KimyReizeger

It was routinely reported in the whackier sections of national newspapers a couple of years back. Having been intrigued I logged on and found it to be pretty pointless. The idea was that real currency could be converted into in-game currency and vice versa. A few people got really successful inside the game, and therefore, in real life.

What sort of stuff are you writing? Got anything online?

Bizarre. It's like reading another language.

For once I am in complete agreement with Old Gold on this debate.

It is not a FACT that 18% beer is more dangerous than 4% beer. Far from it. You're ignoring the "facts" by coming to that conclusion.

Let's assume that Tokyo has not been banned. You can buy Tokyo on the Brew Dog website. I have never seen it advertised anywhere. It costs 10 for one bottle. Tennent's lager is available for less than 50p a can in Tesco. Don't try and convince me that the far more difficult to get hold of bottle of Brew Dog that costs 20 times the price of the can of lager is more dangerous. That is just utter nonsense. The stark reality is that people who will abuse alcohol will not sit themselves down for a bottle Tokyo. It is going to be an acquired taste, not easy to chuck back, and just more difficult to get your hands on. You have to order it and wait for it to come in the post! Tennent's is available in nearly every pub in Scotland (not at 50p a can obviously) and in every supermarket at a very affordable price.

The chances of someone drinking 10 cans of Tennents for a fiver are far higher than the chances of someone drinking 1 bottle of Tokyo. And, the person drinking 1 bottle of Tokyo is almost definitely going to be the kind of person having a bottle of beer on a Friday night in their house, and staying there, rather than the kind of person getting tanked up on a Friday night in a public park/mate's house/pub before going out and starting some sort of trouble.

A bottle of 330ml 18% beer will get you more drunk than a bottle of 330ml 4% beer, if both are drunk over the same time scale.

What you're arguing is that people wouldn't drink Tokyo over the same time scale, and in fact alter their drinking speed to suit the alcohol content.

Speculation over the length of time people in the future will drink at is highly questionable.

Your personal opinion on the subject is pretty worthless.

I don't think drinkers rationalise as much as you say.

You're still ignoring my implicit suggestion that you're an easily manipulated, senseless consumer willing to lap up anything you're told is cool, an idea which is far more interesting than your personal reflections over this ABV crap.

In essence, I just don't think drinks should be cool. The marketing of booze is so see-through:

WKD 'everyone's got a wicked side',

Guinness 'the craft, the art, the refinement' etc. The ritualised pouring.

Tennants Football and music, 'Wherever it takes us, whatever it takes' (used on the Scotland side's world cup campaign.

Carling: male chauvinism (bloke lying around all day, burd comes home and asks him to clear up yadda yadda)

Strongbow: The idea of a working class

Brewdog: ideas of music, philosophy, oppression.

It's as if your drink choice accurately reflects your personality, politics and national identity. I think that's a bit of a sad situation to be in. I'm fine with people being connoisseurs of alcohol, but I feel uncomfortable about the powerful effects of image and advertising. Tennants, we'd possibly all agree, tastes like dishwater. However, the majority of Scottish beer drinkers drink it. Why is that? Is it because the company have worked themselves into a position of trust and accurately identify with the political and social views of their customers? That's a ridiculous reason to drink dishwater. Why do countries like Belgium and Germany offer so much more choice?

My first response and your response to your question about why BrewDog was popular on here, I don't quite understand why you feel the need to say your not attacking the company when YOU produced the fact about the 18% beer, which makes me feel you were waiting to use it as 'an attack'. You could have asked why they were sticking two fingers up at the government, which would have resulted in the mentioning of the nanny state beer, the problems with the naming of the beers they produce and the fact that the government and the industry aren't happy about the fact that they won't bow down to them.

Also I don't remember ever having seen an advert about any of their beers appearing in print or on tv (apart from the James May program on BBC 2).

You got the answer to your original query 3 pages back (post 131) but yet you carried on with what appears to be a crusade against the company and people who know how to handle their alcohol properly, despite everyone who has responded on this thread telling you that you are basically arguing for argument's sake.

Anyway none of this matters any more as they have been banned from selling it Mr Portman bans Tokyo*, but who complained? and have stopped selling it on their website Buy Tokyo | BrewDog Beer which was the only place you could buy it anyway.

My initial reason for entering the thread was, that I was intrigued people could get so uppity about a drink. I then discovered Brewdog endow their booze with all manner of aspirational messages and associate it with things like ideas and music.

