Fair enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut:

... We can revoke habeas corpus next

Hasn't the Bush Administration already done that???


Back to the original topic, looks like wine.com's rat-fink tactics have succeeded. I tried to order some wine this week from a internet retailer that has shipped to me in the past. They told me in light of the present environment, I'd have to ship it to one of my legal-state enablers. They wouldn't confirm that they got nailed by wine.com, but just said for the time being it would be best to keep a low profile.

wine.com sucks *ss... I hope that some concerned citizen reports Bergsund and Osborn for jaywalking, not fully halting at a stop sign, or picking their nose in public. They both suck *ss...

quote:

Originally posted by wine dot com:
Despite the negative PR for Wine.com, we can see there’s a lot of energy on this issue. Maybe there’s a way to channel it into some positive change....

Rich Bergsund
CEO, Wine.com

Mike Osborn
Founder, Wine.com

thanks for your attempt to respond. but i, for one, will never do business with your company. and i would discourage anyone else from doing the same.

quote:

Originally posted by phlin:
thanks for your attempt to respond. but i, for one, will never do business with your company. and i would discourage anyone else from doing the same.

I really don't give a sh*t about their business tactics -- I'll continue to buy from the retailers who have the best prices on what I want. Wine.com does have good service (as do many, many on-line wine retailers), but their prices suck.

quote:

Originally posted by VT2IT:
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.

I assume that this is a joke. Of course if you could access prostitution and cocaine without contributing to oppression (in the fields of Colombia or the street of Metropolis), then I would agree with you. Unfortunately you cannot. I suspect most of the prostitutes in America are the victims of some sort. Those that are not are the exception, not the rule. The same thing can be said for those involved in the production of cocaine.

By the way, the "Seinfeldian" reference was to the "airing of grievances" allowed of Festivus. Sienfeld was a sitcom that used to air on NBC.

If you don't understand why the proper function of criminal procedure in this country is necessary for fundamental civil liberties, then I can assure you that I do not have the debating skills to convince you of that on a wine forum board. Your principle criticism of lawyers seems to be that they have the audacity to be good at what they do.

But back to the topic. One point made earlier here was someone pointing out the character traits of the tattletale. I would really like to know if wine.com warned their competitors of their actions before they turned them in. If they did, then their actions are far more defensible. If not, then while their actions may have been legal and in their best interests from a business perspective, they're getting what they deserve with all of this negative PR.

It seems that they could have accomplished the same result if they had written their competitors and said, "If you don't desist, we're going to do what we can to bust you."

quote:

Originally posted by wine dot com:
Despite the negative PR for Wine.com, we can see there’s a lot of energy on this issue. Maybe there’s a way to channel it into some positive change....

Rich Bergsund
CEO, Wine.com

Mike Osborn
Founder, Wine.com

Rich and Mike- If 'channeling that energy into positive change' means supporting the SWRA and a conscientious decision has been made to NOT support your retail operation in any manner, then, yes, that has happened.

edited for typo.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSC02,

I am a retailer in TenNOssee, frustrated but
successful, that we legally can't even sell a friggin' corkscrew, much less ship or deliver.
TN is a felony state.

Regardless, I would never ever consider busting
another retailer ... probably the glass house theory. Do the owners of wine.com really feel so safe in their pristine business practices that should they be investigated for shipping to Felony states, they would be innocent of all possible charges?

And Board-Op --- Sadly, you're suggestion of just changing the laws if we don't like them is perhaps the most laughable comment of my tenure
in the wine business.

quote:

Rich and Mike- If 'channeling that energy into positive change' means supporting the SWRA and a conciencious decision has been made to NOT support your retail operation in any manner, then, yes, that has happened.

High energy guy that I am, that would be ditto.

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.

The closest analogy to the RIAA in this is the distributing/wholesale industry. The electronic music equivalent of wine.com's antics would be if Napster, now all legal and above board, started sending letters to the RIAA or US Atty. offices as to what websites are aiding the downloading of obscure Smiths singles and hard to find Phish bootlegs.

I work for a Fortune 500 company and we are currently dealing with a rise in highly illegal and anti-competitive practices from many small players entering the market of one of our more lucrative products. However, we have chosen not to take an active approach of reporting every instance to the authorities. We've made this choice mainly because of the bad PR and sour taste it would leave with customers that we are 'ratting out' our competitors. Fortunately we have the resources and diversification to wait for the government to take action. Maybe wine.com doesn't have that luxury. We will certainly cooperate with any investigations or prosecutions of these cases, but our image and relationship with our customers is much more important than forcing the issue on these scofflaws.

