I think your literalness is missing Yixin's point entirely.
Not that Sir r slicker's chubby point here and the later one aren't totally sensible too, albeit along a somewhat different line, IMHO.
originally posted by Jay Miller:
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
originally posted by richard slicker: i will have my henchmen defenestrate
Per Urban Dictionary...
To uninstall software from a Microsoft operating system, usually in frustration.
. . . . . Pete
Hilarious definition. Thanks!
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
calloused detachment
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
I think your literalness is missing Yixin's point entirely.
Not that Sir r slicker's chubby point here and the later one aren't totally sensible too, albeit along a somewhat different line, IMHO.
Cold coffee, Kirk, imho: as rhetoric, the hyperbole of the metaphor is so exaggerated as to backfire - it distracts from and undermines Yixin's point, rather than supporting it. As a casual reference, it expresses the kind of calloused detachment you might hear from a man born to wealth filmed unawares discussing the poor. Disagree with my opinion by all means, but it has no more to do with 'literalness' than yours does with, say, shallowness.
You were wrong in your judgement of the Ancien? I have always believed you were perfect in your judgement of all wines. Is there no truth left in the universe?originally posted by Yixin:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
I think your literalness is missing Yixin's point entirely.
Not that Sir r slicker's chubby point here and the later one aren't totally sensible too, albeit along a somewhat different line, IMHO.
Cold coffee, Kirk, imho: as rhetoric, the hyperbole of the metaphor is so exaggerated as to backfire - it distracts from and undermines Yixin's point, rather than supporting it. As a casual reference, it expresses the kind of calloused detachment you might hear from a man born to wealth filmed unawares discussing the poor. Disagree with my opinion by all means, but it has no more to do with 'literalness' than yours does with, say, shallowness.
Not in belligerence: I don't think you got my point (or meta-point).
Metaphor repeats itself, the first time as hyperbole and then as parody: the 2010 Brun L'Ancien is finally snapping into focus. I should have bought more, but it scored badly when I drank it alongside Gamays from Clos Roche Blanche and Dupasquier.
originally posted by Yixin:
Not in belligerence: I don't think you got my point (or meta-point).
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
I think your literalness is missing Yixin's point entirely.
Not that Sir r slicker's chubby point here and the later one aren't totally sensible too, albeit along a somewhat different line, IMHO.
Cold coffee, Kirk, imho: as rhetoric, the hyperbole of the metaphor is so exaggerated as to backfire - it distracts from and undermines Yixin's point, rather than supporting it. As a casual reference, it expresses the kind of calloused detachment you might hear from a man born to wealth filmed unawares discussing the poor. Disagree with my opinion by all means, but it has no more to do with 'literalness' than yours does with, say, shallowness.
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
I like that--plumbing the shallows.
originally posted by kirk wallace:
Let's just say that I have a different view of Yixin's linguistic, rhetorical, and analytical skills.
I have to confess, however, I have no idea what the "cold coffee" refers to; nor whose shallowness you are plumbing.
originally posted by MarkS:
Who is this Dr. Zellerburg?
originally posted by D. Zylberberg:
originally posted by mlawton:
You are absolutely correct, those wines are from the same country and all from within 45 miles of each other - they should all taste the same!
You've finally chapped my ass enough that I'll dignify you with a non-flippant response.
Let's start with your first little talking point-that we pick a "best" wine. We don't. We rank wines based on personal subjective impression, 1 through 8, and add up the scores from the table. Lowest wine technically "wins", I guess, but the point of the exercise is to stimulate discussion after everyone has voted. As NOTED IN THAT THREAD (which you didn't read, of course), there's a ton of noise in the results so the fun of the evening lies in the debates. John Morris rated my favorite wine 8th. We both enjoy wine and would self-identify as having similar palates. The fun of that group is when differences crop up and understanding why.
Second, let's talk about terroir and regional differences. I get that we're all wine geeks and can make cogent arguments as to why Cornas is totally fucking different from St. Joseph and ohmygodyoucantevendrinkthemtogether. I'm with you, man, I'm a wine geek too. But take a step back for a second. These are, in fact, all Northern Rhone, all Syrah, all 2010. Yes, wine geography is fractal, and you can do a full 8 wine tasting out of some plots that are only several ACRES large. But it's preposterous to argue that these wines can't be tasted side by side. This is not drinking Amarone next to Trousseau.
But more to the point, the reason I enjoy these tastings is because they are rigorously blind (no discussion allowed until after notes are written and votes made) you get a sense of what is signal and what is noise, so to speak. And I will tell you this; terroir differences, except at the extreme margins, rarely can be picked up in this setting. At our last burg tasting (of mature wines, no less) the sweet, silky, elegant wine that was a consensus #1 was a Nuits; the feminine, floral wine that was consensus #2 was a Gevrey, and so on and so forth. Sometimes terroir gets "picked up" , but it's rare and in case of big differences. Meursault jumped out at our white burg tasting last year. I'm sure if we'd swapped the Graillot Crozes with his Syrocco, we'd have figured out something was up.
In this case, however, as in most of these tastings, presumed differences in terroir were completely absent once the blinders were on. The wine that everyone on the table agreed was the most floral and tropical and fragrant was a St. Joseph. One of the two most structured wines at the table was a Crozes and the most accessible and easy wine at the table - a Crozes. In contrast, differences in producer style DO stick out blind, always have and did again on this night. Everyone pegged the St Cosme, you could see it a mile away. At the white burg tasting, someone took a sip of a bottle and said, "This is Roulot.". It was Roulot.
But most interesting about these tastings is that the outcomes are not quite random, but very close. Young or old, we see very little consistency in terms of which producers win or whether subjective rank correlates to price. In Tuesday's Rhone tasting, the ultimate group consensus ranking was virtually inverse to price. At 2006 Nebbiolo, the produttori was hugely popular - the lowest score I ever saw from this group, and it was the cheapest wine at the table. Star producers rarely rise to the top of the rankings, albeit in a carefully curated group of wines (my take home message from these tastings is not that producer doesn't matter, but that the difference between the competent and the "star" is mostly marketing).
I don't do all my tasting blind - but once a month, this is an incredibly valuable, humbling, and enjoyable experience. It certainly makes you question the fanboyism you see on this and other boards, where curiously every bottle made by certain producers is either brilliant or corked. I know this now, from these silly blind tastings that give you such mirth: the people who post those notes are either full of shit or rooting for the laundry, and it is curious indeed to bring sports fan psychology to wine.
originally posted by VLM:
Holy shit! Go read some Tversky and Kahneman and get back to me.
Holy fucktards batman!
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by MarkS:
Who is this Dr. Zellerburg?
I guess he is this fucking guy: Tool.
Explains his fuzzy grasp on science and stats.
originally posted by Jim Hanlon:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by MarkS:
Who is this Dr. Zellerburg?
I guess he is this fucking guy: Tool.
Explains his fuzzy grasp on science and stats.
Actually, it's worse. Per the thread on the "Big Board," he's a 30-year-old lawyer at a large NYC firm.
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Jim Hanlon:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by MarkS:
Who is this Dr. Zellerburg?
I guess he is this fucking guy: Tool.
Explains his fuzzy grasp on science and stats.
Actually, it's worse. Per the thread on the "Big Board," he's a 30-year-old lawyer at a large NYC firm.
Whoa. Power tool.