U
Unknown
Guest
this man is taking it way too personally, and he didn't even make the wine.
I think I'll try something on Eric next time.
Nobody's fault but mine
- Thread starter Thor
- Start date
this man is taking it way too personally, and he didn't even make the wine.
I think I'll try something on Eric next time.
U
Unknown
Guest
wow, what's the term for sugar premox ?
starting my meds first thing in the morning, not responsible for what I'll be posting. Cleared with politburo not to disable id.
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
Or he's had an advent visitation from a gaggle of harmonizing angels. His obesity's inner vision plainly encompasses more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the philosophies of normal mortal clay. And I mean that in the best possible way.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
I'm against Christmas spirit, and I think the argument against the distinction between argument and ad hominem attack can be made, although I don't think it has yet been made well here. Suppose the debate were about the old philosophic chestnut, what is a good life. In order to make an argument for one position, one has to disapprove of another philosopher's idea of a good life, thus more or less explicitly disapproving of that philosopher's deepest value systems. When Nietzsche raged against Socrates for saying on his deathbed that he owed Aesculapious a cock (thus suggesting that death was a cure for the disease of life), it really is impossible to say that the attack ad hominem isn't also an argument against a position he found detestable.
Fatboy to the contrary notwithstanding, however, good manners still matter. And in most areas, it is possible to formulate criticisms so they are not attacks ad hominem. And differences in language aren't without reality because they are linguistic differences. So maybe I'm only formally a nice guy, but "only formally" is a category that only matters to those who think that some categories are natural realities, or as fatboy's guy would say, natural simples.
And for those who don't want to read all that, it all means, happy holidays after all.
Fatboy to the contrary notwithstanding, however, good manners still matter. And in most areas, it is possible to formulate criticisms so they are not attacks ad hominem. And differences in language aren't without reality because they are linguistic differences. So maybe I'm only formally a nice guy, but "only formally" is a category that only matters to those who think that some categories are natural realities, or as fatboy's guy would say, natural simples.
And for those who don't want to read all that, it all means, happy holidays after all.
Bill Lundstrom
Bill Lundstrom
jonathan, i am way out of my league here but.... why couldn't one argue a position for a good life and another argue something different, but both agree that either position is valid?
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
About 15 years ago I wrote a review of ten shows by Brazilian artists in NY for a Brazilian art magazine. Some shows I praised and some I panned. One of the artists whose work I panned commented, to a mutual friend, that I must not like him. Since I knew him and actually liked him quite a bit, I was amazed that he could make such a deduction. When I later told the story to my shrink, hoping for sympathy, he shook his head at how thoroughly unwise to the ways of the world I was. To an artist, whose work is a huge part of their self-representation, not liking their work will often register - emotionally - as not liking them. Perhaps something similar could be said of vignerons.
It seems particularly typical of the unfair sex to rely upon the rules of logic to be technically intelligent and emotionally retarded at the same time.
It seems particularly typical of the unfair sex to rely upon the rules of logic to be technically intelligent and emotionally retarded at the same time.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Well, positions about how to lead one's life (the good life)generally entail ideas that alternative practices are important delusions. One couldn't think as Nietzsche did that the most vital thing one could do was to live one's life as if it were one's own artwork (let's stipulate that that was his position, for the moment) and think that living one's life in the hope of ultimate Christian redemption was "equally valid."
From the perspective of constructing a liberal state, or even a wine board that means to encourage the free exchange of views, of course, one can demand that the state or the board treat both views as "equally valid" and, as nearly as possible, refuse to take a position on what the good life might be. And individuals within such a state, or on such a board, might coherently therefore, as citizens, choose to comport themselves as if they believed that other choices were equally valid and restrain themselves from attacks ad hominem even when they are logically entailed. And it's probably important that they do so. But that won't stop their judgments about how to live their own life, alas, alas, from entailing judgments about alternative choices.
John McIlwain
John McIlwain
I believe it was Wallace Stegner who said, "It's just as hard to write a bad novel as it is a good one."
So I'd imagine it's hard to divorce criticism of the wine from one's efforts among the vines. I suspect it takes a greater courage to strive for terroir or purity; I am grateful for those who have it.
Best,
John
So I'd imagine it's hard to divorce criticism of the wine from one's efforts among the vines. I suspect it takes a greater courage to strive for terroir or purity; I am grateful for those who have it.