Quite frankly, I have no idea why there is so much discussion on this.

A hungry homeless kid that steals bread is stealing. You are not doing the right thing by not "ratting" him out. You do the right thing by paying for his bread.

The law is not in your own hands.

I think I read almost every single post in this thread. I am suprised no one mentioned 'free enterprise'. That's what allows companies to take a chance shipping to areas that are restricted to them, and also what justifies companies that profit from turning in the illegal shipments in doing just that. There's nothing wrong with taking a chance, but you should know going in that it may not work, and for sure may not work forever.

I think Board-O is totally right back on the first page.

So who is going to lead the charge and BOYCOTT action of wine.com?

I don't know what the big conflict is.

My summary:

1) Wine.com has the right to do what they think they need to do for their business.

2) If what they do bugs me (and their right to do it is irrelevant here), then I can think they suck asssss.

What's the biggie?

How about them sticking their nose into the free trade of wine and taking a personal interest (financial of course) in who is receiving wines from out of state sources.

If folks have no qualms about busting a wine retailer here, for their lousy service ... why should this situation be any different. These are the types of concerns that like to maintain tight control and the neo-Prohibitionist policies of groups like WSWA that funnel money to PACs and political campaigns.

There oughta be a law!

There is no such thing as "free trade" regarding wine sales when there are local, state and federal regulations covering those sales. You cannot equate the sale of alcoholic products with the sale of hard goods such as shirts, pants, computers, etc. IT IS ALCOHOL!

And here's an oxymoron: the WSWA, that promotes the sale of all alcoholic beverages, being referred to as neo-Prohibitionist! There's one for the books!

BTW.... why just wine?
Let's open up beer and hard spirits, too!

quote:

And here's an oxymoron: the WSWA, that promotes the sale of all alcoholic beverages, being referred to as neo-Prohibitionist! There's one for the books!

You are showing your lack of understanding of the bigger picture.

quote:

Originally posted by Roy Hersh:

quote:

And here's an oxymoron: the WSWA, that promotes the sale of all alcoholic beverages, being referred to as neo-Prohibitionist! There's one for the books!

You are showing your lack of understanding of the bigger picture.

No. He understands perfectly. He's a distributor....

From Mike Goldman: "BTW.... why just wine?
Let's open up beer and hard spirits, too!"

Hi Mike,

Good to see other industry people posting on these issues. Your comment above was obviously written sarcastically. Why do you think that notion is so humerous to those of us in the business? People reading this thread who are newer to the issues might care to learn a bit more from somebody in your position.

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Zucker:
From Mike Goldman: "BTW.... why just wine?
Let's open up beer and hard spirits, too!"

Hi Mike,

Good to see other industry people posting on these issues. Your comment above was obviously written sarcastically. Why do you think that notion is so humerous to those of us in the business? People reading this thread who are newer to the issues might care to learn a bit more from somebody in your position.

No we don't. We all know perfectly well all mike cares about is screwing the consumer.

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Zucker:
From Mike Goldman: "BTW.... why just wine?
Let' open up beer and hard spirits, too!"

Hi Mike,

Good to see other industry people posting on these issues. Your comment above was obviously written sarcastically. Why do you think that notion is so humerous to those of us in the business? People reading this thread who are newer to the issues might care to learn a bit more from somebody in your position.

LOL! Why on Earth would any consumer listen to representative of an organization which has no value to the consumer whatsoever?

quote:

Originally posted by sydthesquid:

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Zucker:
From Mike Goldman: "BTW.... why just wine?
Let' open up beer and hard spirits, too!"

Hi Mike,

Good to see other industry people posting on these issues. Your comment above was obviously written sarcastically. Why do you think that notion is so humerous to those of us in the business? People reading this thread who are newer to the issues might care to learn a bit more from somebody in your position.

LOL! Why on Earth would any consumer listen to representative of an organization which has no value to the consumer whatsoever?

You act like the consumer matters in the wine debate! Until the US Constitution is changed, the States can choose to do what they want.

Blame the Democrats for this mess...Wilson allowed Prohibition and FDR (America's worst President ever) allowed the current amendment to pass to allow states the right to regulate. Go bitch at the dead men!!

quote:

Originally posted by Chilepepper:

quote:

Originally posted by sydthesquid:

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Zucker:
From Mike Goldman: "BTW.... why just wine?
Let' open up beer and hard spirits, too!"

