WineCare in the NYT

I don't see the lack of a "perspective" here. If the WineCare customers, in the wake of the storm, were demanding that emergency resources be used to save their wine instead of rescuing people or even pets and livestock, that would reflect a lack of perspective. But is anyone suffering a lesser loss supposed to wait until those suffering a greater loss have been helped before it is appropriate to care about their own when remedying their own situation in no way hinders the recovery of those with greater losses?
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I don't think sentimentality for a lost way of life is anything like regret for one's lost bottle of ritzy wine.
Click to expand...

That's because you have perspective. Although just because a wine is in storage doesn't make it ritzy. Not everyone who does this is wealthy. And for many people a wine collection is a lifetime investment, so there is going to be emotional loss.
Click to expand...

As the Times tells it, the people in this story were wealthy and the wines they mourn were trophy wines. What we hear about is the guy with the million dollar plus collection, not the collector mourning his treasured last bottle of the wine from his wedding day. Perspective, of course, is where I started from.
Click to expand...

And of course my perspective is of the people I know who are not wealthy and have only a few hundred bottles stored there which they would not be able to replace. And who are benefitting from this lawsuit.
 
If the story is as the Times described it, all the locker renters should in all justice win their suit. I doubt they will be compensated, given the value of some of those collections and the likelihood that the owner of the lockers will just declare bankruptcy. I am happy for anyone who can get his or her money back and I hope Jay is right that small collectors- and for that matter, all collectors-- will benefit. Maybe the guy was insured. But I still can't get too worked up in the larger scheme of things.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If the story is as the Times described it, all the locker renters should in all justice win their suit. I doubt they will be compensated, given the value of some of those collections and the likelihood that the owner of the lockers will just declare bankruptcy. I am happy for anyone who can get his or her money back and I hope Jay is right that small collectors- and for that matter, all collectors-- will benefit. Maybe the guy was insured. But I still can't get too worked up in the larger scheme of things.
Click to expand...

i throw my lardy girth behind j.l. on this one.

85% of this shit will have all teh sentimental value of all teh other n00b ventures into pointy wine: aka, 10 cents on teh dollar insurance beats a lifetime of teh crappy "red wine reduction (with added furniture)" mistakes.

given the %age of awful, overhyped filth that even teh more optimistic of us tend to hold at any given point in time -- it is a long time since the old, bringing awful well-reviewed dogshit to jeebuzes as a sick simulacrum of "generosity"' trick managed to convince -- there is probly a lot more upside in all this than teh folks let on.

fb.
 
I think most of us who were in town for the storm have a pretty good sense of perspective on the relative difficulties each of us faced.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
I moved 1,200 bottles out of Winecare a few months before the storm - feel like I dodged quite a bullet.
Click to expand...

One major point that has not been written anywhere is that Winecare was terribly run PRIOR to Sandy. It is well known in the industry. I moved my wine out of their long ago and I know other customers (some major ITB ones) that did.
 
originally posted by Robert Dentice:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
I moved 1,200 bottles out of Winecare a few months before the storm - feel like I dodged quite a bullet.
Click to expand...

One major point that has not been written anywhere is that Winecare was terribly run PRIOR to Sandy. It is well known in the industry. I moved my wine out of their long ago and I know other customers (some major ITB ones) that did.
Click to expand...

Purely out of curiosity, what were the issues with Winecare prior to Sandy?
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
I moved 1,200 bottles out of Winecare a few months before the storm - feel like I dodged quite a bullet.
Click to expand...

This calls for a celebration with a representative sample from the 1,200 bottles.
 
And another thing, how is the fact that the initial cause was Sandy even relevant? The lawsuit is not about Sandy but about the company's behavior post-Sandy. It has no effect one way or another on anyone who lost homes, etc.

It's as though I'm listening to the following conversation:

Person 1: My wallet was stolen, I'm going to the police.
Person 2: How dare you go to the police about a stolen wallet, my car was stolen!
Person 3: How dare you go to the police about something as petty as a stolen car, my house was burned down!
Person 4: You insensitive bastard, how dare you complain about arson when my family was murdered!

IMO, Person 1 has every right to go to the police about his or her wallet. Especially if the crimes experienced by Persons 2, 3 and 4 happened 7 months ago.
 
originally posted by Jay Miller:
Person 1: My wallet was stolen, I'm going to the police.
Person 2: How dare you go to the police about a stolen wallet, my car was stolen!
Person 3: How dare you go to the police about something as petty as a stolen car, my house was burned down!
Person 4: You insensitive bastard, how dare you complain about arson when my family was murdered!
Click to expand...
We were evicted from our hole in the ground. We had to go and live in a lake!
 
originally posted by Jay Miller:
And another thing, how is the fact that the initial cause was Sandy even relevant? The lawsuit is not about Sandy but about the company's behavior post-Sandy. It has no effect one way or another on anyone who lost homes, etc.

It's as though I'm listening to the following conversation:

Person 1: My wallet was stolen, I'm going to the police.
Person 2: How dare you go to the police about a stolen wallet, my car was stolen!
Person 3: How dare you go to the police about something as petty as a stolen car, my house was burned down!
Person 4: You insensitive bastard, how dare you complain about arson when my family was murdered!

IMO, Person 1 has every right to go to the police about his or her wallet. Especially if the crimes experienced by Persons 2, 3 and 4 happened 7 months ago.
Click to expand...

Well, as I've said, I think the person has the right to go to the police, so to speak. But the conversation I'm imagining is this:

"What a terrible whatever that was last night. I lost my home."
"Yeah, all my property was destroyed and I'm out of a job."
"Well, I lost a Louis XIV chair I really loved."

