As a long-term CAMRA-sceptic I do rather relish the spectacle of the organisation's bluster and prattle being put under the microscope by people who know what they are talking about.
Just as authoritarian regimes in North Africa and the Middle East attempt to quell revolutions that have been enabled and catalysed by the information-sharing characteristics of social networking, CAMRA's chairman attempts to discredit those he sees as dissidents. If CAMRA possessed water cannons they would have been sent to the Beer Bloggers' Conference.
Central to CAMRA's ethos is the tenet that cask beer is good, keg beer is bad. I don't know if this is explicitly stated anywhere but it is writ large in the organisation's activities: annually it publishes a book called "The Good Beer Guide" exclusively about cask ale; it prohibits keg beer at its events and seeks dissuade pubs and brewers from selling keg beer.
As we all know, the problem for CAMRA is that good keg beer does exist*. Therefore the core tenet is fallacious.
In order to divert us from the awkwardness of this contradiction, CAMRA apologists tell us that that the cask:good/keg:bad is not CAMRA's belief.
Here's Tandleman in the comments on Zythophile's piece: "Anyone that thinks that is daft. But I don’t think CAMRA actually says that". Disingenuous or what?
So, Tandleman and CAMRA friends: if cask:good/keg:bad is, as you say, not the belief of CAMRA, why does CAMRA bother to exist? What is it about real ale that makes you "campaign for" it if "real ale" and "good beer" are not synonymous?
*Good keg beer is acknowledged by CAMRA only if it is foreign, as Johnny Foreigner doesn't know any better.