TN: Home Front

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Lawyers are a strange lot. Most people can see the difference between intending to do a thing and intending the consequences that follow. Or even between intending certain consequences that don't in fact happen and not intending the ones that do. Of course, literary critics are a strange lot too, but I won't go there.

What's so strange about there being different degrees of intent? Sometimes the differences matter and sometimes they don't, but what do you think *should* happen if you went into court insisting you didn't intend to commit murder, you just intended the guy to die?

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
As in legal analysis, Keith, we are talking about intent. Intentionally adding S02 to prevent spoilage that may or may not occur from unintentional “additions”.

Depends on what form of intent in legal analysis you're talking about. If you go with the form of intent where one intends the foreseeable consequences of his actions, then the distinction you're trying to draw evaporates.

The principle Oswaldo is defending isn't based on intent, though. It seems more to be based on action vs. inaction... Don't pull the lever!

Ha ha. Anyway, was thinking more in terms of intentional discrimination / equal protection / Title whatever and intentional suppression of speech or viewpoint non-neutrality / first amendment. The analogy to the legal analysis is spot on here because “effects” without intent, even foreseeable potential effects like you are talking about, are considered differently as you know than intentional statutes.

Understanding that the winemaker has to live with choices (acts and omissions) made, and associated risks, doesn’t advance the ball here.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Lawyers are a strange lot. Most people can see the difference between intending to do a thing and intending the consequences that follow. Or even between intending certain consequences that don't in fact happen and not intending the ones that do. Of course, literary critics are a strange lot too, but I won't go there.

Lawyers have understood and argued about these very points over centuries Jonathan.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

And yet Keith's answer is non-responsive. If someone wants someone to die but didn't mean to murder him and if the act in question doesn't reasonably lead to murder (he gave him a medicine that could cure him but that could kill him if he took too much and he didn't specify the dose because the distinction wasn't a difficult one to make)' he isn't guilty. On the other hand, if he pushed him off a cliff, only to break his leg, and he died, I assume he would be held guilty of murder, regardless of the specific damage he intended to do. And whether or not he "wanted" him to die would also not be relevant unless one doubted that he only wanted to break his leg, which is a different question entirely. I can come up with numbers of equally arcane examples, many from 19th century literature. They illuminate lots of questions, but not the difference between doing a thing and intending which consequences occur and which do not.

When litcrit types say that intention is unknowable, someone usually says that even a dog can tell the difference between being kicked and bring tripped over. To which one response is that one assumes that those dogs make mistakes from time to time. Both statements are true.

 

[Christian Miller (CMM)]

originally posted by MLipton:

originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Spritzy as in CO2. They are bottled that way, not refermenting in the bottle. This is the case with about 90% of the young red Burgundies I open these days. Fourrier is a prominent example and was doing it earlier than most. Some are heavier than others. CB I'd put on the heavy side.

Sometimes it is difficult to detect. The wine will taste shrill in a way you might chalk up to acidity or just being generally out of sorts - you won't necessarily notice that it is literally carbonic. But put your thumb over the lip and give it a heavy shake - the pop-and-hiss doesn't lie. And once you do that a few times and get the gas out you'll be amazed how quickly and magically it gets into form!

Why, meaning why the recent change? Is it a deliberate style or taste decision, or the byproduct of some cellar decision done for other reasons. E.G. colder storage when aging, or much less movement and air exposure after fermentation?

As vignerons move away from filtration and, to a lesser extent, pumping , there are fewer operations that degas the wine.

Mark Lipton

Hmm, but I've tasted plenty of non-filtered wines with no spritz, actually the vast majority. Less pumping or racking was one vector I was pondering.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

I spend nearly eleven hours on a plane and return to find that all hell has broken loose. Nice.

Some of my onboard reading was Jamie Goode's latest, called Flawless: Understanding Faults in Wine. Even though he does his best to write for the idiot, the nitty gritty is leaving me humbled at the depth of my ignorance of the gazillion variables involved in wine chemistry. While there is some dispute as to whether it's preferable to be happy or right, it seems indisputable that it's better to be happy than a brown belt.