Now all these guys have insurance (in my story) and they all should get reimbursed. But when the NY Times tells the story, I won't feel the same about all of them. The relevance of the terrible whatever is that it's an act of whatever that did rotten things to a lot of people at the same time. In its wake, some of the rotten things seem worse than others and may indeed demand different levels of response. Even the cops go after arsonists and murderers before they do pickpockets.

But I really don't think this is much of an argument or one that can be settled. We both agree that the wine-owners should have legal recourse. We just don't take the case with the same importance.
 
originally posted by Jay Miller:
And another thing, how is the fact that the initial cause was Sandy even relevant? The lawsuit is not about Sandy but about the company's behavior post-Sandy. It has no effect one way or another on anyone who lost homes, etc.

It's as though I'm listening to the following conversation:

Person 1: My wallet was stolen, I'm going to the police.
Person 2: How dare you go to the police about a stolen wallet, my car was stolen!
Person 3: How dare you go to the police about something as petty as a stolen car, my house was burned down!
Person 4: You insensitive bastard, how dare you complain about arson when my family was murdered!

IMO, Person 1 has every right to go to the police about his or her wallet. Especially if the crimes experienced by Persons 2, 3 and 4 happened 7 months ago.
Click to expand...
This sums it up exactly right. I suppose that there is somebody, somewhere in the world who is the least fortunate, most miserable person in existence. That doesn't mean that nobody else is entitled to vindicate their rights, or, for that matter, complain about anything, until that person is happy.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Jay Miller:
And another thing, how is the fact that the initial cause was Sandy even relevant? The lawsuit is not about Sandy but about the company's behavior post-Sandy. It has no effect one way or another on anyone who lost homes, etc.

It's as though I'm listening to the following conversation:

Person 1: My wallet was stolen, I'm going to the police.
Person 2: How dare you go to the police about a stolen wallet, my car was stolen!
Person 3: How dare you go to the police about something as petty as a stolen car, my house was burned down!
Person 4: You insensitive bastard, how dare you complain about arson when my family was murdered!

IMO, Person 1 has every right to go to the police about his or her wallet. Especially if the crimes experienced by Persons 2, 3 and 4 happened 7 months ago.
Click to expand...
This sums it up exactly right. I suppose that there is somebody, somewhere in the world who is the least fortunate, most miserable person in existence. That doesn't mean that nobody else is entitled to vindicate their rights, or, for that matter, complain about anything, until that person is happy.
Click to expand...
No one is disputing that, just don't expect everyone to feel sorry for the plaintiffs as they were portrayed in the NYT.
 
originally posted by fatboy:

85% of this shit will have all teh sentimental value of all teh other n00b ventures into pointy wine: aka, 10 cents on teh dollar insurance beats a lifetime of teh crappy "red wine reduction (with added furniture)" mistakes.

fb.
Click to expand...

I have old Beaujolais. I'd say how old but I was going to blind you. I'd sue for moral damages therefore.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Jay Miller:
And another thing, how is the fact that the initial cause was Sandy even relevant? The lawsuit is not about Sandy but about the company's behavior post-Sandy. It has no effect one way or another on anyone who lost homes, etc.

It's as though I'm listening to the following conversation:

Person 1: My wallet was stolen, I'm going to the police.
Person 2: How dare you go to the police about a stolen wallet, my car was stolen!
Person 3: How dare you go to the police about something as petty as a stolen car, my house was burned down!
Person 4: You insensitive bastard, how dare you complain about arson when my family was murdered!

IMO, Person 1 has every right to go to the police about his or her wallet. Especially if the crimes experienced by Persons 2, 3 and 4 happened 7 months ago.
Click to expand...
This sums it up exactly right. I suppose that there is somebody, somewhere in the world who is the least fortunate, most miserable person in existence. That doesn't mean that nobody else is entitled to vindicate their rights, or, for that matter, complain about anything, until that person is happy.
Click to expand...

A good excuse to link one of my all time favorite comics:

"> Whatever Label.

Ozzie & Millie 1501

And while looking for that one I came across all of these:

Ozzie & Millie 147
Ozzie & Millie 1477
Ozzie & Millie 1485
Ozzie & Millie 1487
Ozzie & Millie 1494

Ozzie & Millie 1500
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Jay Miller:
And another thing, how is the fact that the initial cause was Sandy even relevant? The lawsuit is not about Sandy but about the company's behavior post-Sandy. It has no effect one way or another on anyone who lost homes, etc.

It's as though I'm listening to the following conversation:

Person 1: My wallet was stolen, I'm going to the police.
Person 2: How dare you go to the police about a stolen wallet, my car was stolen!
Person 3: How dare you go to the police about something as petty as a stolen car, my house was burned down!
Person 4: You insensitive bastard, how dare you complain about arson when my family was murdered!

IMO, Person 1 has every right to go to the police about his or her wallet. Especially if the crimes experienced by Persons 2, 3 and 4 happened 7 months ago.
Click to expand...
This sums it up exactly right. I suppose that there is somebody, somewhere in the world who is the least fortunate, most miserable person in existence. That doesn't mean that nobody else is entitled to vindicate their rights, or, for that matter, complain about anything, until that person is happy.
Click to expand...

I find myself disagreeing with the conclusions from these analogies. If my neighbor's apartment building was on fire and my wine cellar was on fire, I would certainly hope the fire dept would put out the apartment building fire first! From my understanding the courts, et al have limited resources and time in handling all of the various claims related to Sandy (there are still people without access to homes due to the floods). A wine cellar is low on the list for them. I'm fine with that. I'd rather someone get back home sooner. Tell the cellar-dudes to go to Chambers Street and buy some Morgon or Muscadet. It just might tide them over and change their life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top