Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Hmm. I'm pretty sure I hear this one attributed to Louis XV. This smells of revisionism to me.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trenel
- Thread starter Alice F.
- Start date
Hmm. I'm pretty sure I hear this one attributed to Louis XV. This smells of revisionism to me.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Or not.
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Let them eat cake!Or not.
Brioche !
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Neither, I believe.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
Lobster Thermidor?
Tête de cochon?
Tête de cochon?
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Lobster Thermidor?
I believe that was to celebrate Sardou's Thermidor.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
I hate how brioche is translated as cake.
David M. Bueker
David M. Bueker
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Lobster Thermidor?
With spam?
Mr. Doghead
Robert Callahan
Trenel.
Was Chadderdon's item of choice for years to force on people when they wanted something else he had that was a hot item.
So say you call to get some '89 Rayas. To get a case of that you would wind up with five cases of the unsaleably expensive CDR, two boxes of '86 Rayas red that was cooked in the warehouse along with a case of the "wonderful" '84 Blanc, and a twenty-case assortment of Trenel wines from the different villages along with a case of Crème de Cassis.
Back then Trenel made serviceable wines in something approaching a respectful way, which, by negoce standards in the region at that time ('80s-'90s), was very good. More recently they appear to have suffered from a loss of prime sources, and the wines are nothing special. The Cassis remains a good one, last I checked.
Was Chadderdon's item of choice for years to force on people when they wanted something else he had that was a hot item.
So say you call to get some '89 Rayas. To get a case of that you would wind up with five cases of the unsaleably expensive CDR, two boxes of '86 Rayas red that was cooked in the warehouse along with a case of the "wonderful" '84 Blanc, and a twenty-case assortment of Trenel wines from the different villages along with a case of Crème de Cassis.
Back then Trenel made serviceable wines in something approaching a respectful way, which, by negoce standards in the region at that time ('80s-'90s), was very good. More recently they appear to have suffered from a loss of prime sources, and the wines are nothing special. The Cassis remains a good one, last I checked.
Mr. Doghead
Robert Callahan
Whatever that means. It's all I've ever figured was worth doing, just to say what I think, I mean, though often enough someone will want something else.
I mean I understand just talking about other stuff, but then the whole wine-board aspect goes in the toilet, which is I suppose where it will end up anyway. And I understand the whole this-was-year-of-work-for-someone (or more than a year) objection to frankness but then I wonder what people who object would like me to say if not what I think, and when I get that squared I usually go ahead with extra gusto. Because I do or did honor the work involved as well as anyone, which is important. People who work hard or at least suffer hard deserve respect in a world with so many weasels living off the fouled and decomposing remains of others.
Sometimes talking about wine seems too easy and frivolous, but that's why I do it. And so I tell what I think and I do it straight and I don't worry about my tendency to talk about other things too. And if someone lacks sufficient frivolity to accept honesty from me on the wines and rigor on the work and failure to stick to the subject, I figure they're just vulgar little trolls who wandered in from Wall Street or Napa and found themselves on the wrong board. Hell, I made this damned board so I could talk like this and I -
Oh, I didn't make this one, did I? Well, more or less. Same thing. Same group of farm animals with a few new inmates. But listen, you just say what you think and if they can't take a joke you can always go on a five or six year hiatus.
What was the question?
I'm just typing trying to figure out this keyboard and I lost my train of thought.
I mean I understand just talking about other stuff, but then the whole wine-board aspect goes in the toilet, which is I suppose where it will end up anyway. And I understand the whole this-was-year-of-work-for-someone (or more than a year) objection to frankness but then I wonder what people who object would like me to say if not what I think, and when I get that squared I usually go ahead with extra gusto. Because I do or did honor the work involved as well as anyone, which is important. People who work hard or at least suffer hard deserve respect in a world with so many weasels living off the fouled and decomposing remains of others.
