quote:

Originally posted by pape du neuf:
The WS Advance is out, with the Carnival of Love rated 95 (the same as a Jean-Louis Chave Hermitage) and the Boxer 90. Should we subtract 5 points?

I know my answer.

Actually what Halliday said was that you should add 5 points to his scores for these wines to get to likely US scores. he didn't say that flippantly and there was number of very good reasons for doing so.

Surprising as it may seem, there is no single 100 point system, although most people assume they are all the same. See Oils aint Oils for more details, or better still, if you want an analysis of why Halliday said what he did, read Yanks get their Knickers in a Twist

quote:

Originally posted by Mothra:
but to group all Americans as one? What an idiot.

I guess all Aussies are idiots.

Mothra

You're the only idiot in this topic Mothra.

Found the hysteria on Squires board amusing. Talk about a bunch of thin skinned wimps. Why on earth read so much into Hallidays' comments?

Having tasted the wines, I simply hated them. Has nothing to do with old-world new world or fruit bombiness etc. as I like both in your face and restrained wines, to me the line up was lacking in quality - This discussion is just a diversion.

If you don't like the style of wine, don't buy or drink it -

quote:

Originally posted by TORB:
mpls, dead right; that Andre guy looks like a (younger) Nelson Mandella having a very bad hair day.

One of the posts I love is Jeff Leve's where he makes this statement. "I found Hallidays comments pejorative to Americans and a silly slap at Parker. He was hoping to stir up controversy to attract attention to him becasue outside of very few people, he remains unknown."

He has assumed his position without knowing the facts behind the statement; and we all know what the word assume stands for!

I guess that 95%+ of Australians who like wine counts as "very few people."

He then again comes up with another "assumed conclusion" which also is based on his thoughts rather than the facts. "The bottom line is... If he was so secure in his place as a wine critic, he would not making attention getting comments solely hoping to stirp up controversy."

I do not make it a habit to carry something from one board to the next. I do not often post here but try to read the board when I can. I find it petty to take an out of context snipet of my post from another board and place it here. If you disagree with me on something I wrote on the Parker board, why not step up, address me there and allow me to reply?

As far as what I wrote, you also need the question and my entire response to frame it correctly. I have no problem debating anything I write, but, next time, step up and respond where it took place. That is the fair thing to do.

FWIW, I can't stand those wines. I'd probably take 5 points from Hallidays scores and think I was being generous.

Because you posted some of my words, I will clarify what you took out of context by adding the rest of the minor exchange.

Originally Posted by Jeff Leve
I found Hallidays comments pejorative to Americans and a silly slap at Parker. He was hoping to stir up controversy to attract attention to him because outside of very few people, he remains unknown.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Gutlove
I don't think I'd call the entire wine drinking population of Oceania plus a sizeable slice of Britain's wine fans "very few people".



I doubt any wine reviewer is read by the entire wine population of any country. To make that comment is silly. Let alone the fact that based on population alone, there might be more wine drinkers in California than all of Australia. Furthermore, I am sure he shares the spotlight in Australia with Oliver, Tanzer, Parker, Robinson, The Wine Spectator and several different Australian based wine magazines.

How many subscribers does Halliday have? How large is his reach? I receive emails for wines from England on a daily basis. How often is his name attached to a review of wine Vs. Parker, Robinson, Tanzer or The Wine Spectator? He might be followed in Australia, but to contend that he exerts the influence achieved by Parker, Tanzer, The Spectaor or Robinson is wrong.

The bottom line is... If he was so secure in his place as a wine critic, he would not making attention getting comments solely hoping to stir up controversy.


POST #2 FOLLOW UP POST


Originally Posted by Jeff Leve
I doubt any wine reviewer is read by the entire wine population of any country. To make that comment is silly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Gutlove
Good thing I didn't make it, then, eh?



No, you said worse. You wrote "he was read by the entire wine drinking population of Oceania" which consists of multiple countries in the South Pacific including Australia, Micronesia, Polynesia, New Zealand and possibly the Malay Archilelago.

Your exact quote appears below.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Gutlove
I don't think I'd call the entire wine drinking population of Oceania plus a sizeable slice of Britain's wine fans "very few people".



You said that "outside of very few people, he remains unknown". I'd wager that almost all regular wine drinkers in OZ and NZ know of Mr. Halliday, though they might not necessarily read him.

That is quite a step back. We've gone from "being read by the entire wine drinking population of Oceania" to "he's been heard of by almost all regular wine drinkers in OZ or NZ." That is quite a bit of back pedaling. If there was a way of proving the wager, I'd take that bet. Parker is a lot more famous in America and the rest of the world than Halliday and I'd wager the majority of wine drinkers do not know who Parker is.

