LTS

I had a hard time even reading that list. It had a lot of pointless crap in it. Like dismissing Hawaii because it's Hawaii? I think they demonstrate a solid lack of understanding of each state's real beer scene.

You'll have some portability on 360 in the near future. If you've played online (or you play online) do you have a group of friends on the PS4 platform? it might not matter. I don't worry about games. Generally speaking each console will have its exclusives but ultimately they are just games.. Sales have the PS4 over Xbox. But really, it's up to you and what suits your needs best. I had a PS2 and that's end I stopped having Sony products in my house. just my thing. The Xbox has more versatility for me I guess and it's where my friends play.

You gotta love that he's staying with a guy who chose Buffalo over all other locations as an UFA. His answers are fantastic. Even including the no offense to the Coyotes wording. He's got it down. His thinking is excellent. Looking forward to the season.. it's about all I have at this point.

It's tough to be certain. I can say that beer judges usually do a pretty good job of differentiating. We have a few in our group and while we only do 6 IPA/DIPA in a session they are still able to go pretty strong whereas a few others tend to burn out by 6. There's still a million factors that can impact the rating a beer gets so it remains highly subjective. I'm a fan. I don't go crazy for it. Used to really go for In Heat Wheat but found a few other wheat beers that I prefer. Jack's Abby Copper Legend. (there I go again telling you about them).

I've mentioned I do blind tastings with a group of people who are all in the beer industry (brewers, distributors, etc.) This is not that group.. but I came across this the other day and figured I would post it given some recent discussion on DIPA / IPA. http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/08/blind-tasting-115-of-the-best-american-dipa-and-im.html and here's the IPA blind tasting http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/04/blind-tasting-116-of-the-best-american-ipas-we-hav.html?p=3 Pliny at 18, Heady at 16... I think the list in the wheelhouse of what I would have expected. I haven't had 3 of the top 4 (I'll seek out the Grimm soon).

Well if that's the case.. I don't pay any attention to what the windbag says so I wouldn't know.

Seriously.. what kind of response is that? I'm not even sure what you are getting at there with that comparison. I don't really appreciate being compared to Donald Trump..

I've never understood the hang up on a word. I say something is stupid. I say it's ignorant. I say it's patently absurd. I say it's valueless. I say it's silly. What difference does it make? Point is.. if i think it's stupid, that's my opinion. Using more flowery and softer language is like using makeup and airbrushing. The original concept hasn't changed.

That's his twin brother.. Gord.

Indeed. Acts of violence are clearly not common. If they were it's unlikely we'd be having this conversation right now. There are usually a lot of other reasons why trouble finds people as well. Sometimes it's just random, but usually it's not.

The thing you don't seem to be considering in your viewpoint is that when you meet someone face to face there is more than just words that provide information about the person you are talking with. Their body language will say quite a bit as well. Granted, I would say that if you head out to some random bar and just start looking for sex the risks are greater than normal but this is not anywhere near as when interacting with someone online. There's plenty of evidence that people pretend to be someone else when they are online. It's harder to pull off in person. Law enforcement has pretended to be an underage child plenty of times with the hopes of trapping potential sexual predators. It's unlikely the predator will be as easily caught if they are engaging in the encounter face to face.

In my opinion, your response egged on a further response from him. If you had intentions of changing the way he approached his response then I would have suggested that you provide guidance as to why he should respond differently. Furthermore, at that point I feel that the entire conversation between the two of you would have been better served in the PM channels of the forum and not played out in a thread about other topics. You have the power, you banned him. I don't agree with it.

I see why you think it is judgmental. However, I am not judging them for doing it. I am recognizing that if you are going to engage in a culture where you post a picture of yourself, receive a few messages from some unknown person, and from that decide to meet them to hook up that there will be problems that come from that. Not all the time, but it invites an entire genre of scenarios in which bad things could occur. Sex for fun is not the problem. It's the means by which it is arranged which I think becomes a problem. The concept is that you now have people throwing themselves out there looking to hook up. It might not always be via Tinder or some similar app but it begins to reduce the steps required to ascertain what the intentions of the both parties are when it comes to sex. When it comes to rape the defining moment is when a person consciously makes the decision to cross the clearly defined line. Much like owning a gun isn't inherently a problem. It's the decision to use it against someone else that is the problem. But, we talk about an atmosphere where people are commented on for wearing certain clothes or acting a certain way and then you get something like Tinder that enforces those concepts. You are posting alluring pictures of yourself online, it seems to indicate that you are interested in having people stare at you and make comments.