Sometimes talking about wine seems too easy and frivolous, but that's why I do it. And so I tell what I think and I do it straight and I don't worry about my tendency to talk about other things too. And if someone lacks sufficient frivolity to accept honesty from me on the wines and rigor on the work and failure to stick to the subject, I figure they're just vulgar little trolls who wandered in from Wall Street or Napa and found themselves on the wrong board. Hell, I made this damned board so I could talk like this and I -
Oh, I didn't make this one, did I? Well, more or less. Same thing. Same group of farm animals with a few new inmates. But listen, you just say what you think and if they can't take a joke you can always go on a five or six year hiatus.
What was the question?
I'm just typing trying to figure out this keyboard and I lost my train of thought.
originally posted by Mr. Doghead:
Whatever that means. It's all I've ever figured was worth doing, just to say what I think, I mean, though often enough someone will want something else.
I mean I understand just talking about other stuff, but then the whole wine-board aspect goes in the toilet, which is I suppose where it will end up anyway. And I understand the whole this-was-year-of-work-for-someone (or more than a year) objection to frankness but then I wonder what people who object would like me to say if not what I think, and when I get that squared I usually go ahead with extra gusto. Because I do or did honor the work involved as well as anyone, which is important. People who work hard or at least suffer hard deserve respect in a world with so many weasels living off the fouled and decomposing remains of others.
Sometimes talking about wine seems too easy and frivolous, but that's why I do it. And so I tell what I think and I do it straight and I don't worry about my tendency to talk about other things too. And if someone lacks sufficient frivolity to accept honesty from me on the wines and rigor on the work and failure to stick to the subject, I figure they're just vulgar little trolls who wandered in from Wall Street or Napa and found themselves on the wrong board. Hell, I made this damned board so I could talk like this and I -
Oh, I didn't make this one, did I? Well, more or less. Same thing. Same group of farm animals with a few new inmates. But listen, you just say what you think and if they can't take a joke you can always go on a five or six year hiatus.
What was the question?
I'm just typing trying to figure out this keyboard and I lost my train of thought.
+1
Levi Dalton
Levi Dalton
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Mr. Doghead:
Whatever that means. It's all I've ever figured was worth doing, just to say what I think, I mean, though often enough someone will want something else.
I mean I understand just talking about other stuff, but then the whole wine-board aspect goes in the toilet, which is I suppose where it will end up anyway. And I understand the whole this-was-year-of-work-for-someone (or more than a year) objection to frankness but then I wonder what people who object would like me to say if not what I think, and when I get that squared I usually go ahead with extra gusto. Because I do or did honor the work involved as well as anyone, which is important. People who work hard or at least suffer hard deserve respect in a world with so many weasels living off the fouled and decomposing remains of others.
Sometimes talking about wine seems too easy and frivolous, but that's why I do it. And so I tell what I think and I do it straight and I don't worry about my tendency to talk about other things too. And if someone lacks sufficient frivolity to accept honesty from me on the wines and rigor on the work and failure to stick to the subject, I figure they're just vulgar little trolls who wandered in from Wall Street or Napa and found themselves on the wrong board. Hell, I made this damned board so I could talk like this and I -
Oh, I didn't make this one, did I? Well, more or less. Same thing. Same group of farm animals with a few new inmates. But listen, you just say what you think and if they can't take a joke you can always go on a five or six year hiatus.
What was the question?
I'm just typing trying to figure out this keyboard and I lost my train of thought.
+1
Thanks for creating the Board, VLM.
Levi Dalton
Levi Dalton
I don't think anybody ever said "hey, this person worked a year on this so you can't say what you think." What was said was that if you take the product that someone spent a year on and you just decide to announce that it is toxic armpit sludge, that this would be announcement lacking in respect.
Once again I would point out that asking for respect isn't an attack on anyone's freedoms, rather it is a protection of freedoms, such as a freedom from defamation
Nobody is trying to bury the truth, or some such nonsense.
