Expect some new faces- The Parker/Squire's Board goes subscription only

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
No one was ripped off. On the Internet, once you let the words go, they belong to everyone. Copyright protections are part of a later implementation.
Click to expand...

With respect, Jeff, I think the point is that Ebob contributions don't belong to everyone now, in practical terms; rather, they belong exclusively to Parker. Henceforth, nonsubscribers have to pony up to get at, for example, any tasting notes they may have posted there without archiving. Joe's comment is apt.

... I think more of Wine Disorder needs to be written in verse.
Click to expand...

Sharon wants our notes in verse,
Boone's Farm is bad, Mad Dog's much worse.
 
originally posted by politburo:
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Is what we post here property of WD?
Click to expand...
We haven't really thought about it.

Upon reflection, we suppose your posts are the common property of the People.
Click to expand...

An approach I can live with.
In the absence of a problem, why fool with it?
Best, Jim
 
originally posted by Jay Miller:
Jeff - you are painting the posters on the Squires board with a very broad brush.
Click to expand...
And Brad painted the posters on this board with a very broad brush. So?

regarding losses there were any number of interesting discussions and tasting notes (off the top of my head I deeply regret the loss of Jesus Barquin's notes on Sherry and Robert Thornton's discussions on Burgundy). Also I had various contacts only through PM on that board which are now gone.

The people who want to talk about Cal Cabs and Shiraz will migrate to Berserkers but there are any number of people who would add to this board.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry for your losses there.

What I saw there was thread after thread after thread after thread of macho competition and brainless points-slinging. Vast quantities of writing that I do not care about and do not care to slog through to find the three people writing something different.

You named two people. The subscription rolls had 15,000 names. The odds aren't good, even after a hefty discount.
 
There once was a chard from Valette
That oxidized faster than Tte
It wasn't that good
It didn't need wood
It needed a grape like clairette
 
WD could be made available only to those purchasing bottles at participating stores.
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:

But even I will admit that a post that wants to know what your drinking for Friday or your wines of the year sets off my avoidance attitude.
Click to expand...

Me too, but I do what you do. I avoid it. No big deal, though someone shouldn't be ridden because they make such a post and that's the kind of thing that frequently happens here.
 
In any case, it strikes me as kinda stupid that we're wasting time arguing about a purely theoretical influx of people. The number of new names that have posted since yesterday appears to be zero thus far. If that number passes ten in the next month, I'll buy and drink a white Burgundy. Somehow, I think my palate is safe.
 
I don't think it matters. People have been crying September forever, and the internet does just fine.

I also think it's sweet that Brad has the best interests of the board at heart. What a swell guy!
 
Well, it's true that ever since AOL unleashed Eternal September on the internet, things haven't really been the same. But you were, what, twelve then?
 
originally posted by Thor:
I knew someone would take me up on that. Note that I didn't promise to drink Mollydooker.
Click to expand...
A famous winemaker told me the other day that he'd consumed the entire Mollydooker line on a bet once. He said it took him a long time. He really consumed each bottle.
 
This thread is a good example of why we won't get a mass influx here. Other boards all have a thread on what happened at eBob and the sense that that may lead to better goings on over there. This is our version of that thread. It would lead any rational and reasonable person to head for the hills. And we will be left, as we always have been, with, well, what's left.
 
originally posted by Thor:
In any case, it strikes me as kinda stupid that we're wasting time arguing about a purely theoretical influx of people.
Click to expand...

I think "ironic" rather than "stupid" seeing as how we're all figments of Coad's (or is it Dressner's?) imagination and inner dialog with himself (or hisselves). Perhaps we can have more theoretical people show up and make it all the more interesting.

I'm with Kay on this - it's just words and discussion, bloviating and exposing our individual brands. All my interesting stuff when down with the Wine therapy ship anyway and the Wayward Tendrils haven't yet contacted me about doing a special issue compiling what I can remember I wrote. Maybe I could write better and with a heightened sense of profundity in the future? Whatever. I've been bounced outta better boards than Wine Berserkers before and it'll happen again, but I like every man (or woman) for himself (or herself approach running rampant on Wine Disorder.

Be it Kant, cant, rantin' about Romarantin, free verse or even just cheap verse, it's all okay by me. Except for the "what are you drinking this weekend" and "how big's your allocation" posts referred to by FL Jim above. Maybe I'm too easy to get along with for my own damn good....

-Eden (methusalems of Screagle and Moose are on their way but stuck in a UPS truck in the Sahara last weekend but I'm gonna pop them Friday night at my Thirsty-Two Ouncer party along with Flannery's lamb chops doused with a Mega Purple reduction sauce and slurpies made with 1967 d'Yquem I bought at Costco for $34 back in 1974)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top