Ale in Autumn attracts hundreds of tasters

Sep 27, 2011 Read more: Journal-Register 27

More than 600 locals and visitors from around the region were armed with souvenir pilsner glasses and a map of tasting areas Saturday in Medina for third annual Ale in Autumn event.

Read more
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
disappointed

Batavia, NY

#1 Sep 29, 2011
just what we need 600 people walking around with beer. show the youth how it is done.
not so

AOL

#2 Sep 29, 2011
I think the youth already know how its done. Im all for lowering the drinking age back where it should be and thats 18.
Getting Older

Batavia, NY

#3 Sep 30, 2011
Isn't it strange that the only way we can get 600 people into downtown Medina at the same time is to give them alcohol? Twice a year we have to bribe them to come to town. Amazing.
MISTER ROGERS

Macedon, NY

#4 Sep 30, 2011
"MEDINA" it's the land of make believe.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#5 Sep 30, 2011
Right... so here are a few other ways a few hundred people show up in downtown Medina...

Thomas the Tank Engine
Cruise Nights
Parade of Lights
Memorial Day Parade
Old Home Days
Beggars' Night
BPO performances,
and others

So what if Medina has two events a year that cater to adults and where alcohol is served? There are at least three times as many events that cater to the entire family.

Can't rag on a village with active organizations trying to keep our small town businesses busy.
disappointedi

Batavia, NY

#6 Sep 30, 2011
you would think twice about having this event if you or a family member was a drunk.i would think 2 people could be smart enought to come up with a new idea..
disappointedi

Batavia, NY

#7 Sep 30, 2011
these other events have a great time.they are well done.what is an event that we have to have our police stand guard. who is paying them. you girls?if you want to run a bar get one together maybe it will bring 600 people to it .oh it won't be free then. try to get the rest, to get together for free give away of their food.do something diff.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#8 Sep 30, 2011
We do need more events - not disagreeing with you there. Just fail to see how these two events, one of which celebrates local wineries, a huge industry in our area, are a bad thing.

Two events a year, where you have to pay good money to participate, then walk around downtown door to door to sample a couple of tablespoons of alcohol, and you're concerned about it attracting a lot of alcoholics? That's a lot of work and money for a literally a little bit of alcohol.

Why bother when you have a liquor store downtown with plenty of booze, where for $20 bucks you can walk out with two jugs of cheap lighter fluid alcohol.
foster brooks

AOL

#9 Oct 1, 2011
I say have the event. Has there been violence or rioting? Destruction of property? I would bet not. This not in my back yard mentality whether its for business or events has been caused by our leaders and their over reaching laws. Rouge anti alcohol groups such as madd. It has achieved the goal of an up tight society with laws and regulations for any and every action taken that bothers someone. Land of the free my rear end.
disappointedi

Batavia, NY

#10 Oct 2, 2011
so you are saying lets have bars on every corner.if we didn't have laws we would have bars still open like 3rd base.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#11 Oct 2, 2011
@Foster Brooks: Wow - that's warping the facts, isn't it? I highly doubt MADD's purpose is to revert our country into its prohibition days. Their stated goal is to keep drunks away from vehicles which is a clear danger. What's wrong with that?

Are you implying that anti-drunk driving campaigns are some kind of rogue activity?

Look at the number of repeat offenders who get arrested 2-3 times, caught driving drunk after wrapping their cars around a pole, tree, someone else's car, or into someone's house or business.

When should we try to stop them, when they end up killing other people? How about the drunk-driving doctor in Buffalo, who even 5 hours after allegedly plowing into a skater and killing her, still had a .10 blood alcohol level?

Basic civics lesson - there is a huge difference between land of the free and land of the lawless.

