<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Session #1: Not Your Father&#8217;s Stout</title>
	<atom:link href="http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/session-1-not-your-fathers-stout/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/session-1-not-your-fathers-stout/</link>
	<description>Jay R. Brooks on Beer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:22:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://beerzine.com/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Beaumont</title>
		<link>http://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/session-1-not-your-fathers-stout/comment-page-1/#comment-666</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Beaumont</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:36:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brookstonbeerbulletin.com/session-1-not-your-fathers-stout/#comment-666</guid>
		<description>Nice post, Jay, and I think possibly the winner for the longest of this Session. (Yes, I did wordcount it: 1,827!)

On a non-stout note, though, I want to point out that the note you made about being more inclined to like the beer of a brewer you know and respect has a double edge to it. Say, for example, I have had five beers from Brewer A and found them all to be wonderful. Then someone hands me beer six from that same brewer and it&#039;s only good; not fabulous and flavourful, but merely an adequate representation of its style. Mightn&#039;t I be more inclined to judge it harshly than if it had come from a brewer known for more ordinary beers? Not because it was in any way a bad beer, but simply because my expectations are high for this one particular brewer?

I&#039;m not saying, of course, that this would necessarily be the case, since like you, I strive daily to be as objective as possibly in my reviews. But I do think it&#039;s worth noting that familiarity can breed both favour and contempt.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice post, Jay, and I think possibly the winner for the longest of this Session. (Yes, I did wordcount it: 1,827!)</p>
<p>On a non-stout note, though, I want to point out that the note you made about being more inclined to like the beer of a brewer you know and respect has a double edge to it. Say, for example, I have had five beers from Brewer A and found them all to be wonderful. Then someone hands me beer six from that same brewer and it&#8217;s only good; not fabulous and flavourful, but merely an adequate representation of its style. Mightn&#8217;t I be more inclined to judge it harshly than if it had come from a brewer known for more ordinary beers? Not because it was in any way a bad beer, but simply because my expectations are high for this one particular brewer?</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not saying, of course, that this would necessarily be the case, since like you, I strive daily to be as objective as possibly in my reviews. But I do think it&#8217;s worth noting that familiarity can breed both favour and contempt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

