while Levi may have overstated your case, you may also be overstating his objection.
Of course I am. Lawton and Malinoski demanded entertainment. How entertaining is reasonable semi-agreement? I'm a slave to the audience...
apparently Levi feels that you are imposing too narrow a criterion of "precision" and "definition" on your judgement of the wine
See, I don't think that's right. Levi's objection suggested that there was an unwritten but implied phrase in my note: "precision and definition
[akin to a Mosel]". If I had written that, I'd agree that it was an objectionable comparison. But I didn't. The comparisons to the Mosel (or Trimbach) were introduced by Levi, not me.
Maybe the problem is that I should have made explicit the other unwritten phrase: "...for a [whatever]". One could reasonably append that to many (perhaps not all) tasting notes. If I call a gewurztraminer tannic, which I sometimes do, I obviously don't mean to compare it to a Madiran that I call tannic. And the same applies here.
Lumped in with Brad. That's rough.
If you stand in the arena, you're going to meet some lions.
Maybe I brought up those points in too slapdash a fashion. If so, I apologize.
Oh, come on. The Michaels are going to be really let down if you continue in this fashion.
For what it's worth, I jeeb often enough with Mr. I Have Three Hundred Cases of Dnnhoff In My Cellar that I don't really feel contextually deprived on the subject. I'm all for gossamer wings, etc., I love Dnnhoff, and I really
don't want this wine to taste like Mosel kabinett, or (heavens) Trimbach. All I can do is repeat what I wrote in the note: this wine would have been better (more to my taste, if you prefer) with a little more precision or definition.