Terry Theise and yeasts

[MLipton]

originally posted by SFJoe:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Back when they were in grad school

Mark always was the good looking one.

Sez you! Joe always had the better wines, tho.

Mark Lipton

 

[SFJoe]

originally posted by MLipton:
???? Is there a typo in your first sentence?

Yes! Corrected in original.

My apologies to our board colleagues for the inconsequential diversion.

 

[Claude Kolm]

originally posted by fatboy:

originally posted by Claude Kolm:


First, if you knew anything about my tastes, you'd know I don't go to the high extract guys -- I leave them to some of my colleagues whose seem to appreciate them more than I. I only have time to visit producers whose wines I like, and I am a finesse guy, certainly more so than anyone I know who is writing except possibly Gilman, who in any case is not very far off from where I am.

Some of the wines I'm referring to are quite elegant (at least for the appellation, as one I am thinking of produces several Cortons, not an inherently elegant appellation). Another producer seems to be the universal choice these days for the best around in Pommard -- again, not an elegant appellation, but the resulting wines are not rough or rustic. A third produces wines from some of the more powerful CdN appellations (Gevrey, Nuits, CdV), but also makes some superb and fine Echzeaux and one of the best Suchots around, and even the wines from Gevrey etc. are well balanced and not like some of the other producers there.

i actually mean this with the greatest respect, but it's the problem that comes with being a writer. you are a finesse guy (i believe you) but your examples are all sites that produce the opposite of finesse (there is a damn good reason why jayer's cros parantoux was higher regarded than his echezeaux, and it is that the latter, in comparison, lacks finesse). i understand that writers have to be relatively comprehensive, but i am also genuinely puzzled as to why anyone would actually want to do it to their self.

and -- also with the greatest respect -- it leads to an odd situation that is in some sense anti-terroir: where people are encouraged to think, "oh, i like burgundy. there's no chambolle on the list, so why don't i plump for a pommard. i know the name, and the points guys liked it."

here's the thing: it makes little sense to care too much about terroir at all if people aren't going to be encouraged to put the time in and actually learn the terroir and acquire the experience to find the subtle discriminations therein, and to have a relationship with a given terroir and even given winemakers. yet what the the shnooks and even writers inevitably do is promote the idea of wine as an inter-changable product: what schnooks and writers promote is the idea that people should focus on drinking the 'finest' of whatever -- irrespective of origin, and hence terroir.

at some level, to trot out my standard metaphor, the whole idea of wanting to be a generic wine expert is like the desire to have a wonderful monogamous relationship with your wife while banging every hot chick you see. it's like, sure, we all want to, but...

fb.

I don't understand your post at all, especially the part about interchangeability of wine. For me, each wine is different, and I look at it for what it is and what it expresses from its origins. Accordingly, even vintages that I generally don't like (say 1997 for red Burgundies) teach me something about the terroir and the producer.

It just so happens that the producers that I know who are producing wines more or less according to Accad method mostly are not in (relative -- compare a Pommard with, say, a Chteauneuf or an Hermitage or, the way it's being produced these days, a Cte-Rtie) finesse appellations. That's neither my fault or theirs, just the luck of the draw, although one of them that I refer to produces a lovely Chambolle village and has with 2009 added one of my favorite Chambolle premiers crus and does a superb job with them as well as wines from Vosne and Flagey. But the fact that those are my favorite areas does not prevent me from appreciating and loving specific bottles of Pommard, Corton, etc., and I don't see why it should.

One of the things about terroir is that you see it (or don't) in each cellar, notwithstanding greatly different styles in the cellar. The idea that Chambolle, Volnay, etc. exists above the producer simply is not true to my experience. The terroir is the music, the producer is the interpreter of the music, and the variability for interpretation can be vast, notwithstanding the fidelity to the music.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by David Lloyd:
My other point is that acetone and acetic acid are not so good for us yet many "Natural" wines I am encouraged to try have acetone, acetic acid or 4EP type compounds many of which totally mask the terroir. I guess I tried to make too many points in a short note.

Shazam!

 

[Steven Spielmann]

fatboy -

What do you think of Rush Rhees' (arguably internal) critique of W's approach in said passages by way of e.g. the practical and human-level unity of conversation?

Also, I am finding it surprisingly difficult to find a direct counterexample to your claim off the cuff, since saying stupid things about Wittgenstein is the norm for disciples and critics both, but Peter Winch I think is an example of someone who at least 'got the memo' from those passages.

That said I don't endorse the view myself, as apparently you do.

 

[Unknown]

originally posted by Steven Spielmann:
fatboy -

What do you think of Rush Rhees' (arguably internal) critique of W's approach in said passages by way of e.g. the practical and human-level unity of conversation?

Also, I am finding it surprisingly difficult to find a direct counterexample to your claim off the cuff, since saying stupid things about Wittgenstein is the norm for disciples and critics both, but Peter Winch I think is an example of someone who at least 'got the memo' from those passages.

That said I don't endorse the view myself, as apparently you do.

wittgenstein was an engineer at heart, which is why philosophers (who wouldn't know an engineering problem if it bit them on the ass) ignore the sections in question, which represent a cogent and comprehensive demolition of the kind of data structures philosophers take for granted in their theories of mental processes.

because of this, the question of whether or not one endorses his views on concepts is irrelevant.

one can either answer his criticisms (which, if you have the vaguest understanding of information or coding theory, you'll realize isn't going to happen), or else you can assume that the picture of language that underpins analytic philosophy is wrong, and try and figure out what is really going on (wittgenstein would be the first to acknowledge that in this regard, his work was largely negative: he was better at the first part of this program than the second).

these aren't the only alternatives, of course: there's always bullshit and mysticism (or chomsky, if you prefer not to choose between the two).

fb.

 

[Steven Spielmann]

Curiously, I was pointed back to this thread by the link from Thor's blog, after reading Oswaldo's post.

Fatboy, if you have any citations or texts you'd like to point me to, I'd love to learn more about what you're talking about. I understand the point about W being an engineer I think in relation to those passages, but not the application you're making of it.

Or, alternately, you could just expand on the picture of language you think analytic philosophers have and W's criticisms of that picture here.

I understand from hearsay that you're a real scientist and may not have the time or inclination to do this, but I'm happy to learn from you prior to quarreling vituperatively over minutia.