Nitro vs Non-Nitro

Everyone who disagrees with you is troll or a hater. Sweet, sweet, foolish internet logic.

 

leave it to Tut to define absolutism.

CO2 is natural in beer. CO2 good.
Nitrogen is natural in air, but not in beer. Nitrogen, bad.

so then...
Cocoa? bad.
coffee? bad.
oak? bad.
hops? bad. what the hell, hops don't naturally occur. they're added. Tut doesn't like hops. fair enough.
finings? bad.
smoke? bad. sorry Bamberg.
fruit? bad. sorry Lambic.

I guess I am having a tough time with the

because I know I have respect for the natural brewing process. but I guess I was wrong.
Thanks for clearing things up Tut!
feel free to inform anyone what is ok and what isn't ok in beer.
Cheers

 

What a brilliant, insightful post to make on a thread specifically about opinions of the pros and cons of nitro-dispense.

I'm surprised you didn't say: "If you don't like it, don't drink it OR discuss it - I think there should only be a pro-nitro love fest on this thread ".

Absolutely brilliant.

 

The title of the thread is nitro vs non-nitro. It rekindles a long running difference of opinion here. Why do you consider those in the non-nitro camp trolls. Did you expect it to be a pro-nitro lovein?

 

I'm stating my opinion about it, just like you. Apparently you don't think I should be doing so. Is that because you disagree with it? I thought this thread was open to both sides.

Cheers

 

there is, quite simply, no difference between adding nitrogen to beer or adding anything else to beer. how is that distortion? opinion is great. don't mean to suggest otherwise. but your reasoning is weak imo.

why do those of you in the "nitro sucks" camp feel the need to single out nitro dispense as some sort of abomination (to use another's words)?

from what we know, nitro is not like cask. cask is great. nitro is sinful. or something.

one thing is sure though. anytime someone brings up nitro dispense you and yours will be right there to let the world of BA know that it is very distasteful. to further the point, we will be told about the good old days of England, the beauty of cask, the joy of Guinness and how nobody appreciates this wonderful distinction.
blah blah blah.

those days are over friend. you can have cask, you can have nitro. you can have everything else and then some. isn't it great? I want friggin cask on nitro, just to watch the end of the world!

I apologize for being antagonistic. I'm just as passionate as you I suppose.
Cheers.

 

Discussing pros and cons is one thing.

Just saying "nitro beers suck" (i.e. what many posts in this thread boil down to) is another.

 

Fine, I respect your passion and your right to a different opinion. What I have trouble with is your apparent feeling that those who dislike nitro have no right to express theirs when the topic comes up. This thread is titled Nitro vs Non-Nitro - it literally begs to rekindle the long running controversy.

Even though you may be tired of hearing our distaste for nitro, you can't expect the topic to come up without us weighing in. There are always new members who aren't aware of the controversy and haven't heard the differing viewpoints.

You make a valid point about the "naturalness" of some of the other additions to beer. I'd be glad to discuss it later when I have more time - if we can bury the hatchet.

 

And just saying "nitro beers rock" is what many other posts have boiled down to. I've been consistent in explaining in detail why I think they "suck". You can do the same for your side.

 

i like how this turned from comparing nitro v. non nitro to "'fuck you nitro sucks' 'no fuck you nonnitro sucks'"

 

Quoting the original post for reference, I'd just like to bring up that the OP was considering the effect nitro has on a beer in a side by side comparison. I know the OP also asks for a general "what are your thoughts." However, saying "nitro is an abomination" helps no one.

You can dislike nitro all you want, but saying "nitro is bad because it mutes flavor" is much different than saying "nitro should be poured straight down the drain."

 

A few months back I had red chair side by side. I definitely preferred the one on nitro.

 

The only side I'm on is the one that's tired of seeing people go into threads about beers/breweries/styles they don't like just so they can post purely negative comments.

 

What is your problem??


I didn't "go into threads about beers/breweries/styles they don't like just so they can post purely negative comments."

The thread is about nitro beers as opposed to non-nitro beers. In other words, which of them do you like?

Why is posting a pro-nitro opinion OK , while posting a negative opinion is wrong, according to you??

 

You can dislike nitro all you want, but saying "nitro is bad because it mutes flavor" is much different than saying "nitro should be poured straight down the drain."[/quote]

Awwww, somebody's a little sensitive.

Would you accept "nitro is bad because it mutes the flavor and, due to that, it should be poured straight down the drain.".

 

I've had a couple side by side and I've found I prefer the nitro. To each their own.

 

Surprisingly, not everything is about you.

 

Once again, those of us who dislike nitro have just as much right to post our negative opinions in this thread as you, and others who think it's a good thing, have to post your opinions.

 

I was at AleSmith a couple weeks ago and had Anvil ESB on tap and on Nitro. Both were delicious but the Nitro was better. Smooth and creamy and so easy to drink. I could have sucked those down all day!! As a matter of fact, I think I did

 

Tried Southern Star Buried Hatchet on nitro last night and really enjoyed it. I was already a big fan of Buried Hatchet before and was surprised at the difference it made being on nitro. Very subtle carbonation, smooth, and very creamy head.

While I did enjoy it I think I will still like the regular carbed cans of BH just the same but will look for nitro when available.