Keep6's belgian import announcement

[atomeyes]

mmmm margarine beer....

[matt7215]

just to add to the confusion, wasnt Beer Bistro also importing Cantillon but only selling it in house?

[JeffPorter]

this thread has turned into all kinds of awesome!!

Agreed.

[GregClow]

just to add to the confusion, wasnt Beer Bistro also importing Cantillon but only selling it in house?

Yes.

[grub]

wow...angries much?

not at all, i just see no point in talking simply to hear oneself speak. the original thread, in particular, offered absolutely no value and only served as an attempt to garner some ego stroking because you heard something before someone else did... even more laughable when you're far from the first to hear it. heck, you even suggested that someone should buy you beer for giving them this complete lack of information. silly...

[Cass]

Yes, I removed the thread as it was pretty silly and not adding much value as Grub has indicated. I'm all for having fun but it was misleading and didn't have any confirmed information.

Now we have an announcement from Keep 6 it's great to know that we're going to have more Cantillon in Ontario, which is awesome for all of us.

[grub]

Now we have an announcement from Keep 6 it's great to know that we're going to have more Cantillon in Ontario, which is awesome for all of us.

indeed, more options for ON is most definitely a good thing. It is great to see K6 and our other importers continuing to expand. Only a couple of years ago most of my commercial beer was being bought outside the country (and that was a small percentage compared to what I was brewing). These days there's a lot less reason to leave the province, more reason to drink local, and a lot less styles that are "must brew to have them available". Good times indeed.

[atomeyes]

wow...angries much?

not at all, i just see no point in talking simply to hear oneself speak. the original thread, in particular, offered absolutely no value and only served as an attempt to garner some ego stroking because you heard something before someone else did... even more laughable when you're far from the first to hear it. heck, you even suggested that someone should buy you beer for giving them this complete lack of information. silly...

says the guy who continues to post in this thread.
if it bugs you that much, don't reply. its pretty simple.

[JerCraigs]

says the guy who continues to post in this thread.
if it bugs you that much, don't reply. its pretty simple.

Learning when not to post something is certainly an acquired skill...
Posting things publicly that are best kept to yourself is a good way to either ruin a good thing or complicate things that were not ready for public consumption.

There have been enough things over the years in Toronto that have been spoiled by ill timed loose lips that perhaps people are over sensitive. Especially if the only real benefit to the post is the equivalent of "First!"

[JeffPorter]

Learning when not to post something is certainly an acquired skill...
Posting things publicly that are best kept to yourself is a good way to either ruin a good thing or complicate things that were not ready for public consumption.

There have been enough things over the years in Toronto that have been spoiled by ill timed loose lips that perhaps people are over sensitive. Especially if the only real benefit to the post is the equivalent of "First!"

I agree. There have been times when chatting with the guys at Volo and they would let me know about something, and every time start off the sentence with, "don't post this anywhere, but..." and I haven't slipped up with them yet.

I also agree it's an acquired skill - hence my Amsterdam panic several weeks ago - which Blake et al, were really cool about!

Hell, I remember my first jerky moments with cratez when I first joined the boards...

I guess I've learned/am learning that it's sometimes better to not post stuff.

[atomeyes]

my final say in this subject because its becoming quite silly.

my initial post a week ago was based on what appeared to be a pending announcement by Keep6. it wasn't meant to be a "I know something you don't know." i didn't think that it would take a week for an annoucement to be made.

nothing that i said was "loose lips sink ships." Keep6 said they had an announcement, i was excited by it and thought that others would be excited as well.

the mods locked it up and that's fine/understandable, since an annoucement didn't transpire.

so now people are crying because Josh Rubin let the cat out of the bag, which was then seconded by Dieu du Ciel and I posted accordingly?

good. be petty.

but at least enjoy a Cantillon while being so angerdly.

[JeffPorter]

Cantillon coming here is pretty awesome!

[Derek]

Battle of Wits?

[NRman]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/factua ... ernet,102/

Factual Error Found On Internet
MAY 22, 2002 | ISSUE 45•01 ISSUE 38•19

LONGMONT, CO—The Information Age was dealt a stunning blow Monday, when a factual error was discovered on the Internet. The error was found on TedsUltimateBradyBunch.com, a Brady Bunch fan site that incorrectly listed the show's debut year as 1968, not 1969.

Caryn Wisniewski, a Pueblo, CO, legal secretary and diehard Brady Bunch fan, came across the mistake while searching for information about the show's first-season cast.

"When I first saw 1968 on the web page, I thought, 'Wow, apparently, all those Brady Bunch books I've read listing 1969 as the show's first year were wrong,'" Wisniewski told reporters at a press conference. "But even though I obviously trusted the Internet, I was still kind of puzzled. So I checked other Brady Bunch fan sites, and all of them said 1969. After a while, it slowly began to sink in that the World Wide Web might be tainted with unreliable information."

Following up on her suspicion, Wisniewski phoned her public library, the ABC television network, and the office of Brady Bunch producer Sherwood Schwartz—all of whom confirmed that "Ted's Ultimate Brady Bunch Site" was in error.

Attempts to contact the webmaster of "Ted's Ultimate Brady Bunch Site," identified as Ted Crewes of Naugatuck, CT, were unsuccessful. The page has been taken offline by its host, Cheaphost.net, which released a statement Tuesday.

"We at Cheaphost were deeply saddened and disturbed to learn that one of the millions of pages we host contained a factual discrepancy," the web-posted statement read. "Please be assured that we are doing everything within our power to ensure that nothing of the sort happens again. We will not rest until the Internet's once-sterling reputation as the world's leading source for 100 percent reliable information is restored."

Paul Boutin, senior editor of Wired, said the error is likely to have a profound effect on how the Internet is perceived.

"Will we ever fully trust the Web again?" Boutin asked. "We may well be witnessing the dawn of a new era of skepticism in which we no longer accept everything we read online at face value. But regardless of what the future holds, one thing is clear: The Internet's status as the world's definitive repository of incontrovertible fact has been jeopardized."

Peter Luyck, 30, a Dallas-area graphic designer and frequent Internet user, was crestfallen.

"If it happens once, it can happen again," Luyck said. "I shudder to think that, one dark day in the future, misinformation could again make its way online. In fact, it may already have. How do we know that trusted sites like the Drudge Report and Fucked Company are as accurate as we instinctively trust them to be? Can we blindly trust that SpideyRulez.com is correct in its reportage that the upcoming Spider-Man sequel will feature Christopher Walken as Dr. Octopus? Pandora is out of the box."

Though the Brady Bunch error is the first confirmed instance of false information on the Internet, scares have occurred in the past. In 1998, an e-mail sent to a woman in Warner Robins, GA, made an unverifiable claim that she could earn thousands of dollars from an initial $5 investment. The claim was never conclusively proven false, and no charges were filed.