Best,
John
OK.
A few points.
1. Don't take this the wrong way, but who are you to hold me to account?
I suppose my comment, taken in isolation, might seem to be as you characterized it. But it isn't. It is the result of a long and, in the end, fraught relationship with those wines. Much of it documented in this community whether here, the old therapy or asylum or WLDG.
I read your response and while it was a litany of impressions, I didn't really get an explanation for our differences. Sasha came closer with the granite explanation (which has also been used to explain the unusual fruit profile).
2. How much are we supposed to put in a post and who has the time? I mean, do we all need a signature that lists our experiences? How do you know what I am "qualified" to write about? While I do not consider myself the last word on German wines or Donnhoff, I have certainly done enough to have an opinion. For me it was terribly disappointing to come to where I did with respect to those wines.
3. While I gave up on Wittgenstein (not smart enough) and avoided Nietzsche (not taught as philosophy), I do believe that we need to distinguish between being negatively critical of a product or an idea and doing the same of a person. While the two regularly get conflated, we should strive to separate them. I'm used to having my ideas attacked on a regular basis by people I know, like, and respect as I am sure you are. It's sort of the nature of the beast. Why should wine be any different? Are vignerons such delicate creatures that they are unable to sustain any criticisms?
VLM - do you like the Dnnhoff wines when they're young, say, in the year after bottling? My suspicion is that their aging curves are different. I haven't had quite enough to tell, but the middle-aged ones (8-25 years for the kabs and spats) I've had in the last two years suggest that further patience may well be rewarded.
Levi Dalton
Levi Dalton
One guy says a wine is like a "fetid armpit glazed like a donut".
Another guy says that such a comment is smug and anti-wine, and asks what the purpose of such a note is.
One is commenting on the wine. The other is commenting on the criticism.
Both sides are remarking on the product of a person's work.
Why does the person commenting on the criticism get called out as an asshole?
This is my question.
U
Unknown
Guest
i'm no one.
the more pertinent question is who are you to assert that donnhoff doesn't age?
i'm just the sucker who asked.
all of which i've read. i had a pretty good of where the opinion was coming from -- it is why i asked.
i thought sasha's description was a great piece of writing. i was with him when he drank the bottle he described. i think you have to drink the wine to understand its greatness, but i think he did capture some of it.
you told me the wines you'd tried. there are dudes out these who think that it's a good idea to lead off with a diss when they meet hot girls. if they do this often enough, and if their success rate is as it ought to be, they sometimes end up bleating about women being bitches (apologies to our female inmate). my opinion of your assertion based on your sample is that it's no more valid than this.
see, our difference of opinion is easy to explain: you don't have the experience. i know this will offend some of our "everyone has the right to an opinion" comrades, but it isn't my fault. i can't go back in time and fix that.
so i wasn't trying to convey an impression. my goal was more practical. given you've been drinking the wrong wines at the wrong times, it seemed like it might be helpful to point you to the wines you should drink now if you are interested in how donnhoff ages. i have shared all these wines on countless occasions with many of our fellow inmates, and many of our lurkers too. when any one of them has had the right donnhoff, at the right time for drinking it, i have not once failed to see the light of understanding shine in them.
if you have had these experiences, and many people here have had them, the idea that donnhoff fails to age is about as credible as the idea that marc ollivier makes bad muscadet. experience shows that it is simply not true.
so, while i respect your honesty (you didn't bullshit, and claim experience with wines that you haven't tried, as some people might), the fact that you are still bleating about this, and still wandering about claiming that donnhoff doesn't age based on the sample you described beggars my belief.
it's also worth recalling that you decided to belch this opinion -- with much implied authority -- because someone who admitted their naivete enquired. while it's all good fun to watch the deaf blinding the lame, there comes a point where even an uncouth slob such as myself will feel impelled to step in a save a poor rube from being taken for a ride.
you are welcome to an opinion. you are even welcome to make the claim that donnhoff doesn't age. and i'll be happy to remind you that you that you are talking out of your ass whenever you do.
criticism is one thing. bullshit is quite another. as much as you feel entitled to your opinion on this one, by your own admission you have no real experience of aged donnhoff, so, uh, you decide.
