originally posted by Levi Dalton:
One of the aspects that I have seen over and over again here on this particular place within the internet system is that if someone [Person A, let's say] is dismissive of a particular wine, a wine that is the result of (at least) a year's labor, that speaker is somehow seen as speaking the true word and the more courageous for it. But if somebody else [let's call him or her Person B] takes issue with how quickly the wine in question was batted away like a mosquito from the face, it is Person B, not A, who is called out as the asshole.
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa: Generally speaking, panning seems to generate more aura, more street cred, more entertainment value, even, than the opposite.
I don't see how this can be fixed. I suppose it would be possible to try to spend as many man-hours writing about a single wine as went into making that wine. But all you've done is ask for the elimination of the fields of wine commentary and wine criticism, because no one would or could do that. Certainly you have not, in any of the many essays you have penned. So why not just skip the intermediate step and say that this is what you'd like? That you'd like it if people who did not make the wine or sell the wine (the only two entities that could possibly spend that much time with a single wine) should be able to comment on it? It is, at least, a legitimate stance to take, even though it's not one to which you currently hold. Unless we're seen the last of your own writing, which I would regret.a wine that is the result of (at least) a year's labor
You know, if there's one place on the wine-related internet in which I don't believe this to be accurate, it's here. Certainly this and my other recent threads are direct contradiction of your assertion. But let's be careful that we're applying this blanket condemnation fairly. One can look through recent threads and see someone busily engaged in calling me an asshole doing this very thing to wines made in a way of which he does not approve, and spending no more time doing so than I've done here. Far less, actually. I note, though, that your finger-wagging only shows up in my thread. I will consider what you say, nonetheless, but I'd ask you to think about that.that speaker is somehow seen as speaking the true word and the more courageous for it
Even if what you assert is true, that is an...extraordinary...reading of this particular thread. Only one person has called your Person B any name at all. Person A, on the other hand, has had a rather different experience from multiple posters. It may be that in every other thread on the forum (except, I guess, those written by Person A), this is true. But it's certainly not true here, and so your contention is rather oddly placed, don't you think?it is Person B, not A, who is called out as the asshole
Marc, just an update: I had the Van Duzer 2003 Pinot Noir Homestead Block last night. This was about the time that started to dislike the wines. My note from a visit to Van Duzer in 2005:We drank a bottle of the 2002 Vanduzer recently, and the fruit was kind of shut down and missing, and there was a little too much charry oak. I thought maybe it needed more time, but I'm not that optimistic about it's future.
originally posted by Thor: If negative commentary is disrespectful because of time spent, then so is positive commentary, and neither should be encouraged under your admonition.
originally posted by Thor:
Levi, since your contention is legitimate and not pure personal invective (though I also do not mistake your personal motivation in offering this), I'm going to respond it to the best of my ability.
I don't see how this can be fixed. I suppose it would be possible to try to spend as many man-hours writing about a single wine as went into making that wine. But all you've done is ask for the elimination of the fields of wine commentary and wine criticism, because no one would or could do that. Certainly you have not, in any of the many essays you have penned. So why not just skip the intermediate step and say that this is what you'd like? That you'd like it if people who did not make the wine or sell the wine (the only two entities that could possibly spend that much time with a single wine) should be able to comment on it? It is, at least, a legitimate stance to take, even though it's not one to which you currently hold. Unless we're seen the last of your own writing, which I would regret.a wine that is the result of (at least) a year's labor
It's important, I think, to remember that your equivalence here applies equally to positive commentary; the dismissive "great juice" or some longer, more considered form thereof is equally imbalanced in terms of time spent on commentary vs. time spent on the product. If negative commentary is disrespectful because of time spent, then so is positive commentary, and neither should be encouraged under your admonition. If it's disrespectful because it's negative, then the time spent on the product is irrelevant, and all you want is commentary stripped of negativity. Something to which you also currently do not hold, for what it's worth.
You know, if there's one place on the wine-related internet in which I don't believe this to be accurate, it's here. Certainly this and my other recent threads are direct contradiction of your assertion. But let's be careful that we're applying this blanket condemnation fairly. One can look through recent threads and see someone busily engaged in calling me an asshole doing this very thing to wines made in a way of which he does not approve, and spending no more time doing so than I've done here. Far less, actually. I note, though, that your finger-wagging only shows up in my thread. I will consider what you say, nonetheless, but I'd ask you to think about that.that speaker is somehow seen as speaking the true word and the more courageous for it
But, for the record on the wine that seems to be a matter of such debate: of course it is possible that I've been wrong about Binner in the past. It's equally possible that I'm wrong now and was more right before. Or that I'm wrong or right in both instances. It's also possible that my tastes have changed, that the wine has changed, or that it was a leaf day and I should have been drinking something else. One could struggle with the impossible-to-assess nature of all of this, or one could return to the pretty safe and grounded notion to which I thought most held: that tasting notes are subjective opinion, and that's all they've ever been. Certainly that's all they've ever been for me.
Even if what you assert is true, that is an...extraordinary...reading of this particular thread. Only one person has called your Person B any name at all. Person A, on the other hand, has had a rather different experience from multiple posters. It may be that in every other thread on the forum (except, I guess, those written by Person A), this is true. But it's certainly not true here, and so your contention is rather oddly placed, don't you think?it is Person B, not A, who is called out as the asshole
It's true that tone is sometimes a problem, from me as much as anyone, and it's something worth thinking about.In all fairness to Levi, as much as I was responding along similar lines above and mounting a defense of criticism, I don't think his point was really about time spent but rather tone/respect for the winemaker and his/her efforts.
Yes, and I think this is really the key point. I think people can and should disagree about the wines. But if the choice is between arguing about the wines and arguing about how people talk about the wines -- talking about talking about wine, in other words -- I know which one I'd prefer.But if we're really going to get so bent out of shape because people don't approach wine (or art/automobiles/clothing/etc) the same way we do, then we're not going to get very far down the street everyday!
originally posted by Rahsaan:
What more delights can we expect from this land of residential metaphor?
originally posted by Rahsaan:
But if we're really going to get so bent out of shape because people don't approach wine (or art/automobiles/clothing/etc) the same way we do, then we're not going to get very far down the street everyday!
originally posted by Joe Dressner:
Larry:
I don't have an "agenda" against Thor.
Now that would be fun!I suppose if James Suckling wants to come on this board...
Maybe the politburo could set up a special page for this stuff, a sort of vinous octagon or Mixed Vinous Arts league. Joe "Rampage" Dressner takes on James "100 point" Suckling, 3 rounds, no filtration!This has always been a combative board and one of the reasons we all left the WLDG years ago. We can argue and can differ and it doesn't always have to be civil.
But what if he likes or admires you and doesn't want to be in uncivil conflict, productive or otherwise?Thorverson refuses to respond to me. This is not civil. Let him respond and maybe we can have some productive conflict.
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
One of the aspects that I have seen over and over again here on this particular place within the internet system is that if someone [Person A, let's say] is dismissive of a particular wine, a wine that is the result of (at least) a year's labor, that speaker is somehow seen as speaking the true word and the more courageous for it. But if somebody else [let's call him or her Person B] takes issue with how quickly the wine in question was batted away like a mosquito from the face, it is Person B, not A, who is called out as the asshole.
Which is bullshit.
I felt it would be hard to interpret post-flor plus "I am done listening to you" in a more positive way. But I would be tickled jaune to have been wrong about this. In any case, this is for email.Amazing what you read online these days.