I disagree. So, in the 60's, as you are pointing out, people would have had to meet face to face before they could actually arrange a hookup (unless they were calling phone numbers randomly). The point here is that today with services like Tinder and such the ability exchange messages without having ever met someone first is extremely easy and that it doesn't take many messages to arrange a hookup. I'm not certain why you consider it a blind attack. If the information is accurate it's not an attack, it's the truth. I'm not judging millenials for doing this. If that is how they want to operate then they should feel free to do so. However, we are talking about a rape culture here and yet you can clearly see in the article the mindset of a group of people who are out there just looking to have sex purely for the purpose of getting off. But that aside.. there were plenty of people who complained about the free sex lifestyle. So, that's not even accurate.

On another note... http://mashable.com/2015/08/24/millennial-sex-online/ Submitted for your reading pleasure. 10 texts or less until hooking up. I can't imagine why there are problems in the world.

Yes.. the laws are broken down and clearly defined. Just because there are varying levels does not mean they are not clearly defined. Do you know who else gets registered as a sex offender? A person who is arrested for urinating in public. Talk about unfair. Yet.. those are the rules. Clearly defined. If you want to change the law you have to provide some method of changing it. We can have a discussion on that and eventually you might end up calling me a jerk or worse because I'll keep thinking up the what-if scenarios until you are completely exasperated. That's the problem with laws and why lawyers make a great living. However, the alternate is that you leave everything a gray area and call it common sense.. except we know that common sense is usually anything but common.

Had Three Heads Brewing Giant Panda Dub Style IPA last night. I think it's the best beer they've released to date. It's really pretty incredible. I'm just waiting for their brewery to open the doors because I know some of the changes they will make to the recipes will improve the other beers.

I don't think the lines are broken. What you are arguing for is the absence of a law. When a law is written, it can't be written so that it is arbitrarily defined. The law for statutory rape is clearly defined because if it wasn't there would be even more legal cases questioning the event every time it happens. It's like arguing that the 55mph speed limit shouldn't be there because everyone can handle the speed of a car differently. That may be, but there are laws because not everyone can handle it and so our government defines a law that mandates what is safe. You don't have to agree with it but it has to be defined. Regardless of male or female, the statutory rape definition should be adhered to uniformly. It doesn't matter if he was not traumatized. He may actually be as mature as an 18 year old, but the law has to be written with a specific date in mind. You can't have a double standard with the law. How does that work? Granted, there are plenty of things that happen that make it appear as though there is a double standard but the law still remains. The thing you have to realize and accept is.. there is a law and then there is reality. They don't have to be in sync. If you want to argue that the law should be written differently then you should change your communication to say that otherwise it basically sounds like you are arguing that the law should be applied differently based on the situation.

http://www.tsn.ca/wild-assistant-coach-sydor-arrested-for-dui-1.348913 He had a .30 BAC and was driving his 12 year old son to his hockey game? HOLY CR..A.. FU.. JES. CHR..WTF! If this pans out as reported... I mean.. wow.. I don't even know what to say.

:worthy:

This entire conversation on this topic brought up one incident in my mind. This happened to me in college. Barring details... things were had just gotten to that point of intercourse. It had been pretty engaging up to that point as well. So there was maybe a brief period of time before I realized that she had this look on her face and stopped moving. She hadn't said anything. So, I did actually stop and say, is everything okay? She didn't want to respond. I said it's fine, whatever it was. After much coercing she finally told me the problem. She was trying not to fart.

No, he SHOULDN'T do it.. but people like that exist. And I 100% agree with you that his response was unwarranted but again, unfortunately there are people like that. The problem here, is a part of an overall problem in society, and that is the fear of people to forcefully express themselves for fear of retribution or other negative consequences. I think, to some degree, this goes along with an overall atmosphere in our culture to try not to offend others because others are so easily offended. There needs to be a strong focus on the importance of individualized thought and that thinking differently is not a problem. The key of course then becomes strengthening people's ability to not be concerned with what everyone else thinks. We know that peer pressure, social pressure, play huge roles in why people go along with something. They feel like they need to belong to something. That's not something you can easily correct. I'm not saying she is wrong, it's a huge problem that I wish would have been identified and perhaps she could have been reinforced in ways to express her feelings. The other piece of information that is hugely relevant in this post is her inability to act because she was still trying to process the information. This probably underscores the need to have these kinds of conversations with your children, both male and female, on what is appropriate action and how to react when something like this happens. You can only hope that the lesson registers when its needed most.

