realize that Obama is flawed just as 99% of all elected officials are. However, I find the current state of the Republican party bar a few individuals I can count on one hand to be even more flawed. I cannot vote for a third party candidate this cycle knowing that they don't stand a chance. If Johnson or Stein had even a semblance of a chance, I'd be more likely to cast my vote for one of them, and I don't feel voting third party in this climate is the correct "protest" of the system this year because of how late in the game it is and how few people know who Johnson and Stein even are. Do you think the GOP or Democrats are even going to think twice if an outsider gets 2%? The protest has to be universal and apply to all levels of national gov't because the same problem exists in house and senate elections. I agree with you that I think Johnson or Stein are perfectly qualified and have ideas that could help this country, but there's no chance in hell of either of them getting in this year and 2-5% isn't changing a damn thing.

Are you expecting to just have some magical year where all of a sudden a third party candidate comes out of nowhere and gets 40% of the vote? Even if they get single-digit percentages, it still helps them build the party. Also as mouse alluded to, despite what they want you to think, it is pretty much irrelevant who wins between Romney and Obama. Regardless of which one comes out on top, we are still going to waste trillions on simultaneous pointless wars with drone strikes that kill scores of civilians, we are still going to have the government passing more power-grab laws like the Patriot Act or the indefinite detention clause in the NDAA, they are still going to try to take over the internet with SOPA/PIPA type bills, they are still going to spy on American citizens, they are still going to spend billions on bailing out corporations rather than preventing them from becoming too big to fail, they are still going to let massive corporations that donate to their campaigns get away with paying no taxes, the national debt will continue to skyrocket, the dollar will continue to lose value, virtually nothing will change just as virtually nothing changed between Bush and Obama.

What's even worse is that people choose not to care about the similarities. Democrats seem to barely give a damn about Obama's drone strikes that are terrorizing innocent people, but if Obama were a Republican they would be making a huge issue out of it. There is no accountability because they know their voter base is a bunch of sheep and will continue to support them no matter what they do as long as they can keep convincing them that the other side would be even worse.

All the terrible similarities between the Democrats and Republicans create a more important dichotomy that the country needs to start recognizing. Liberal vs. conservative is not as important as the people currently in power who spend all the money in the world and keep giving the government more and more control vs. the people who are serious about fixing our problems, and the quarrels between Obama supporters and Romney supporters just preserve the status quo as it distracts the country from the real issues. The fact that Obama and Romney are pretty much the same makes it a no-brainer for me to vote third party because it won't matter which one ends up winning anyway.

No third party will compete in this country until money is removed from the equation (or someone comes in with a lot of money) and the two major parties don't have a monopoly on the debates. I'd like to see 6 or 7 competitive parties in this country, but the electoral system has to change fundamentally and voting for a 3rd party candidate now will not do that as it didnt do anything in the last 10 cycles.

So are you hoping the Democrats decide they want to remove money from the election process and decide to open up the debates and fundamentally change the electoral system? Keep dreaming. The ONLY way we will ever get fair elections is if the third parties and independents garner enough public support that the two major parties would have to take notice and adopt parts of their platform to stay ahead of them. I'm not expecting Johnson or Stein to win this election and change everything, it is a long-term uphill climb and I'm refusing to slow it down by voting for the Democrats or Republicans. I don't care that I'm voting for someone who in all likelihood will lose, I'm voting for someone I can believe in. And if everyone who said they like (insert third party candidate here) but won't vote for them because they won't win actually did vote for them, it would make a big difference.

"other" votes are what sways the election nowadays. It is amazing. The "3rd" parties don't have enough support to knock out a "Big 2", but they absolutely can torpedo one of them by drawing votes away.

This is such an annoying argument. Why are votes being "taken away" from the major parties? Why are they entitled to all the votes until a third party takes them away? If there were no third parties or write-ins, I wouldn't vote at all. Neither major party is worth my support and nobody on the ballot is entitled to votes just because they are a Democrat or Republican. With the double standard of ballot access laws and media coverage and campaign finance, etc., I would say that Romney and Obama are costing Johnson and Stein the election moreso than the other way around.

Of course not all third party voters would refuse to vote if Obama and Romney were the only two choices, but that is why the fairest election format would be range voting. In range voting you don't have to worry about costing anyone an election because you get to rate each candidate on a scale of 1-10 or 1-100, etc. This allows you to voice your support or opposition for as many candidates as you want, and also measure just how much you support or oppose each candidate. So if you are a conservative for example you would be able to give Johnson a 100, Romney an 80, Stein a 40, and Obama a 1. You can show full support for Johnson, a true conservative, without having to worry about "costing" Romney the election. Same goes for Stein. Of course neither major party is interested in this kind of fairness because it would hurt their chances of perpetuating their stranglehold over this country. You can learn more at www.rangevoting.org, it's pretty interesting to see just how inefficient our voting system is, where you are forced to approve one candidate 100% and completely disapprove all the others.

Let's be real here, the only people Romney or Obama actually care about are the ones who fund their campaigns. Neither one actually gives a crap about me or you regardless of what they say.

I can admit that there is a political war in this country. The Democratic Party has demonstrated it is not interested one whit in abandoning identity politics, cutting entitlements and reducing government. (The Republicans have been awful on spending, too ... until the Tea Party came along to start cleaning house.) It's clear there will be no compromise with the Democrats, and there is NO EFFORT with the Democratic Party to change their big-government, race card-playing ways. So, what do we do? We fight. I'm in favor of destroying the Democratic Party. I see it as the best solution.

I don't support the Democrats either, but the Republicans aren't exactly the beacon of compromise considering they have tried to repeal the healthcare law 30-something times now.

You are the only person in this thread that has been vilifying the other side, you said liberals express contempt for America and the Constitution, and said things like duty to God and country, patriotism, and individualism are conservative values. Those aren't conservative values, they are just values that anyone can hold regardless of politics. Then you said your intransigence isn't your fault, it's because the left started it. You seem to be blind to the fallacies of the right while attributing everything that is negative to the left; you are almost as bad as Jimmy Leeds. You also never explained how supporting the healthcare law and public unions show contempt for America, I am looking forward to reading that gem.

I am in San Bernardino, California currently enjoying a Pliny the Elder, bottled twelve days ago. This IPA is widely regarded as one of the top three in the world and is only available in California. For a beer that smacks you in the face with hops, it is incredibly smooth and drinkable.