Once again I would point out that asking for respect isn't an attack on anyone's freedoms, rather it is a protection of freedoms, such as a freedom from defamation
Nobody is trying to bury the truth, or some such nonsense.
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Mr. Doghead:
Whatever that means. It's all I've ever figured was worth doing, just to say what I think, I mean, though often enough someone will want something else.
I mean I understand just talking about other stuff, but then the whole wine-board aspect goes in the toilet, which is I suppose where it will end up anyway. And I understand the whole this-was-year-of-work-for-someone (or more than a year) objection to frankness but then I wonder what people who object would like me to say if not what I think, and when I get that squared I usually go ahead with extra gusto. Because I do or did honor the work involved as well as anyone, which is important. People who work hard or at least suffer hard deserve respect in a world with so many weasels living off the fouled and decomposing remains of others.
Sometimes talking about wine seems too easy and frivolous, but that's why I do it. And so I tell what I think and I do it straight and I don't worry about my tendency to talk about other things too. And if someone lacks sufficient frivolity to accept honesty from me on the wines and rigor on the work and failure to stick to the subject, I figure they're just vulgar little trolls who wandered in from Wall Street or Napa and found themselves on the wrong board. Hell, I made this damned board so I could talk like this and I -
Oh, I didn't make this one, did I? Well, more or less. Same thing. Same group of farm animals with a few new inmates. But listen, you just say what you think and if they can't take a joke you can always go on a five or six year hiatus.
What was the question?
I'm just typing trying to figure out this keyboard and I lost my train of thought.
+1
Thanks for creating the Board, VLM.
+2
Mr. Doghead
Robert Callahan
If it's toxic armpit sludge, they're trying to bury the truth.
Two things. First, there are people, quite a few people, who will go to appallingly great lengths to keep you from saying what needs to be said, whether the subject is wine or something else. I've certainly experienced some of those lengths, though we need not discuss them now.
Second, nothing about "truth"-telling implies a lack of respect or compassion, and indeed the best cases suppose those things.
Second second thing, all these questions appear very simple and abstract until trouble comes your way. It's strange how talking about something so minimally important to core societal issues, like wine, can raise so many vital dysfunctions of discourse. If we could learn to talk reasonably and compassionately and honestly about one thing - any damned thing, we would be on a much better footing as a species with regard to getting to grips on what really plagues us.
Two things. First, there are people, quite a few people, who will go to appallingly great lengths to keep you from saying what needs to be said, whether the subject is wine or something else. I've certainly experienced some of those lengths, though we need not discuss them now.
Second, nothing about "truth"-telling implies a lack of respect or compassion, and indeed the best cases suppose those things.
Second second thing, all these questions appear very simple and abstract until trouble comes your way. It's strange how talking about something so minimally important to core societal issues, like wine, can raise so many vital dysfunctions of discourse. If we could learn to talk reasonably and compassionately and honestly about one thing - any damned thing, we would be on a much better footing as a species with regard to getting to grips on what really plagues us.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Tell me about it. I get a lot of shit here just for liking cinnamon raisin bagels. Until people learn to embrace difference, they won't be ready to tackle more important issues.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Levi's not really against civil discourse. This goes back to an older thread. He thinks that if you say certain things about a wine someone made in good faith, that amounts to dissing the person and not just the wine. And, in reverse, he thinks that characterizing a person who says such a thing about such a wine is well within the limits of civil discourse, therefore.
As a strict constructionist with regard to the difference between attacking the person and attacking the idea (or product), I disagreed with him, proceduralist that I am with regard to how to go about civil discourse.
But I don't think Levi was quite suggesting self-muzzling in the face of the good faith of the winemaker.
As a strict constructionist with regard to the difference between attacking the person and attacking the idea (or product), I disagreed with him, proceduralist that I am with regard to how to go about civil discourse.
But I don't think Levi was quite suggesting self-muzzling in the face of the good faith of the winemaker.