An expectation of sexual contact? I wouldn't say that. I am saying one should not be surprised if it happens in a situation like a rave. I should not have said "be offended if offered pot at a Dead concert". I should have said, "not be surprised when it happens". Your commentary about an no expectation of sexual contact at an is very off however. What you arguing, at this point, is where is the line that allows for sexual contact. The argument really has to be around rejecting sexual contact when it occurs and the ignoring of that rejection by a person that is the line. Why? Case in point.. you are out to dinner and you drive a woman back to her place. You reach over and kiss her. You have just made sexual contact. In your scenario this should be considered a problem because you did not first ask "hey, want to go have sex?" Carrying this concept further, let's assume you never ask her if she wants to have sex, but she doesn't reject your kiss. If you continue progression through any number of sexual contact situations that lead up to intercourse you will likely never ask the question. You will be working on implied consent until she says otherwise. However, again, in your scenario none of this should happen. I'm not trying to be flippant here, but the response I usually get from my wife if I just say "Hey, do you want to have sex?" is "Nice. That's romantic. Umm no." In other words, I can't just ask... I have to find out if the scenario is right and that requires some level of sexual contact. So, if you walk into an , you can reject contact when it happens. You can make it known you are not there to participate ahead of time. However, until you do, there's going to be a good chance you will be put in a sexual situation. Let me take this back to the rave scenario. Two people are dancing, one believes that the motion of the other suggests that a closer kind of dance is acceptable. The person engages in the grind dance you refer to. I don't think anyone is going to be able to press charges on this scenario. Now, telling the person to get away and having that request ignored would be where the line is crossed. Everyone's line is going to be different, but I don't think the base line can be where you are heading in your commentary. I do think we can sit here and go back and forth on what the line is and I would agree that it's blurry. The situation really has to define what was warranted.

I appreciate the legal responses you provide to my questions. And I have brought up the DUI question (I think it was in another thread). My question specifically was that if two drunk people engage in sex and the next day the female regrets it there is often an investigation as she could not give consent. But neither could the male by definition, so what happens? Does the guy get to claim he also said no.. as far as he remembers? A rave has a particular culture of its own assigned to it. It's like going to a Dead show and being offended someone offering you marijuana. The response from the guy is unwarranted but ignorant people are ignorant people. Another example, I was out one night with a group of 6 guys and 2 were gay. They wanted to go to a gay bar so we all agreed to go. I was hit on. I didn't get pissed that I was hit on by the guy. Here I was, a guy, in a gay bar. It really has a greater chance of happening than in a non-gay bar I would imagine. I just politely declined, explained the situation and moved on. It ended peaceably enough but I could imagine there might be a guy who would respond negatively to me in that situation. To add some more context, I have been hit on by a guy in a non-gay bar as well. I didn't respond any differently. Just said, thanks, I'm flattered, not my thing and moved on. And I don't mean this to diminish things but only to say that certain scenarios are going to result in certain actions being more prevalent than others. Odds are that shirtless guy is a tool everywhere he goes.

So I have a problem with this "drunk" thing. There is a line of thinking that says a drunk woman is unable to give consent. This is presumably because the decision making ability is impaired due to alcohol. As such, the woman is not being held accountable for the decision to engage in sex. At the same time there is a line of thinking that says a man who is equally as drunk should be able to make an unimpaired decision and is held accountable for the actions that occur. This creates a double standard as it relates to whether or not people are accountable for the decisions they make while under the influence of alcohol (or other drugs for that matter). What legitimate reason is there to explain that way of thinking? This is not including situations where someone is drunk and at some point during a sexual encounter decides they want to end it. I am talking in a purely, two people got drunk scenario and the next day an accusation is made. Do the majority of young men commit rape or engage in unwanted violent sex? What am I missing about your rebuttal? You are singling out an entire group of people as saying that they have a problem. I don't think there is anything that supports such a far reaching statement. My point is about those people with diminished mental capacity who believe that the fantasy items they may see on a screen are transferable into the real world. In my mind it's not even fair to single out men for this. For what it's worth, you do go on to tell me it's not fair to generalize about groups even though you, yourself, are doing the same thing in saying young men don't fully grasp the delineation. While you think I am generalizing I don't agree with you. I think it's fair to say that a large majority of situations where power and money are at play there are tendencies for people to ignore their moral compass. I also believe and if I go hunting I will find the statistics that support that criminal activities in impoverished portions of society are also higher than in other areas. People who are held up as idols develop a god-like complex and thus believe the rules don't apply to them. Those who are fighting to survive don't care about the rules because following them results in death. Both groups have greater reason to ignore the rules that normal society adheres to. Again.. so much more, but I should stop reading this group during work. Back to work I go.