Page
1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Member
|
Good post,Monsant. I agree that there were certain things that we all understood better as eight-year-olds. You don't walk through grandmas' garden, and you don't cross a busy street by yourself. Simple to understand rules with simple to understand consequences. You want to avoid getting your ear yanked by grandma or getting flattened by a car. But what we start to grasp a little later is that there are more and more rules that we don't really understand. Why did I have to wait until I went to college to write with a pen at school? If I'm 16 years old, why can't I bang my really hot 15-year-old girlfriend. But we start to understand that society's norms -- the social contract that we all operate under, is based on that common respect for rules and laws. If my arguments on this thread have suggested to you that I believe that laws = morality, then I have misspoken. Obeying laws is "right." Doing "the right thing" is usually (but certainly not always) the morally proper thing to do. I'm afraid I'm just not smart enough to mount an epistemological argument about which activities in the wine.com saga are truly right and truly wrong. I just happen to think that tattletales are not bad people on the whole.
-----------------------
Le vin français est inférieur
Du vin français est surestimé
Le vin français suce
|
| |
| Posts: 3000 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: Jan 10, 2004 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Montsant:
What I find confusing is wine.com's "We just want open shipping and fair competition." I fail to see how open shipping would benefit their business. If you spend the time and money to set up a distribution system to comply with ridiculous regulations, then it would seem to me that if the bureaucracy went away, you've just wasted money. Also, if states allow open shipping, and pigs fly, unless its got some well-tailored volume restrictions, Wal-Mart puts everyone out of business, save niche retailers with exceptionally good staff and management.
As you've stated, Wine.com's statement does not make any sense when you break it down. PR spin rarely does. And since Mssrs. Bergsund and Osborn asked, my given name is Kevin Silke and once upon a time I was a fairly good customer of yours. It was your pricing and selections that eventually lost me as I became better educated. Your recent actions have done nothing to change my mind on these matters. |
| |
| Posts: 1745 | Location: San Diego, CA | Registered: Nov 19, 2005 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut:
I'm afraid I'm just not smart enough to mount an epistemological argument about which activities in the wine.com saga are truly right and truly wrong. I just happen to think that tattletales are not bad people on the whole.
I'm of two minds. One says, it's business, and they're within their rights. The other thinks this was the business plan all along, create a network that can comply with the laws as written and then try to get them enforced. Something smacks of what my mother called "pulling a fast one" when I was eight. It's a bit sneaky. At the end of the day, I agree. This isn't important enough to be a "Moral" issue, capital M. But for me, if I were in a state Wine.com can ship to, that works against them. There are things that I will buy or, more commonly vote for in a civic context, even if they are bad for me personally. Since this is not a moral issue, I wouldn't have to feel bad about simply protecting my own interests. Insofar as it matters to me, I can't see how at least at this point wine.com's interests are not aligned with distributors. That means their interests are opposed to consumers and, as such, mine.
---------
Tim Burnett
|
| |
| Posts: 338 | Location: Wisconsin | Registered: Apr 19, 2007 | |
|
Member
|
|
| |
| Posts: 1405 | Location: Boston | Registered: Aug 14, 2006 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut: quote: Originally posted by VT2IT:
Although I can see how as a lawyer you are unable to understand that. What I don't understand is how you can have to gall to call others amoral if they believe that they are not required to follow a blatantly unconstitutional law.
Sorry VT2IT -- if you had gone to law school and taken the oath when you were admitted to the bar, you would understand thas as a law-abiding member of society, you have no right to cherry-pick the laws that you decide to obey. It is all or nothing. Perhaps you should read a little Shakespeare. In Henry VI, the classic line of Dick the Butler is "THE FIRST THING WE DO, LET'S KILL ALL THE LAWYERS." That's a famous line, quoted by many lawyer haters out there. Of course if you read the play in context, you'll understand that Dick the Butler is advocating lawlessness and revolution, and his starting point for revolution is to kill all the lawyers. So, VT2IT, are you being a Dick? Methinks so. You're not doing anything but advocating lawlessness, and that is truly amoral. And what makes it worse is that you're cloaking it as civil disobedience which is especially abhorrent.