The day when idiots stop killing innocent people while DUI is the day you can accuse anti-DUI groups of being anti-alcohol.
disappointedi

Batavia, NY

#12 Oct 3, 2011
why do people feel the need to go all over town with glasses of beer?do you think they care about the business? it is just one more way to get booze to someone.what is the purpose?their are so many good things to have. if each business would have a sample of what they do and have a cookie or coffee.has any one voted on it to see how many people want this?2 girls?
foster brooks

AOL

#13 Oct 3, 2011
Digital you make my point in your assessment of drinking and driving. There are all kinds of laws now. Has it stopped it? Anti drunk driving campaigns are a waste of time and money. They are feel good programs that make the stupid public think that their clueless leaders are doing something about it. Fact is until the person that drinks and drives gets caught its all being done for the other guy. People will continue to drink and drive. Some will kill someone maybe bend a fender but most will make it home 99% of the time. Mad was Nobel at first but now is just another political organization that gets funding from the government and yes if they could they would bring back prohibition. Arent they ones that convinced liberals in congress to set a .08 nation wide blood alcohol content? That is rouge and a subversion of the 10th ammendment. The criminal justice system needs drunks and drug addicts to fund their police, prison and counseling programs. After all would the local police have such good equipment if it wasn't for grants to enforce drinking, driving and drug arrest enforcement? IM not defending the staggering drunk but lets not kid anyone here. You could impose the death penalty and people would still drink and drive. Its not going away and any of you are just fooling yourself if you think that.
Digital Observer wrote:
@Foster Brooks: Wow - that's warping the facts, isn't it? I highly doubt MADD's purpose is to revert our country into its prohibition days. Their stated goal is to keep drunks away from vehicles which is a clear danger. What's wrong with that?
Are you implying that anti-drunk driving campaigns are some kind of rogue activity?
Look at the number of repeat offenders who get arrested 2-3 times, caught driving drunk after wrapping their cars around a pole, tree, someone else's car, or into someone's house or business.
When should we try to stop them, when they end up killing other people? How about the drunk-driving doctor in Buffalo, who even 5 hours after allegedly plowing into a skater and killing her, still had a .10 blood alcohol level?
Basic civics lesson - there is a huge difference between land of the free and land of the lawless.
The day when idiots stop killing innocent people while DUI is the day you can accuse anti-DUI groups of being anti-alcohol.
disappointedi

Batavia, NY

#14 Oct 7, 2011
this would go away if we had other people running it. let lisa and jim run it.good ideas,
Getting Older

Batavia, NY

#15 Oct 7, 2011
Who are Lisa and Jim? Hopefully they would have better ideas, morals and ethics than the two individuals running the business association. What a pair those two are.
disappointedi wrote:
this would go away if we had other people running it. let lisa and jim run it.good ideas,
disappointedi

Batavia, NY

#16 Oct 7, 2011
lisa trippensee and jim hancock they do the parades and the family events.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#17 Oct 7, 2011
foster brooks wrote:
There are all kinds of laws now. Has it stopped it?<quoted text>
So by your logic, we should not have any laws against murder and robbery either. After all, laws against that haven't stopped murder or robbery either.
foster brooks wrote:
Anti drunk driving campaigns are a waste of time and money. They are feel good programs that make the stupid public think that their clueless leaders are doing something about it. Fact is until the person that drinks and drives gets caught its all being done for the other guy. <quoted text>
Huh? So trying to educate the public about the danger of driving while impaired is bad because it doesn't work until a drunk driver gets stopped? And who's "the other guy" you refer to? The innocent people who get killed by drunks every year?
foster brooks wrote:
People will continue to drink and drive. Some will kill someone maybe bend a fender but most will make it home 99% of the time. <quoted text>
Right... you will say that until someone you know kills someone or themselves get killed. But hey, who cares as long as they make it home once or twice. Reality check - people who DWI don't just do it once or twice. It's a habit. And every time they get in a vehicle drunk, they are putting someone else's live at risk. Not their own, because they usually make it.
foster brooks wrote:
Mad was Nobel at first but now is just another political organization that gets funding from the government and yes if they could they would bring back prohibition. Arent they ones that convinced liberals in congress to set a .08 nation wide blood alcohol content?<quoted text>