I find it regrettable that so many here seem to trot out the "he's just jealous of Parker's success and frustrated at being a wine world has-been" every time there's a perceived slight against Mr. Parker. Seems pretty childish to me.

That's what happens when a public critic takes a public slap at an entire countries wine drinking population as well as the worlds leading wine critic. That is childish to me. But, look at all the attention he's received. He got what he was looking for.

With all due respect, why would I try to rationalize anything here?

I don't know. Please tell me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Gutlove
Is it not possible that Halliday was trying to say that he typically finds these kinds of wines get higher point scores and enjoy more favor in the American market than in his own home? Couldn't this just be a case of Halliday noting the reverse, a critic calibrating the market's "palate" against his own based on past experience?



If all Halliday wanted to do was offer people the chance to calibrate to his palate, all he needed to do with let his notes and scores speak for themselves. When he took an editorial slap at American wine lovers and Parker, he went beyond that to garner much needed attention to himself. Something else to add to the pot, this is not the first time Halliday has taken shots at American palates.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pomerollvr,

Jeff,

You ask me to step up and address my comments to you on Squires board.

Now as a moderator, you would know that is a bit difficult. Firstly, the topic has been locked, and once a new topic is started on the same subject as a locked topic when it is regard to Australian subjects, history has shown the chances are it will also be locked very quickly and will incur the wrath of Mr Squires.

Secondly, as I had "my posting privileges" suspended there years ago, its impossible for me to respond.

Now onto the rest of your comments.

Whilst I fully admit that there was some discussion and disagreement about Halliday's coverage and reach between you and Bruce Gutlove, the fact fact is that you stated:-

quote:

Jeff Leve

I found Hallidays comments pejorative to Americans and a silly slap at Parker. He was hoping to stir up controversy to attract attention to him because outside of very few people, he remains unknown.

The bottom line is... If he was so secure in his place as a wine critic, he would not making attention getting comments solely hoping to stir up controversy.

If all Halliday wanted to do was offer people the chance to calibrate to his palate, all he needed to do with let his notes and scores speak for themselves. When he took an editorial slap at American wine lovers and Parker, he went beyond that to garner much needed attention to himself. Something else to add to the pot, this is not the first time Halliday has taken shots at American palates.

I hope you will not think that these comments have been taken out of context.

As I stated in my story on this subject there is a perfect rational explanation for Hallidays comments in relation to adding 5 points in the US market. Parker and Hallidays 100 point systems are different. Secondly, the US (as a generality) does have a sweet tooth, and that also impacts the sorts of wine that many people enjoy.

In terms of reviewers having pot shots at each other, isn't it interesting that its Halliday and Parker, Oliver and Parker, Robinson and Parker etc. I have never seen Halliday having a shot at Robinson, Broadbent, Oliver, Tanzier etc. The same could be probably be said for other critics.

In this case, I just don't see Halliday having a shot at their the US consumer of Parker.

I also loved your words when you said Halliday did it to garner "much needed attention." What a load of cods wallop! He is, by a long way, Australia's most successful and influential wine writer and is planning his phase out and retirement. He doesn't need the attention of a very limited number of educated wine lovers, who primarily preside overseas, read the wine forums, and are unlikely to read his newspaper columns or buy his books. They are the only people these comments reach, and they are generally not his target audience.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: TORB,

Ric

First, I did not know who you were until today. So, obviously I was not aware you had lost posting privileges until reading your post. I do not understand why anyone who has been booted from Parker's website would want to read what is taking place on it. But, that's up to you. Your post on your website about why you lost the right to post on Squires board is not completely true. You seem to have left out some facts. But, if that works for you great. I was not involved and I could care less.

The bottom line is, I would never lift something from one board written by a poster, bring it to another website and comment on it. Especially since you took me out of context and had no idea if I would see it or respond. That is not cool.

Second, I see Halladay's comments as taking shots at Americans and Parker. That is obvious from how he phrased his comments and from what he said. Simply because you do not see it does not mean it is not true.

I do not buy, drink, cellar or enjoy Aussie wines. I have no dog in the race. My comments to you are solely about your lifting my post from another board and posting it here. As far as I'm concerned, that is bad etiquette.

quote:

Originally posted by Pomerollvr:
Ric

First, I did not know who you were until today. So, obviously I was not aware you had lost posting privileges until reading your post. I do not understand why anyone who has been booted from Parker's website would want to read what is taking place on it. But, that's up to you. Your post on your website about why you lost the right to post on Squires board is not completely true. You seem to have left out some facts. But, if that works for you great. I was not involved and I could care less.

The bottom line is, I would never lift something from one board written by a poster, bring it to another website and comment on it. Especially since you took me out of context and had no idea if I would see it or respond. That is not cool.