Oh this is rich, a lawyer trying to lecture me on morality. Somebody whose professional ethics demand that he never takes right and wrong into play, only the letter of the law. Let me try to explain this to you again, the laws are simply the words of man, morality is on a higher plain. And I say that as an atheist, you do not need any spiritual mumbo-jumbo to know right from wrong, although it seems you need to have never suffered the indoctrination of law school. As a member of the bar you are required to give your client your best effort, even if that means looking for a legal loophole, or a slight technical error to get him off. Explain to me exactly how it is moral and not just legal for somebody that is guilty of a violent crime to be placed back in society, to continue to menace the population, just because they were able to hire a “good” lawyer. Laws are arbitrary, capricious and often discriminatory, morals are universal. I understand that the rules of a just society need to be codified, the problem is there are way too many rules. Many which have been put in place to benefit one group over others. That is not moral. I ask one other thing of you, before you attack me as a sociopath because I would like to purchase wine that is not available in my state, please try, just once, to actually address the issue at hand. If I am unhappy with how a company goes about their business I’m not compelled by any moral or legal rule to use their services. I also have a perfect right to air my grievances. Its called freedom of speech ever heard of it?
Remember to always aim high, that way you won't get any on your shoes.
|
| |
| Posts: 2492 | Location: Vermont | Registered: Sep 10, 2006 | |
|
Member
|
Funny, but I aalways viewed the tattletale in the negative. Generally, they tend to be:
1) Smug, self-interested and self-absorbed, with an overly high opinion of their own righteousness.
2) Sneaky little sh*ts, too weak to address the situation themselves, preferring to sneak behind the offender's back.
3) Two-faced, due to the fact that they usually have done something similar, or at least at the same level, and would bitch and moan to the high heavens if they had to answer for it.
Other than that, they are just fine.
|
| |
|
Member
|
Wow, VT2IT. Nice rant. Your one little small-minded post there is so full of ridiculous crap, that I need to break it down... quote: Originally posted by VT2IT: Oh this is rich, a lawyer trying to lecture me on morality. Somebody whose professional ethics demand that he never takes right and wrong into play, only the letter of the law.
I have no problem with your attack on lawyers in toto. As lawyers, we learn early on that most people who don't have much day-to-day contact with attorneys often hold the profession in disdain until they actually find themselves in need of a lawyer. But you, sir, have no basis whatsoever to question my professional ethics. You don't know me and your assumptions about how I practice law are way off base. Your ramblings here reveal some pretty sophomoric perceptions of the law. Let's look at your logic: quote: Originally posted by VT2IT: As a member of the bar you are required to give your client your best effort
I'm not sure I see your point there. Are there other professions out there that expect you to do the best job you can do? I'm not sure what you do for a living, but remind me, if we ever work together, that your agenda is more important than anything else. And then there are your rantings about criminal law and procedure: quote: Originally posted by VT2IT: even if that means looking for a legal loophole, or a slight technical error to get him off. Explain to me exactly how it is moral and not just legal for somebody that is guilty of a violent crime to be placed back in society, to continue to menace the population, just because they were able to hire a “good” lawyer.
I'm as frustrated by O.J. getting off as the next guy. You need to remember, though, that our Constitutional protections are in place to ensure that innocent men don't go to prison. I'm not a criminal lawyer, but suggest you do a little reading on the subject. You can start with the 4th amendment, the 5th amendment, read the Magna Carta. If that's too heavy for you, perhaps you should rent the movie Gideon's Trumpet. quote: Originally posted by VT2IT: Laws are arbitrary, capricious and often discriminatory
I'm not sure what to say about this. I'm afraid you're just flat-out wrong here. Laws are very rarely arbitrary or capricious, and in today's society, they certainly are not discriminatory. If they are, the Judicial Branch irons that out for us. quote: Originally posted by VT2IT: I ask one other thing of you, before you attack me as a sociopath because I would like to purchase wine that is not available in my state, please try, just once, to actually address the issue at hand. If I am unhappy with how a company goes about their business I’m not compelled by any moral or legal rule to use their services. I also have a perfect right to air my grievances. Its called freedom of speech ever heard of it?
I never called you a sociopath. I do think you have managed, via sloppy logic, to convince yourself that endorsement of violating the law is some proud social commentary. You have every right to decide whether or not to purchase wine from whomever you wish and for whatever reasons you wish. As a free market guy, I encourage that. If you're ordering from companies that are not legally shipping, don't complain when your wine is seized or you're hit with a fine. I also have no problem with your Seinfeldian right to air your grievances. Just don't criticize me when I point out all the reasons why you're wrong. Don't delude yourself into thinking that just because you're exercising your freedom of speech that anyone's listening to what you're saying.