fwiw: i was sincerely curious about your comment about the secondary notes in the 98s, since the last hh auselse i tried was anything but secondary. after our conversation, i popped a 98 hh spaet -- it was tight, and slimmer than i remembered, but again, there were no secondary flavors (like the auslese, it is both more open than one might expect at this stage, and also less evolved). to be honest, its overall smell / flavor profile hadn't much changed since release (it also made me regret going light on 98, since unlike the 97s which i think have only gotten blousier, the 98s appear to be heading towards a better, more structured place than i once thought they would end up. es tut mir leid.).
i was less than impressed with the condition of some of my skurnik shipped donnhoffs from 99. they weren't cooked in an obvious way, but they were far more advanced and generally lumpen than identical wines from a batch i flew out from europe -- based on your description of your 98s, i'd have to say that not only do i think that your sample was flawed, but it sounds like your samples may have been too.
fb.
Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension, or bring less bias to your reading. I refer to the comments I have quoted below.
These comments are not comments on the criticism but comments on the person. I think it's disgraceful that there are as many on this board who stand up for such comments as who oppose them.
Levi Dalton
Levi Dalton
Are you making a comment about me? Should I take offense?
Physician, Heal Thyself.
I certainly am talking about you (at least).
I leave it as an exercise for the reader as to whether or not my comments above are in the same category as Dressner's quoted comments earlier.
EDIT: BTW, I note that you have no defense of your earlier statements, but are merely attempting to change the topic.
Levi Dalton
Levi Dalton
No, I just think your comment is silly.
My defense is still looking to an answer to the question I posed originally and just again now. Why is the second guy the asshole? The first guy spraypainted verbal graffiti and was called out on it. That's pretty much how I see it.
It is also far from the first time something like this has happened here, with an array of different persons involved. The first person is incredibly dismissive about a wine, as if it were nothing at all, less than nothing, actually, and a second person steps in to call them out for being so dismissive. Each time it is the second person who is made to feel that they should apologize. It does amaze me. It just goes to show how comfortable people have become with the idea of the unsupported internet takedown of a work (whatever it might be) or place. It is commonplace now. There is no guilt involved whatsoever, a little need for any evidence.
Unfortunately, there's not much I can offer that will not restart two separate fights I've already said I won't have here on this forum. If you or anyone else actually cares about how I'd respond, you know how to reach me. But the negative value of offering it here just now is so immense that I just won't. Too raw. Sorry.
Well, I can't comment on general trends much, because I don't follow those threads very closely.
In this case, though, "was called out on it" whitewashes what actually happened. More like "was gangbanged in the back alley." Calling someone out can be done with the sort of ugliness that has been pervasive in this thread. If you think that the level of personal invective in Thor's original post is on the same order of magnitude as what he has received in return, then you are being willfully blind. If you are serious about reducing the invective in the discussions here, you won't do it by ignoring the bullshit spewed by those who are on your side of the debate, and you won't do it by making comments like you did above that show that you have an extreme bias in how you look at these events.
Levi Dalton
Levi Dalton
Lee, perhaps the difference here is that I have seen this all first hand in the past. I have seen people's work get disparaged for no good reason, and with little attempt at understanding.
Maybe you would understand better if the Ghost of Christmas Past took you around to some of the history involved. Anyway, I don't care to.
Hopefully you'll never have such a drive by happen to you or things you think are worthy, because of that fact that people started getting called out.
Maybe you would understand better if the Ghost of Christmas Past took you around to some of the history involved. Anyway, I don't care to.
Hopefully you'll never have such a drive by happen to you or things you think are worthy, because of that fact that people started getting called out.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
I'll try this once more, though, since we've had the argument before, I doubt it will help. The words "smug" and "anti-wine" characterize a person's identity, not a comment. "I find this comment incorrect with regard to what it says about both odor and taste, so much so that I don't even know how it was arrived at" is a comment on the comment. The first statement extrapolates from the second to a judgment of the person who made it and is usually best avoided.
The difference is analogous to the difference between saying "this wine is like a fetid armpit glazed like a donut," and "this wine could only be made by either an ignoramus or someone with the secret desire to torture via the tastebuds." If you can see this difference, you can apply it backwards to the first one. If you can't, then you should just accept that others can, even if you think they are seeing a distinction without a difference.