Second, I see Halladay's comments as taking shots at Americans and Parker. That is obvious from how he phrased his comments and from what he said. Simply because you do not see it does not mean it is not true.

I do not buy, drink, cellar or enjoy Aussie wines. I have no dog in the race. My comments to you are solely about your lifting my post from another board and posting it here. As far as I'm concerned, that is bad etiquette.

Pomerollvr,

If you couldn't care less about the reasons Torb got booted from ebob, then don't do an about face and state that the reasons he got booted are "not completely true". That's clearly contradictory.

Second, while I understand it would have been more appropriate to respond on Squire's board, given the fact that Torb is not permitted to post there and given the fact that you are also registered on the WS boards, then it is completely permissible and understandable that TORB addressed his issues in a forum that both of you are registered to and have access to, n'est-ce pas?

mimik

I followed the link on Ric post which is where I read what he wrote. Without the link, I would not have bothered.

True, he could not post a response on Squires board, but, at least in my opinion, as I wrote to him, it is not cool to take something from a poster on one board, repost it on another site and comment on it.

Do you think that is cool? Do you do that? And how do you know he knew I was on this board? I think it is an easy deduction that he did not or he would have included Pomerollvr, and not just my real name in his post. Furthermore, he did not address his post to me, or ask me any questions or for any comments... He just put a snipet of it out there. To me, that is not cool. If the rolses were reversed, would you think it's OK?

I am not arguing with you or him, I am simply saying that was not right in my opinion.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pomerollvr,

Keep in mind that Pommie is now a moderator over on ePantload.

As such, he has gone through a very extensive training program.

Lesson number one: Do NOT just moderate your own board. Moderate EVERYTHING on the entire internet to the Parker lemming POV.

Do not post anything that shows up on ePantload. And ban members for what they post elsewhere on the internet if you do not like it. See Tong, Dave.

With additional ePantload mods, we should soon see more monikers popping up with "BBS" after the name.

THIII

TH

Nice mature post. Mimik was cool and so was Ric. Why cause an argument or be uncool?

Thanks Dad, I am now properly humbled. The inside of the woodshed looks nice today, did you paint it yourself?

THIII

Pomerol,

TORB's quote from you on eBob was made AFTER he had made a link to the entire thread, so anyone reading this thread was capable of seeing your quotes in context.

Unfortunately, you still feel compelled to take Halliday's brief quote out of context. Halliday has been drinking and reviewing Australian wines for decades before Parker even found Australia on an Atlas. (yes, it's not in Europe). To suggest Halliday was somehow trying to stir up controversary to "gain attention" because he remains unknown simply makes you look ignorant. I mean, we are talking about Australian wine here yes? Parker doesn't come within a whisker of Hallidays experience with OZ wine, and outside of your little sphere of Parker worship, people do actually listen to other authorities on Australian wine. Halliday is one at the top of that list.

As TORB has stated, Halliday is winding down his involvement in judging and reviewing, so again, any suggestion of trying to gain attention is nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by Aussieutside of your little sphere of Parker worship, people do actually listen to other authorities on Australian wine. Halliday is one at the top of that list.

Your post seems to imply that Parker is an authority on Australian wine. I assumed that by his overinflated scores that everyone discounted them, just like most people put no weight into Laube's CA scores.

quote:

Originally posted by Aussie:
Pomerol,

TORB's quote from you on eBob was made AFTER he had made a link to the entire thread, so anyone reading this thread was capable of seeing your quotes in context.

Unfortunately, you still feel compelled to take Halliday's brief quote out of context. Halliday has been drinking and reviewing Australian wines for decades before Parker even found Australia on an Atlas. (yes, it's not in Europe). To suggest Halliday was somehow trying to stir up controversary to "gain attention" because he remains unknown simply makes you look ignorant. I mean, we are talking about Australian wine here yes? Parker doesn't come within a whisker of Hallidays experience with OZ wine, and outside of your little sphere of Parker worship, people do actually listen to other authorities on Australian wine. Halliday is one at the top of that list.

As TORB has stated, Halliday is winding down his involvement in judging and reviewing, so again, any suggestion of trying to gain attention is nonsense.

I did not take Halliday's quote out of context. The only quote in the original thread on the Parker board was all that was there.

As far as my "little sphere of Parker worship" your words, it must be a very small sphere because if you read my quote above, it clearly says, "I do not buy, drink, cellar or enjoy Aussie wines." And as he rates many Aussie wines highly, I do not think Parkers message has taken hold.

I see you saying a lot of things, all of them try to obfuscate the main point I made to Ric. Do you think it is cool to take a post from another board from any ordinary poster, copy and paste it on a different board?

"Cool" - don't have an opinion.

"Irrelevant" - yes. Who's trying to obfuscate now?