-----------------------
Le vin français est inférieur
Du vin français est surestimé
Le vin français suce
|
| |
| Posts: 3000 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: Jan 10, 2004 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut Allow me to deomstrate a sloppy (and very loose) analogy: all pitchers (or almost all of them) could pitch a baseball that is harder to hit if they could use a spit ball or a vaseline ball. Its against the rules. But then you, the baseball fan, get upset at Greg Maddux -- not because he's throwing the spitball, but because he let's the umpire know that that his opponent is throwing the spitball. My point,of course, is that bottles of wine are like spitballs when they cross state lines. 
My point is that wine.com has stated that they DO believe that the "spitballs" should be legal for all. So, let's say its like this- Greg Maddux would like spitballs to be allowed, and has said so in public. He has however developed other pitches that work just fine for him. He sees, though, that other pitchers are throwing spitballs. He has a team mate directly dare one of those pitchers to throw him a spitball. When the pitcher does, Greg and his team mates jump up and demand that the ump throw the bum out. Needless to say, Greg would never have done anything like that. No smart pitcher would. Here is another one. A pharmaceutical company has a THC based anti-nausea drug. They claim it is both harmless and beneficial. They do have another approved money making drug used for the same purpose, but they see their profits threatened by small sellers of medical marijuana. Instead of lobbying for a change in the laws, or pressing authorities to step up enforcement, they themselves set up a sting to buy "medical" marijuana and turn the sellers over to law enforcement. PR disaster? You bet! |
| |
|
Member
|
Actually, my attorney is a pretty stand up guy. He got me a walk on those trumped up assault charges.......
--------------------
"One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."
Marcel Ayme`
|
| |
| Posts: 6921 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Montsant:
I'm of two minds. One says, it's business, and they're within their rights. The other thinks this was the business plan all along, create a network that can comply with the laws as written and then try to get them enforced.
I doubt it. In Mr. Burgsund's first post on Vinography, he states that "We don't do this for the fun of it, but because states have come after us . . ." My interpretation of this is that Wine.com was perfectly happy making illegal shipments prior to the time that they were caught. Once caught, their goal became to spread the misery, while hiding behind the rationalization that they 'now operate within the law.' In my book, that's just plain slimy and childish. Enough so to preclude them from earning any of my business. |
| |
| Posts: 883 | Location: STL | Registered: Dec 22, 2005 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut: Wow, VT2IT. Nice rant. Your one little small-minded post there is so full of ridiculous crap, that I need to break it down... Nice how you start out with and insult and a lie, good debate style there. quote: Originally posted by VT2IT: Oh this is rich, a lawyer trying to lecture me on morality. Somebody whose professional ethics demand that he never takes right and wrong into play, only the letter of the law.
I have no problem with your attack on lawyers in toto. As lawyers, we learn early on that most people who don't have much day-to-day contact with attorneys often hold the profession in disdain until they actually find themselves in need of a lawyer. But you, sir, have no basis whatsoever to question my professional ethics. You don't know me and your assumptions about how I practice law are way off base. Your ramblings here reveal some pretty sophomoric perceptions of the law. I never attacked your ethics, show me where I did. I made a simple, true statement about your profession. Also it is my experience that people dislike lawyers AFTER they have to use their services. quote: Originally posted by VT2IT: As a member of the bar you are required to give your client your best effort
I'm not sure I see your point there. Are there other professions out there that expect you to do the best job you can do? I'm not sure what you do for a living, but remind me, if we ever work together, that your agenda is more important than anything else. Are you incapable of understanding the English language? Or is it that you get a perverse sence of joy out of misrepresenting others remarks? You know damn well that I was speaking about members of the bar's duty to represent their client even if they know that they are guilty, and how that is hard to pass off as moral.And then there are your rantings about criminal law and procedure: quote: Originally posted by VT2IT: even if that means looking for a legal loophole, or a slight technical error to get him off. Explain to me exactly how it is moral and not just legal for somebody that is guilty of a violent crime to be placed back in society, to continue to menace the population, just because they were able to hire a “good” lawyer.