Hi Mike,

Good to see other industry people posting on these issues. Your comment above was obviously written sarcastically. Why do you think that notion is so humerous to those of us in the business? People reading this thread who are newer to the issues might care to learn a bit more from somebody in your position.

LOL! Why on Earth would any consumer listen to representative of an organization which has no value to the consumer whatsoever?

You act like the consumer matters in the wine debate! Until the US Constitution is changed, the States can choose to do what they want.

Blame the Democrats for this mess...Wilson allowed Prohibition and FDR (America's worst President ever) allowed the current amendment to pass to allow states the right to regulate. Go bitch at the dead men!!

I have to disagree with the idea that that the U.S. Constitution allows blatant discrimination against out of state shipping interests and that only a change to that document will change the laws.

What we have in fact is a conflict between two different parts of the constitution: The commerce clause and the 21st Amendment. How that conflict is to be resolved has already been addressed by the Supreme Court in Granholm v. Heald.

In that decision it was noted that indeed states could regulate the sale and distribution of alcohol in almost any way they choose....AS LONG AS they treat in-state and out-of-state interests equally.

In the case of shipping wine, this merely means that if a state allows it's own retailers to ship to its residents, then it must allow out-of-state retailers to do the same. Yet, many states still allow the discrimination against out-of-state shippers to continue.

How could this be? Money. The access purchased by wine wholesalers to the tune of $50,000,000 over just six years has allowed lawmakers to buy the wholesalers' argument that Granholm did not apply to retailers, but just to wineries. This argument is supported by the notion that it was wineries were involved in Granholm and not retailers. Yet no where in Granholm does it even suggest that the principle of non-discrimination only applies to wineries. Nor in fact is there any legitimate legal theory that would support this contention. It would akin to suggesting that Brown v. Board of education only applied to little African American girls, but that Hispanic boys could be segregated into separate schools. That's ludicrous. As is the the notion that out-of-state retailers can be discriminated against, but out-of-state wineries may not.

Yet, the substance of any legal code is not dictated by the constitution. It is dictated by those who write the code. To date, politicians have been willing to support unconstitutional laws because they are cornered by well heeled interests that whisper in their ears, put thousands of dollars in their campaign coffers and whisk them off to "retreats" to ponder the important principles of the overlapping vs. interlocked golf grip, the movement of the tides in tropical waters and the great benefits of a state-mandated distribution system for wine that happens to be the source of enormous wholesaler profits that eventually land back in their campaign coffers.

So, retailers and the consumers that want to do business with these retailers must, once again, rely on the courts to remind the legislators that there are actual legal standards and constitutional principles to be followed. This is why SWRA and its members are forced to go back to to the courts: to remind wholesalers and their lawmakers that the principle of constitutionalism and fairness are more important than finding one's way into the fairway.

Tom Wark
Specialty Wine Retailers Association

quote:

Originally posted by Chilepepper:

quote:

Originally posted by sydthesquid:

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Zucker:
From Mike Goldman: "BTW.... why just wine?
Let' open up beer and hard spirits, too!"

Hi Mike,

Good to see other industry people posting on these issues. Your comment above was obviously written sarcastically. Why do you think that notion is so humerous to those of us in the business? People reading this thread who are newer to the issues might care to learn a bit more from somebody in your position.

LOL! Why on Earth would any consumer listen to representative of an organization which has no value to the consumer whatsoever?

You act like the consumer matters in the wine debate! Until the US Constitution is changed, the States can choose to do what they want.

Blame the Democrats for this mess...Wilson allowed Prohibition and FDR (America's worst President ever) allowed the current amendment to pass to allow states the right to regulate. Go bitch at the dead men!!

I don't care about dead guys nor do I care to waste time blaming dens or repubs or any other such nonesense. It accomplishes nothing. He is a distributor. He is what is NOW a very large part of the problem TODAY. He is who I blame along with those that support him.

quote:

Originally posted by Chilepepper:
Blame the Democrats for this mess...Wilson allowed Prohibition and FDR (America's worst President ever) allowed the current amendment to pass to allow states the right to regulate. Go bitch at the dead men!!

You should stick to discussing football where shortsighted posturing has some credibility. I’m no democrat supporter, but neither presidential candidate was going to stand in the way of the prohibition train. You can’t get a constitutional amendment passed and blame it on a single party and prohibition was equally supported by both. Additionally, as much as I hate FDR, his campaign promise to repeal prohibition was instrumental in it’s demise.