TOPIC:

"noby":34cp57et wrote: Tis but a guideline.[/quote:34cp57et]Sounds prescriptive to me.

"May I make an Irish stout with 61 IBUs?"
"No you may not."
"Fine. No stout for you then."

Though this may be a cunning attempt on the part of the author to win more competitions, since the BJCP gives[/url:34cp57et] 30-55 as the acceptable range for stouts like Guinness, Murphy's, Beamish and O'Hara's.

Certainly no lifting from other sites due to copyright reasons, and because we want to put our own mark on things, otherwise we could just link to all these other resources. Also a glossary should be explaining what something is, and not prescribing or guiding values etc. Simple definitions in other words.

The stub for the Glossary has already been created by the way, but it'll be a few weeks before it is published. In the meantime, keep requests and definition candidates coming.

I'm not sure how extensive the glossary needs to be though considering the wealth of information currently out there. Should it be relly explaining the [i:1auahe06]very [/i:1auahe06]basic stuff, or concentrating on areas where people seem to have difficulty?

maybe two sections...the basics, and then the more in-depth stuff?

&amp;quot;Adeptus&amp;quot;:2n2p2me1 wrote: Should it be relly explaining the [i:2n2p2me1]very [/i:2n2p2me1]basic stuff, or concentrating on areas where people seem to have difficulty?[/quote:2n2p2me1]How arrogant of you to assume there's a difference <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt="" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D -->

I think any term that is in every day use* to mean the same thing ("water"$$ "grain"$$ "boiler"$$ "bottle") can be safely left out. Everything else ("malt"$$ "hops"$$ "liquor") should go in.

*[size=75:2n2p2me1]by normal people. If anyone knows any normal people it might be useful to have them on board for this.[/size:2n2p2me1]

Grand, brewing jargon explained basically.