The mayoral candidate hinted at his legal defense: “They say they’ve been using this trademark since 1984. I’ve been using it since 1963.

1963 is an excellent vintage.

I have moderate preference for 1964, the year of my own decanting. Though I was in fact laid down in 1963...

Though I was in fact laid down in 1963...

I am very proud of myself for resisting the temptation to go straight to the gutter with that.

As head of the WSFS Mark Protection Committee, I'm sympathetic to both sides of the issue. As the comments show, there's a bit more to the story than meets the eye. The brewers do have a responsibility to protect their trademark -- that's why I get antsy over people using "Worldcon" to refer to any convention other than the World Science Fiction Convention, for instance -- but I think it pretty obvious that once all the facts are straight, that Adams-the-candidate isn't violating Adams-the-brewery's trademarks.

Kevin (Decanted August 27, 1965, as it happens)

Overall I think the early to mid 60s were produced a very good vintage.

I do actually get what you're saying about trademark stuff, and agree completely with you. I just thought it a little amusing that Sam Adams the Brewery didn't quite do all their homework before sending their cease and desist order to Sam Adams the Candidate.

I emailed you this link, but thought I'd post it here too:
http://syndicated.livejournal.com/daily_kos/4868988.html

To sum: car guy with 8th grade education using off the shelf GM parts creates Hummer that runs on biofuel, gets good mileage and doubles the horsepower. GM says "This is Unpossible!"

Arg. In my absence from Nuevo Rancho Lake, the mail room staff is running below target efficiency standards. Those responsible will be sacked.

Not a problem. :) Hope you enjoy the article.

--- Some spoilers, but nothing that hasn't been in the press ---

Actually, I don't agree that Dumbledore's being gay was okay to be excluded because it wouldn't have added anything to the story. Rowling said that D's biggest asset and biggest flaw was his capacity to love, and his love of G was an expression of that. Love is a theme throughout the book, and because including this information would have supported that theme, I think it should have been included. If the object of D's love was someone that didn't have anything to do with the story, then I would agree with it being left out.

It's always good for the author to know more than the reader, but at the the same time, it feels like Rowling is doing a lot of wrap-up outside the book, and this all feels like author cheating, or maybe regretting that she didn't write a tighter story.