I know this is against the rules

originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Joe_Perry:
WA being the Wine Advocate.

Squires being Squires.

It's like a new episode of "Lost" which is really just a mix up of the last (however many) episodes.
Click to expand...

Except his target was one of the finest wine journalists in America.

I'm still in awe, but I don't watch Lost.
Click to expand...

Jamie Goode?

Don't get me wrong, I think it is funny as Hell, but just more of the same.
 
I seem to have a talent for social interactions with those deemed unsuitable by the Politburo.

I suppose that's better than having no talent at all.

F
 
We dined once with squires here in Madrid. All I can say is, though he seemed a nice enough guy, I got a sense that we were being treated as scholars receiving a master class...
 
originally posted by Chris Coad:

SPILL! SPILL! DETAILS!
Click to expand...

Hey, you've already come up against the name of the Russian-born porn broker who shan't be named. What more do you want?

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Yixin:
Mark SquiresI've had dinner with him once, and he was fairly affable, as I recall. My view is that life is typically too short and precious to get too worked up over online conflict, and that it's far better to be fairly catholic in one's choice of dining and drinking companions, because there's always more to learn/discover, and online interaction (including e-mail) can often distort negatively.

That said - Kane is wrong and VLM is a silly little fuck.
Click to expand...

Actually I really am an egotistical prick with self-esteem issues in real life. Ask anyone.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by rdtrimpi:
originally posted by SFJoe:
Why don't you check it out and report back?
Click to expand...
And if I told you I had?
Click to expand...
I'd say you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.
Click to expand...
On further reflection, you know, I might add that his behavior and posture in his public and official capacity is rather more important to me personally than his ability to behave himself during the course of a dinner. Perhaps this is because he has a position of minor significance in the wine world. Perhaps also because I have a scientific history and the constant editing of evidence bothers me particularly.

But let no one accuse me of a summa, unless it's the bartenders at the Plough and Stars.
 
What exactly is Dr. Miller being accused of doing? I don't understand this part of the argument. If there is not a real charge, then please leave the Jayster alone.

A lot of very silly mud is being thrown around here. I would at least like to know what Jay is being accused of doing. I'd like to read a precise charge.

Parker runs a partisan wine board. No one has a democratic right to be a participant. Squires might be heavy-handed but I don't see why anyone in the non-Parker camp, particular someone who knows the wine world well, would want to participate on that forum other than to generate publicity for themselves at Parker's expensive.

I've never been on that board because I don't like its direction and the boards general view of wine. There's plenty of other places to participate or to blog. Furthermore, I have to see my oncologist and my mothers nephrologists too frequently to be thrown off a board by Mark Squires.

The only journalist I know who literally takes nothing is Eric Asimov. The Times gives him a budget to go out and buy the wine he reviews. Otherwise, everyone takes free wine samples to evaluate and it is hard to fault them. A good critic goes through thousands of wines a year and the budget to acquire each wine is prohibitive. The better critics go and visit the growers they review and taste at the domaine. Tanzer and Josh Reynolds largely do this, for instance, as does David Schildknecht and others.

Much of Parker's activities are tastings organized sur place. His spring Bordeaux tasting have traditionally been done in Bordeaux, he tastes Chteauneuf in Chteauneuf, etc.

I draw a line though at the free meals and free gifts and free trips. Parker, Tanzer and Asimov and all the best critics will not accept a penny. No free bottles for personal consumption, no trips, no free luncheons, etc. Yes, there are very few critics in America who have the resources keep up to these standards, which means there are very few good wine critics who can be trusted. No one has to be a wine writer and why not just have a day job and keep it honest.

I've never been in the position of defending Parker but life has taken lots of strange turns for me lately.
 
Parker doesn't claim that he runs a partisan forum. We know that's what it is, but he positions himself as supporting free and wide-ranging wine discussion. Between that kind of disingenuous bullshit, and the fact that TWA has entirely too much influence, I wouldn't be at all disappointed to see Parker knocked down a few pegs.
 
originally posted by Chris Coad:
Parker has a forum? In the sense of a wine chat board like this one? Robert Parker, the Wine Advocate guy?
Click to expand...

One and the same. Shocking, innit? Who knew?

Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by rdtrimpi:
originally posted by SFJoe:
Why don't you check it out and report back?
Click to expand...
And if I told you I had?
Click to expand...
I'd say you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.
Click to expand...
On further reflection, you know, I might add that his behavior and posture in his public and official capacity is rather more important to me personally than his ability to behave himself during the course of a dinner. Perhaps this is because he has a position of minor significance in the wine world. Perhaps also because I have a scientific history and the constant editing of evidence bothers me particularly.

But let no one accuse me of a summa, unless it's the bartenders at the Plough and Stars.
Click to expand...
As in Clement St., in SF? Are you an Irisher?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top