I am beginning to think some of you do not have enough aggravation in your life, so you come here, looking for aggravation.

quote:

Originally posted by Pomerollvr:
First, I did not know who you were until today. So, obviously I was not aware you had lost posting privileges until reading your post. I do not understand why anyone who has been booted from Parker's website would want to read what is taking place on it.

Jeff,

I am not completely myopic and do look at Squires site from time to time. Frequently, I receive emails form all over the place about things vinous that people think may interest me that I may not have seen. Such was this case.

Just because I can no longer post does not mean there is nothing of value to be read there.

quote:

But, that's up to you. Your post on your website about why you lost the right to post on Squires board is not completely true. You seem to have left out some facts.

Now this is most interesting. In essence, by your own admission you did not know anything about my removal from the Squires board until today, yet you are quite prepared to call me a liar. And that is exactly what saying "is not completely true" implies.

From this, I can only guess that you have heard Mark Squires version of the events and are prepared to believe what he has told you.

This whole thing was played out in public with many witnesses to the events. I will be happy to get about a half a dozen well respected contributors to Squires forum that will verify that my account is factual and I have not left out any facts that have twisted the truth. Yes I have left out detail; if I had compiled every single facet it would have gone for pages, but nothing I have left out changes in any way the facts of the case.

The fact is that had Mark Squires not gone in and edited the posts and nuked a number of posts in the thread years later, you could have seen what had happened for yourself.

quote:

The bottom line is, I would never lift something from one board written by a poster, bring it to another website and comment on it. Especially since you took me out of context and had no idea if I would see it or respond. That is not cool.

Yep, you are 100% correct; I am the most "uncool dude" on the face of the planet - very staid and eccentric too.

As far as you reading the post, I was told by the same person who pointed me in the direction of the thread on Squires board that you were registered here and read this board. I guess he knows you.

As far as taking you out of context, lets go back and have a look at the original quote....

quote:

"I found Hallidays comments pejorative to Americans and a silly slap at Parker. He was hoping to stir up controversy to attract attention to him becasue outside of very few people, he remains unknown."

"The bottom line is... If he was so secure in his place as a wine critic, he would not making attention getting comments solely hoping to stirp up controversy."

The only part that could even remotely have been taken out of context is "becasue outside of very few people, he remains unknown."

And that Jeff, is not the real issue with those comments, as far as I was concerned. The rest of the comments were, from my perspective, far more important. Yes, that last bit about being unknown was 100% pertinent to your exchange in the thread, but the rest of the comments, which was essentially your reaction to Halliday's comments, rather than a discussion with another poster, was what interested me.

quote:

Second, I see Halladay's comments as taking shots at Americans and Parker. That is obvious from how he phrased his comments and from what he said. Simply because you do not see it does not mean it is not true.

And simply because you think it is so, doesn't make it true either. We will just have to agree to disagree.

quote:

My comments to you are solely about your lifting my post from another board and posting it here. As far as I'm concerned, that is bad etiquette.

Jeff, I am sorry you fell that way, but that is your position and your problem. The internet is full of individual's comments which are observed and then discussed all over the place, that is the nature of the internet.

There is no difference in lifting a comment from a website "under the fair comment doctrine" (which does not breach copyright) and posting it on my site as part of an article, and making comment on a wine forum about the same thing. You may not like it, but it is done all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by spo:
I am beginning to think some of you do not have enough aggravation in your life, so you come here, looking for aggravation.

Are you looking at me punk? Are you looking at ME? Well, I can't see anyone else here, so you must be looking at me. (with apologies to De Niro).

Don't worry spo, I'm married. I don't need to come here for an argument. (No Monty Python references now).

quote:

Second, I see Halladay's comments as taking shots at Americans and Parker. That is obvious from how he phrased his comments and from what he said. Simply because you do not see it does not mean it is not true.

quote:

And simply because you think it is so, doesn't make it true either. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Tee hee. This immature poster enjoys this exchange. I love it when a poster takes a sentence, filters it through his own myopic viewpoint, and insists his interpretation of the sentence is the only true, correct and possible interpretation. Gospel for the masses, if you will.

Frankly, I foresaw this type of post coming, and tried to head it off with the original post that started this thread.

quote:

Let's start from the position that absolutely NONE of us knows what he really meant. But what do you think? Speculate away, there are no right answers despite the number of posters who will try to tell you otherwise.

SOSDD. All we need now is for someone to compare Halliday's comments to Iraq and we can get the thread locked here the way it got locked on ePantload. So much for an intelligent discussion.

Eschew obfuscation. Any opinion on Halliday's writings are just that, opinions. NOBODY KNOWS. Nobody. Despite the number of posters who will try to tell you otherwise, and demean any contrary points of view.

THIII