I do think all too often writers (beer- and other) are incautious in their use of derogatory terms- superlatives, too. I make it a habit never to hit "publish" on a blog post until I've let it sit overnight + come back to it: good editing practice, but many bloggers don't actually have much in the way of editing--or writing--skills, and that can be a problem. Couple that with not understanding the difference between objective + subjective positions, and you get... well, the majority of squibs on BeerAdvocate + RateBeer, frankly.
Me? I write fast. I am sure it shows but I don't think of whipping off a blog post something that should take more than fifteen minutes. But that is why maybe Ethan is doing something like Community Beer Works in Buffalo and I napped all afternoon. While I'd like to think we both bring a certain style to our chosen tasks, I am pretty sure CBW is going to add more to the life of Buffalo than my lack of consciousness after the morning's dump run is going to add to the life of my town.
Which leads to another observation on the comments about sucking. I am not a big fan of qualifications when it comes to appreciating beer or fret that there is any great divide between objective and subjective experience of beer. It is, after all, only beer. Yet, when I look at who is making the comments, I am more than aware that most of the people who left a thought are, like Ethan, folk far more immersed in thinking about beer than I am. My thoughts only apply to me. So, on the one hand, beer is beer and, rather interestingly, can be enjoyed at many levels by folk of any number of degrees of engagement. On the other, it adapts well to deeper consideration and commitment.
Which means that any instance of beer may suck and not suck at the same time from equally valid but differing points of view.