The irresponsibility issue: I'm just trying to understand it, and I think the fact that strong beer is more harmful than weak beer is about as factual as you can make it. Arguing about your own drinking habits and ability to hold ale is mostly irrelevant. I still don't understand the argument, really, but I'm not going to start saying things like, 'yeah, 18% beer, yeah that's fine, that fits in well with the current state effort to reduce binge-drinking and alter attitudes towards drinking, oh yeah, totally. Peas in a pod.'

Currently reading 'Big Chief Elizabeth'.

It's all about Elizabethan forays into America. It's interesting: first interaction with native Americans, treachery,deceit, abandonment. Breakdown of Anglo-Spanish relations, piracy, weak commanders, strong commanders, the recruiting of colonists fatigued by the filth, disease and crime of London, persuaded to leave by promises of status and land in the New World.

Tokyo* has been banned by the nanny state. Fuck you, Portman.

Why they don't they ban Buckfast too? There is a seriously unhealthy culture surrounding that drink.

I don't think its worth getting outraged over though. I mean, the Brewdog company are getting outraged. Outraged all the way to the bank that is. All it does is re-affirm their 'alternative message'; indeed almost martyring them. Fundamentalist Brewdog drinkers will simply be consolidated in their convictions.

There is only one true drink! Brewdog Akbar!

Are you saying that we can't deal with traditional 'bands' of alcohol products being skewed like this?

and by 'bands' I mean a broad generalisation of alcohol content by terms such as beer, wine, spirits, etc.

I'd say there is an element of confusion yes. Most people's conception of beer is fairly rooted in the 4-6% mark, and they may be inclined to treat any pint along those lines. I know I've drunk strong wine in the same manner as I've drunk weak wine.

Though this is a fairly difficult point. I think the fact that 18% beer is more dangerous than 4% beer (same size bottle drunk over same amount of time) says more about why people were angry over Tokyo than any personal reflections of mine.

Another personal anecdote:

That time I drank Chimay Blue, I totally belted it down in about two gulps. We ordered them because they were the strongest. It wasn't about quiet, relaxing, sociable, safe drinking. It was about getting pissed. It's also one of the few times I've ended up at the casino.

Yes the 18% bottle of beer will get you more drunk, but I'm guessing (having not actually tasted the beer) that the beer is also a heavy beer that you couldn't down in one, and i would guess that it would also take the same length of time to finish as maybe 5 bottles of the 4% beer (again a guess having never tried it).

Are you against the production of a 18% beer, the producers of the 18% beer or the marketing of the 18% beer?

Honestly have you been a victim of alcoholism, had your life ruined by someone who was under the influence of alcohol or just lost someone close to you through alcohol?

If someone is going to abuse alcohol they will use whatever they can get their hands on, be it 18% beer, cheap white lightning or hoarding alcohol from parties and hiding them. Even if you can control what they get, they will end up hiding bottles all over the place, it's amazing what people will lie about when they need money for drink, and if they have a problem they want the largest volume of the strongest alcohol for the cheapest price, so a 330-440ml 18% beer costing 10 a bottle will be further down the list then a 3 litre bottle of white lightning costing 3.

Trust me there's nothing more fun then playing hunt the vodka bottle, or spending boxing day night convincing a friend who has been binging, that life is worth living and trying to drown himself in the sea isn't the best thing in the world.

You seem to be trying to pick on something that isn't an issue to the people you are arguing with, and when people answer your little digs you change the goal posts and pick on something else.

How can my former question regarding the 330ml bottles be construed as 'an attack'? I just asked you to answer the question. I am not biased in any respect. Just trying to affirm something: An 18% beer is more dangerous than a 4% beer. Simple. Maybe that goes some way to explaining why there was a bit of an outcry about Tokyo. You can lay out all the 'oh but it's rich and expensive and people don't drink so much of it' arguments you like, but that is just personal speculation. The only fact here, is that an 18% bottle of beer is more dangerous to consume than a 4% beer. I'm not making a judgement on that. I'm just trying to affirm something.

I wish you would make up your mind what your arguing about.

That's the thing. I never came in looking for an argument. Rather, to generate some conversation about the brand image of Brewdog. I was drawn into making comments on the irresponsibility thing. I have nothing against Brewdog. Their success or failure is irrelevant to me. I admire their ability to capture imaginations through marketing, but cannot get excited about their aspirational message and ridiculous association of a beer brand with music.

These statements would be true if the producers of the 18% beer were mass producing them and selling them in packs of 20/24 for 10.

e.