You are right in that MADD changed its focus since it's founder started it, from driving drunk concerns to illegal alcohol use by minors. The founder even quit the organization because of it. But your flawed logic is assuming prohibition = driving drunk. Their stated purpose is to set limits on alcohol usage and driving. So if you're 20, perhaps that's neo-prohibitionism. But as it doesn't affect those of legal drinking age, then where does their prohibitionism kick in? Also, they were one group lobbying for a lower DUI level. The other group who was more influential than MADD, doctors. Yeah, doctors who see the victims of DUI accidents, who have to treat the staggering drunks who 3 hours later are still drunk after taking out a family, or a church bus full of people as it happened in 88.
foster brooks wrote:
That is rouge and a subversion of the 10th ammendment.<quoted text>
Way wrong... DUI laws are mandated by states, exactly because of the constitution. There is no federal DUI law. It just so happens that every state agrees to have the same BAC. The only time you will get a federal DUI charge is if you're on federal property, and that technically qualifies as its own "state" of sorts.
foster brooks wrote:
The criminal justice system needs drunks and drug addicts to fund their police, prison and counseling programs. After all would the local police have such good equipment if it wasn't for grants to enforce drinking, driving and drug arrest enforcement? <quoted text>
Say what? So drunks fund the police and prison systems... wow, you'd seem to think police are out to get alcohol away from the people.
Getting Older

Batavia, NY

#18 Oct 7, 2011
Oh yes, Lisa and Jim. I know who you mean. They do a great job for the community. Very involved and good at what they do and for no other reason than to make this a better place to live.
disappointedi wrote:
lisa trippensee and jim hancock they do the parades and the family events.
foster brooks

AOL

#19 Oct 8, 2011
Ok Robert what ever you say.
Digital Observer wrote:
<quoted text>
So by your logic, we should not have any laws against murder and robbery either. After all, laws against that haven't stopped murder or robbery either.
<quoted text>
Huh? So trying to educate the public about the danger of driving while impaired is bad because it doesn't work until a drunk driver gets stopped? And who's "the other guy" you refer to? The innocent people who get killed by drunks every year?
<quoted text>
Right... you will say that until someone you know kills someone or themselves get killed. But hey, who cares as long as they make it home once or twice. Reality check - people who DWI don't just do it once or twice. It's a habit. And every time they get in a vehicle drunk, they are putting someone else's live at risk. Not their own, because they usually make it.
<quoted text>
You are right in that MADD changed its focus since it's founder started it, from driving drunk concerns to illegal alcohol use by minors. The founder even quit the organization because of it. But your flawed logic is assuming prohibition = driving drunk. Their stated purpose is to set limits on alcohol usage and driving. So if you're 20, perhaps that's neo-prohibitionism. But as it doesn't affect those of legal drinking age, then where does their prohibitionism kick in? Also, they were one group lobbying for a lower DUI level. The other group who was more influential than MADD, doctors. Yeah, doctors who see the victims of DUI accidents, who have to treat the staggering drunks who 3 hours later are still drunk after taking out a family, or a church bus full of people as it happened in 88.
<quoted text>
Way wrong... DUI laws are mandated by states, exactly because of the constitution. There is no federal DUI law. It just so happens that every state agrees to have the same BAC. The only time you will get a federal DUI charge is if you're on federal property, and that technically qualifies as its own "state" of sorts.
<quoted text>
Say what? So drunks fund the police and prison systems... wow, you'd seem to think police are out to get alcohol away from the people.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#20 Oct 9, 2011
foster brooks wrote:
<quoted text>Ok Robert what ever you say.
Thanks for that deep, well thought out response. Speaks volumes.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Beer Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Wouldn't it have been easier... (Jan '11) Apr 8 was not worth the... 6
News Vats on their way to Halton Hills (Jan '11) Mar 23 BrewDog 3
News Vats roll through Hornby (Jan '11) Mar 23 BrewDog 5
News Pa. Lawmaker: Yuengling Snubbed at Gov.'s Inaug... Jan '15 Rusty Straub 2
News Pennsylvania Lawmaker Claims Yuengling Beer Is ... Jan '15 PayOff 1
What Celeb Would You Want to have a Beer with? Jan '15 Joesmith-RealName 2
News Golf courses get legal okay to keep selling beer (Jan '08) Jan '15 Mike J 27
More from around the web