I'm as frustrated by O.J. getting off as the next guy. You need to remember, though, that our Constitutional protections are in place to ensure that innocent men don't go to prison. I'm not a criminal lawyer, but suggest you do a little reading on the subject. You can start with the 4th amendment, the 5th amendment, read the Magna Carta. If that's too heavy for you, perhaps you should rent the movie Gideon's Trumpet. More insults, no actual response. I guess that is your only recourse when you are so blantly wrong,quote: Originally posted by VT2IT: Laws are arbitrary, capricious and often discriminatory
I'm not sure what to say about this. I'm afraid you're just flat-out wrong here. Laws are very rarely arbitrary or capricious, and in today's society, they certainly are not discriminatory. If they are, the Judicial Branch irons that out for us. You clearly are not paying attention. Just as a simple example, speed limits. They vary greatly for similar roads, how is that not arbitary. As for discriminatory, well wine shipping laws for one. You know just because you say something is so, that does not make it so.quote: Originally posted by VT2IT: I ask one other thing of you, before you attack me as a sociopath because I would like to purchase wine that is not available in my state, please try, just once, to actually address the issue at hand. If I am unhappy with how a company goes about their business I’m not compelled by any moral or legal rule to use their services. I also have a perfect right to air my grievances. Its called freedom of speech ever heard of it?
I never called you a sociopath. I do think you have managed, via sloppy logic, to convince yourself that endorsement of violating the law is some proud social commentary. You have every right to decide whether or not to purchase wine from whomever you wish and for whatever reasons you wish. As a free market guy, I encourage that. If you're ordering from companies that are not legally shipping, don't complain when your wine is seized or you're hit with a fine. Well here is a direct quote from you "you're one step short of sociopathic and are most likely amoral." Or did you forget that one. As for what will happen if my wine is seized, I won't be hiring a lawyer to try and weasel my way out.I also have no problem with your Seinfeldian right to air your grievances. Just don't criticize me when I point out all the reasons why you're wrong. Don't delude yourself into thinking that just because you're exercising your freedom of speech that anyone's listening to what you're saying.
Seinfeldian??? You pointed out no resons why I'm wrong, only your sadly misguided opinions. And to that I for one am more then done listening.
Remember to always aim high, that way you won't get any on your shoes.
|
| |
| Posts: 2492 | Location: Vermont | Registered: Sep 10, 2006 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by VT2IT:
Originally posted by VT2IT: Oh this is rich, a lawyer trying to lecture me on morality. Somebody whose professional ethics demand that he never takes right and wrong into play, only the letter of the law.
[/QUOTE] VT2IT, Lawyers are officers of the court. They are instructed to defend the rights of their clients within the limits of the law. Their professional ethics does mandate that lawyers maintain integrity, truthfullness and equity before the courts and their clients. Next time you find yourself trying to explain a dead body on your front porch, don't call a lawyer. Just talk to the police and explain the whole situation. They will believe you and you'll be just fine.
***********************
"I have drunk not to the clouding of my reason, but just so much that I can still surely distinguish the syllables with my tongue." Athenaeus
|
| |
| Posts: 3375 | Location: montreal | Registered: Feb 21, 2004 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut:
... Tomorrow we'll advocate shipping prescriptions from Canada. The day-after-tomorrow we'll say snorting coke is a victimless offense. Next week we'll legalize prostitution. Next month we'll do away with the EPA. Next year we'll get rid of the 12-man jury. We can revoke habeas corpus next, and then do away with general elections.
Hey, sounds like a fun rest-of-the week!
---------------
cheers, y'all!
|
| |
| Posts: 2792 | Location: Germantown, TN | Registered: Dec 08, 2001 | |
|
Member
|
Once snorting coke and prostitution is legal who will care about the rest of the stuff?
pissing people off since 1971!
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart
|
| |
| Posts: 3409 | Location: oklahoma city, usa | Registered: Aug 15, 2004 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by seanr7:
Once snorting coke and prostitution is legal who will care about the rest of the stuff?
Nevada is halfway there |
| |
| Posts: 1176 | Location: Atlanta | Registered: Sep 02, 2006 | |
|
Member
|
Why exactly is snorting coke and prostitution illegal? What damn right does the government have to tell you what you can do with your own body. A fine example of how laws are written to the whim of those in power.