Ok:

One 330ml bottle of 18% beer will get you more drunk than one 330ml bottle of 4% beer.

Which bottle of beer is more dangerous?

That could be said for anything.

For example a kettle. Can a company stop a person from stciking their face right into the steam of a boiling kettle? No.

So should we ban kettles?

So you feel it is wholly an individual's responsibility to not drink too much.

Therefore you're against closing times for bars, curfews in nightclubs, minimum drinks prices?

Personally I think it's well proven that there are lots of people who aren't able, literally aren't able to control themselves in the realm of alcohol, something which necessitates regulation. Nanny state yes, but we asked for it.

That's more like it, although some might still argue with the second statement.

Because they feel that it is the consumer's duty to use a product correctly / not abuse it.

Neither an ale nor a beer has the capacity for responsibility.

I know, it's an extremely confusing way in which to talk, and perhaps explains the dearth of 'outraged' responses on this thread.

18% beer is more dangerous than 4% beer.

The producers of 18% beer are more irresponsible than the producers of 4% beer.

Bull shit. Samichlaus, 14%, very popular among ale drinkers who actually drink it for the taste. They have one bottle, then leave/move on to a light ale. I know because I've sold it to plenty of folk that do exactly that.

Yeah, I don't think all strong beer is objectively bad and regret suggesting otherwise. I like that Chimay Blue stuff in the Moorings. However:

18% beer is more likely to produce drunkenness than 4% beer.

18% beer could be called, I believe, on the basis of the above statement, 'less responsible' than 4% beer.

This is not to suggest that Tokyo is 'irresponsible'. Simply, that it is 'less responsible' (than average strength ale).

Brewdog's marketing technique also contributes something to the argument.

In some respects Brew Dog is as much a fashion accessory as a drink, clearly targeted towards a certain group of people.For example, you guys have already tried to distance yourselves from teenages, those on low-incomes, binge-drinkers and old people like me with uncool views. This simply reflects the fact that you think your drink choice really says a lot about you.

Mid-20s? Have a bit of cash? Love music? take an interest in what you consume? a connoisseur of sorts?

Drink BrewDog!

And what the hell is wrong with me having a go at this company? Would you complain if I had a go at Starbucks? Just because I don't agree something is cool when it like totally is.

CAMRA Celebrates 100,000 Members - CAMRA 100000 all boring and alcoholics!How do you know peeps here wouldn't go for an Eisboch if it was readily available.The fact that strong beers are brewed and consumed all over the word speaks volumes.

But doesn't a large part of the argument against Brewdog derive from the fact that their products are marketed towards youngsters? I'm not saying I care what other people do to themselves a great deal, just making the point that its entirely within the UK's current stance on the alcohol issue to reject strong alcohol, and the glamorisation of drinking. Drinking shouldn't be glamorous, surely? Isn't that what's got us into this mess? Why not make heroin cool too?

And I presume nobody else finds the idea of punks buying shares funny. I mean, that notion just goes whooshhh over the head. Thanks for the politics and the idealism - and Fuck the Queen - but seriously, when a beverage company floats, I'm there. How much do prospective investors know about the drinks industry? How long do gimmicky newcomers last? Does the company actually make money? Is it actually being sold in many places? Do regulations pose a threat to profits? Is there a question of ethics when it comes to investing in alcohol? Liking something is not necessarily sound reason to invest real money in it.

Wrong...Eisbock is a traditional Kulmbach specialty beer that is made by freeze distilling a doppelbock and removing the ice to concentrate the flavor and alcohol content. Alcohol content ranges from 9% to 31% by volume. It is deep copper to dark brown in color, often with ruby highlights. Head retention is frequently impaired by the higher alcohol content. It has a rich, sweet malty flavor, balanced by a significant alcohol presence. It has a clean, lager character with no hop flavor. Examples include Schneider Aventinus Eisbock, Kulmbacher Reichelbrau Eisbock, Eggenberg Urbock Dunkel Eisbock, Niagara Eisbock, and Southampton Eisbock.

The above Wikipedia quote does little to explain anything other than 'a strong beer was brewed somewhere else', of which no-one is disputing. I just suggested that few people find them palatable, which I think is corroborated in the fact that the most popular beers sit between 3 - 6%. I don't think anyone here goes to their local for an Eisbock very regularly.

Why not? If by "making an event" you mean trying something new or intriguing then yes.

I mean it turns the act of drinking into a focal point. If you go out looking forward more to the drink than the conversation then you're either an alcoholic or have very boring friends.

