Cory Cartwright in the NY Times!

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I wasn't arguing for giving Parker any benefit of the doubt, just for not making overinflated claims that everything he says is just "not."
Click to expand...
And where did I make any such claim?
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
I'm under the impression that Tennessee had British settlements from about 1757 on, and that in those days colonies such as Virginia had no western boundaries, and that would include North Carolina, I guess. (A lawyer down the hall from me is from KY and tells me that all the old land records from KY are VA land records.) Also, that after formation of the union, eight western counties in North Carolina broke off and tried to become a separate state, but didn't succeed and had to go back to NC, eventually being ceded by NC to the federal government and becoming a federal territory, and then being incorporated as part of TN when TN became a state. So it seems to me, TN was part of one of the 13 colonies.
Click to expand...

Under this formulation, California would be part of one of the 13 colonies. A lot of the original charters for the colonies made land claims that extended all the way to the Pacific.
 
originally posted by Yule Kim: Under this formulation, California would be part of one of the 13 colonies. A lot of the original charters for the colonies made land claims that extended all the way to the Pacific.
Click to expand...

True. But in practice things looked a lot different west of the Mississippi River.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I wasn't arguing for giving Parker any benefit of the doubt, just for not making overinflated claims that everything he says is just "not."
Click to expand...
And where did I make any such claim?
Click to expand...

You made such a claim here:

"It would only be silly if experience didn't validate that reading, but in fact ample experience confirms that virtually every non-first growth since the 2003 vintage that he either verbally praises or scores above 92 is unpleasant and unclaretlike, and virtually every winery he has condemned as "not what it used to be" is, in fact, exactly what it used to be. To ignore this experience solely to give the benefit of the doubt to Parker's palate would be silly."

I admit that the "virtually" counts as a weasel word qualifier. But otherwise, your first sentence says that, except for first growths, if Parker scores the wine above 92, it is bad and if he says the winery isn't what it used to be, it is what it used to be. In other words, both Parker claims are to be revised, simply adding "not" to them. And you made this claim precisely in response to my first version of the statement that such a claim was silly. And, as I said, it is falsifiable from your own list of wineries that you say have not changed.
 
Jonathan, you are simply wrong. You accused me of saying "that everything he says is just 'not.'" I said no such thing, as the text you yourself quoted amply proves. I pointed to TWO kinds of statements he make where, based on extensive experience, I am able to conclude that the opposite is true. That is a far cry from "everything he says," and you know it.

The word "virtually" is not a "weasel word," either. It is meant to acknowledge the obvious truth that no rule of thumb is absolute. But that doesn't mean it's not a good rule of thumb.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Jonathan, you are simply wrong. You accused me of saying "that everything he says is just 'not.'" I said no such thing, as the text you yourself quoted amply proves. I pointed to TWO kinds of statements he make where, based on extensive experience, I am able to conclude that the opposite is true. That is a far cry from "everything he says," and you know it.

The word "virtually" is not a "weasel word," either. It is meant to acknowledge the obvious truth that no rule of thumb is absolute. But that doesn't mean it's not a good rule of thumb.
Click to expand...

1) A weasel word is a philosophical term for words that make sentences less than absolute while not specifying what the less than absoluteness is, thus protecting the statement without really confining it. It isn't accusing you of being weasely in any wider sense. "Virtually" here could be used as an example of the term in its definition.

2) You are right that you point out only two kinds of statements. Those statements are any one that says Bordeaux x is good beyond a certain level, to which the answer is "not," and another that says any Bordeaux x has changed for the worse, to which the answer is "not." You haven't yet said that any Bordeaux he says is bad is good, directly, though it's hard to see how this wouldn't have to follow very nearly as a consequence of the first sentence. If everything he says is very good is bad, then only things he says are less than very good are good. It's still logically possible to assert and be consistent with what you already have asserted that some things that Parker says are any good are in fact any good. But from this set, we have to subtract any Bordeaux x that he says is not good because it's changed for the worse. If on those slim grounds, you want to claim that I say you are claiming that one can read Parker systematically by adding "not" to his evaluations, I am simply wrong, you will be right, but not interestingly so with regard to the original dispute.

3)It remains the case that if you like the wines on your own list of those that have not changed and still make good Bordeaux, you do like wines to which Parker has given more than 95 and so have made a statement to which you do not really subscribe.
 
You are still wrong but now you are being even more annoying about it. You ascribed to me an absolute statement I never made, and now you are saying that I don't really believe the statement I did make because I don't believe the statement I did not make.
 
Levi, had the '97 recently. I dismissed it upon release as facile, and am now regretting not buying any back then. And a '94, all Gravesian grace. Heck, I even liked the '03 a couple of years ago.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
You are still wrong but now you are being even more annoying about it. You ascribed to me an absolute statement I never made, and now you are saying that I don't really believe the statement I did make because I don't believe the statement I did not make.
Click to expand...

Let's try again. What did you mean that would not be a statement that said if Parker rates the wine x or higher, virtually every time, I won't like it?

And then, even the statement that sounds as if it is a more confined one, if Parker says a Bordeaux has changed for the worse, it hasn't. What is the basis for this event unless you also think that what Parker thinks is less than good in Bordeaux, you think is good? Is it simply a cosmic accident? If so, why point it out?

And if you didn't mean what I have interpreted you to mean, why, after I called you out on it the first time, based on my drawing implications that were much less than certain, did you make the statements that confirmed the implications?

And finally, what do you make of the fact that Trotanoy and VCC have both received higher than 95 ratings from Parker since 03 and Cantemerle still gets in the low 90s since then as it has before (unless shelf posters are lying)? Do these wines fit in your "virtually" category?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top