Remember to always aim high, that way you won't get any on your shoes.
|
| |
| Posts: 2492 | Location: Vermont | Registered: Sep 10, 2006 | |
|
Member
|
Quite a bit of thread drift here. To get back to the discussion about the Wine.com sting, I suggest a visit to Vinography. I am in the business of online wine retailing, so this issue weighs heavy with me.
www.winemonger.com
|
| |
| Posts: 4 | Location: los angeles | Registered: Feb 15, 2006 | |
|
Member
|
As a FORMER Wine.com customer, I am disgusted by this behavior. I hope all Wine.com customers join me in rewarding their despicable actions by never, ever patronizing Wine.com again. Period.
|
| |
|
Member
|
Law and morality are certainly intertwined. There are plenty of laws in all countries that are based on morality. Laws which do not reflect the good will of the people, that are not regularly enforced, and are represented by a small subset who control power are usually bad laws and hopefully fail under their own hypocrisy. Prohibition was such a law and was repealed due largely to the large number of people that broke the law. It doesn’t appear to have caused a breakdown in society since and ignoring transport laws today will most likely have little effect either. In fact, I encourage those in restrictive states to do so in an effort to get the laws changed. Due to the huge amount of blackmarket activity in producing/distributing/selling alcohol illegally during prohibition, it is understandable, albeit wrong, why a controlled distribution was enacted by the states at the time. We unfortunately still live with the baggage of that bygone era in many states and the distributers will not let go of their control. Citizens of legal age have a right to purchase, possess and consume wine (the Constitution does allow a state to control & even ban it). Yet, in some cases, it is against the law to transport wine directly to them. Nearly everyone agrees that these shipping restrictions are wrong. The exception, of course, is from those who financially benefit from them. These restrictions needlessly infringe on our rights. And when actions take place which increase these restrictions, it is human nature to react against the perpetrators. Wine.com is not only supporting a bad law, they are actively privately entrapping those who support what the people want and have a right to. Their actions will, no doubt, ultimately cause greater restrictions. The outrage against wine.com is not only natural and understandable, it is an important step towards removing these bad laws.
___________________________________________________
It's good to try them young too and then let them age - James Suckling
Infanticide can be very satisfying - Robert Parker
I drink mine young to avoid disappointments - James Laube
|
| |
| Posts: 5058 | Location: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jun 03, 2004 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Chilepepper:
Does everyone that want to boycott wine.com also currently boycotting the music industry? I'd say they have used "strong-arm" tactics for the past few years.
If we were discussing boycotting the wine industry instead of a single retailer, that kind of analogy would make sense.
___________________________________________________
It's good to try them young too and then let them age - James Suckling
Infanticide can be very satisfying - Robert Parker
I drink mine young to avoid disappointments - James Laube
|
| |
| Posts: 5058 | Location: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jun 03, 2004 | |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by GreenDrazi: quote: Originally posted by Chilepepper:
Does everyone that want to boycott wine.com also currently boycotting the music industry? I'd say they have used "strong-arm" tactics for the past few years.
If we were discussing boycotting the wine industry instead of a single retailer, that kind of analogy would make sense.
Well, because the industry is using the RIAA to do their dirty work, it not possible to single out one record label or retailer. Feel free however to single out any of these: clicky |
| |
| Posts: 2116 | Location: Tampa, FL | Registered: Jan 27, 2005 | |
|
Member
|
But isn't the rcording insustry issue all about them getting paid for their product? Different issue than the wine.com story in my opinion. This is more like a Virgin Megastore vs. ITunes battle.
Most music today sucks, the industry hasn't figured out how to move to the internet, and a variety of other issues have hurt them badly, but quite frankly, I don't blame them one bit for trying to get paid for their product. (That said, they are extremely ham-fisted in the way they go about it)
|
| |
|
Member
|
quote: Originally posted by sydthesquid:
But isn't the rcording insustry issue all about them getting paid for their product? Different issue than the wine.com story in my opinion. This is more like a Virgin Megastore vs. ITunes battle.
Most music today sucks, the industry hasn't figured out how to move to the internet, and a variety of other issues have hurt them badly, but quite frankly, I don't blame them one bit for trying to get paid for their product. (That said, they are extremely ham-fisted in the way they go about it)
The correlation is the tactics by which they have gone about to ensure they get paid. I frankly have a bigger problem with what they have done vs. what wine.com did. |
| |
| Posts: 2116 | Location: Tampa, FL | Registered: Jan 27, 2005 | |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
© Wine Spectator Online 2009
|
