the king of foofarallitude

“Drinkability,” as a rating of a beer, has to be among the most egregious bullshit terms ever devised by man. Drinkability. Drinkability. In a peer-reviewed paper (a peer-reviewed paper), drinkability is defined as “A beer that … invites the drinker to another glass.” Stop. Right. There. STOP. Stop, stop, stop. Right. There.

Drinkability is the category a brewer uses to hype his brew when every other category one can use has failed him:

“The customers think our beer tastes like gravel. They say it tastes like watered-down gravel.”

“That’s one of the categories?”

“No, that’s just the write-in votes.”

“Have you asked about wetness? Or fizziness? Or foofarallitude? How does our beer do on foofarallitude?”

“It’s not looking good, sir.”

“Hmm. Have you asked them about its drinkability?”

“Not yet. What’s that?”

“I don’t give a good goddamn what it is, just ask them about it. They’re going to get tired sooner or later.”

“Okay. How do you want me to spell that?”

I hate people.

This entry was posted in curmudgeonhood, fear for humanity, humor, money. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to drinkability

  1. drew says:

    More than one desperate hiker in the Sierras has found that, in a pinch, his own pee possesses a marvelous drinkability.

  2. Anonymous says:

    You clearly have ESP. The brewmaster of my favorite local brewpub didn’t approve of the results of the 2007 xmas tasting and he attributed it to the participants not appreciating “drinkability”. He wrote “Big is fine, but balance is more important.” I am appalled to hear a brewmaster say that. There are so many times when I only want one beer — one huge killer beer — bursting completely over the top with flavor. And that beer fails his drinkability test. What BS. (His full comments are on the pub’s website, you know which one.)

  3. arcturus says:

    Anonymous (above) is absolutely right! I was thinking the same exact thing when I wrote that.

Comments are closed.