I actually can't remember the last time i drank beer so that i could get "trashed". I actually enjoy the taste of beer and its refreshing qualities. Even so, i don't feel the need to over-indulge (that's not to say that i haven't when i was younger though) so please don't tar everyone with your overly judgmental brush.

Yes, there will be plenty of people that will drink an 18% beer just so they can get trashed and brag to their mates, but equally there are a lot of people for whom that couldn't be further from their minds.

I don't think many would find 18% beer palatable. Whether or not they brag to their mates, surely drinking such strong beer is to 'make an event' out of drinking.

It's publicity stunt; shock tactics.

By the way I'm genuinely amazed anyone has given me negative rep for criticising a company and the practice of advertising. Would you have done so if I pointed out a few facts about Starbucks and their advertising? I'm not even criticising anyone here!

Are car manufacturers irresponsible in making a car that can exceed 100mph? I wouldn't say so. Misuse by the person at the other end would be irresponsible in my eyes. They are providing the product for the consumer to do with as they see fit. No different to producing a beer that is stronger than some others if you ask me.

Manufacturers aren't so easily detached from responsibility over those buying their products; cars are required to conform to safety regulations set by government.

At a time when we are really trying to mend what is a completely fucked up drinking culture, absurdly strong ales are simply unwelcome. I can understand that.

They are providing the product for the consumer to do with as they see fit.

Presumably you'd prefer a world where everyone was able to consume whatever they wanted and the consequences would be theirs alone? Should guns and heroin be legalised by the same logic? I'm not exactly keen on regulation, but 18% beer just reeks of publicity stunt, because no-one drinks it for any other reason than to get trashed and tell their mates about it.

A new business starting up in a totally saturated market would likely have to have strong branding to make any money. A colourful design and a funky name on the bottle would kind of stands out sitting next to St Andrew's Ale on the shelf in Sainsburys.

They make tasty beer, they make a living from it, they get to open a bar because they've done well... all cool stuff to get to do, I want that.

Good points. Attractive logos and aspirational messages are exactly what brands are about. The 'you can do it too; local boys done good' thing also helps. It's attractive, sexy and seems somehow attainable.

Keiran, you describe yourself as 'oblivious to the existence' of marketing spin. That's exactly what great marketing is all about! You need only have looked at the labels: 'Trashy Blonde' (which I think is a great name), 'Punk IPA', 'Zeitgeist'. It's all about appealing to a youth market where ale has never previously prospered.

Regarding strength: 7.6% is, relative to the beers commonly available in this country, way higher than the average. It's Diamond White, Super Tennants, Special Brew territory. BD can certainly be classed, by your measurements, producers of 'strong' beer, if not irresponsible. That said, I'd suggest the stronger you make a beer the more likely it is to produce drunkenness, wouldn't you?

No, the fact people (myself included) think their beer tastes good is a reason to drink it. The fact it is good beer probably contributes to the success they are having.

Yeah, I agree taste is a pretty sound aspect on which to base drink choice. I would question that strength and identification with 'values' are as solid. Having had conversations where people bang on about Brewdog I think the latter plays a large role. Much in the same way that companies endow whisky with all manner of mysticism and elitism, most of it is marketing spin. The question is, to what extent do you feel comfortable being influenced in such a way? Generally, people involved with music and art shy away the hallmarks of capitalism, which makes the whole 'equity for punks' thing somewhat ironic; a merger of two traditionally opposed cultures.

Did this poster not stir up shit in the vegan thread in a similar manner?

KimyReizeger is beacon of non-conformity on a increasingly monotone aberdeen-music.

KR is proud to be an intrepid David in a desperate ocean of insipid Goliaths.

KR is proud to be an alternative.

You'll never quash this pesky troublemaker!

Do you want to have a go at the threads about the real ale festivals that are on here as well?

I mean people only having 3 days to get drunk on as much real ale and cider as they can must surely encourage binge drinking!

Pick any forum here and start this discussion about a real ale encouraging alcohol abuse.

I think it's irresponsible, but not to the extent that I actually care or would suggest they shouldn't have made it. Sometimes irresponsible things are good. Sometimes things that harm are also good.

I think 18% beer is confusing and should be classed as something else. Also, I don't think beer should be marketed with pomp and glamour. Furthermore, it completely contradicts increasingly tight regulations on drinking.

Whether or not I care is irrelevant. The word 'irresponsible' is a better way to describe it than the word 'responsible'.