quote:

Originally posted by Walla2WineWoman:

quote:

Originally posted by VT2IT:
I’m curious. What exactly are the qualifications needed to have a blog? I always assumed it was access to a computer and a couple of acquaintances that will claim to care about the drivel you write. Are there anything more than those? No I don’t think so. That being so nobody cares if any blogger is insulted as you are completely without worth. As cdr's sig used to say blogs are free and worth the price.

And the difference between a blogger's so-called drivel and your drivel is that the majority of the bloggers, especially wine bloggers, do not hide behind convenient anonymity such as yourself. Sure, it's easy for you to spout off such "drivel" because you are an anonymous coward that won't take responsibility for your words.

So therefore, I think your comments are basically worthless. If you don't like what I have posted regarding your poltroon anonymity, at least you are welcome to send me an email, which you will find available on my blog if you want to discuss the topic of "blogger drivel" any further. That is certainly more integrity than you have given to this discussion.

I should remind you that you, too, are using an alias. That is not the same thing as being anonymous. You just assumed that, ironically.

Many of us post under our real names on another forum. Many of us have met in person. Many have links to their blog, winery, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Walla2WineWoman:Free speech is not anonymous speech.

Wrong again. Anonymity is crucial to journalism. I know you know that, so I don't need to explain, do I?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by yhn:
I should remind you that you, too, are using an alias. That is not the same thing as being anonymous.
QUOTE]

duhrrr...and your point? This may be an alias, but I also keep a signature on the bottom of my WS posts. Therefore, you can go to my blog and get my name and email. So, what is it exactly that you have to remind me of? And duh...I know that alias and anonymous are not the same thing.

However, on many of those doing the name calling, etc such as VT2IT does not have any kind of info or signature that informs other members who he/she is. Of course, VT2IT is an alias, but also strictly anonymous unlike myself. So exactly what is the point you are trying to make? I don't need any reminding - - it is very clear to me.

Anonymity is crucial to journalism? What book of journalism did you read that in? That's news to me and I bet that the editors of the WS would find bit of info new to them as well. I don't think we would have a lot of respect for WS management if they left their editorials, reviews and articles all anonymous.

Wow - I'm outta here for now. I think maybe I need to catch up on my wine drinking like the rest of you, because being sober is no way to read this topic.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Walla2WineWoman:
...and you call me an idiot with no sense of reason? Let's try this again.
QUOTE]

Please don't. WS editors have released all the information that they need/want to on this topic. I agree w/ them for not telling more. It seems like a lot of people feel that they are entitled to knowing every little detail on the issue. They're not. Are you going to start asking when their last movement was and the texture of it. These details are none of your business. If you're not happy w/ their response then oh well, get over it. Is that not reason enough? We don't always get what we want in life. This drum has been beat to death and it is time for a new rythm, such as wine. I have a wine question for you. A gentleman who worked for me this summer just finished his last day @ work and brought me in a bottle of 2005 Columbia Crest Reserve Syrah (wish more of my employees brought me bottles of wine). How much age do you think the bottle needs to really start to open up. I was thinking about laying it down for two years before popping. Any suggestion or comments on the wine?

Vin, you misread me. When I commented about:
"Let's try this again." I was NOT referring to the WS situation and the award scam. I was referring to insults regarding bloggers from some of the anonymous readers and trying to make some clarity of it.

The 2005 Columbia Crest Reserve Syrah? You could lay it down for about 2-5 years - - if you wish. And then again, Columbia Crest wines are known to be approachable now.

My worst mistake of 2008 -

Posting on page 1 or 2 of this thread and subsequently receiving all the posts that came after.

I'm embarrassed for WS folks that WS folks are responding to the moronic posts, however well-worded their responses might be. And for Heaven's sake, shut this thread down. It is worthless.

1WineDude -

LOL. My name is Samuel, not Sammy. You can call me Mr.Maverick.

You want "the WS editors to detail what aspects of the awards process they might re-examine". OK. How long has this problem been out, a week? OK. They should get right back to you with their changes ASAP. Elitist entitlement. You're here for exposure (read: free advertisement). I've been here since 2005, I'm not a troll. You've been here since Thursday (3 Days), looking to cash in on one(1) topic, this one. Out of everyone here, you'd be the troll. Please, educate me all about that "courage" that it takes "to put yourself on the line publicly almost every day" being a blogger. When bloggers die do they put flags on their coffins for all their courageous actions? Please get back to me when our government declares a national holiday commemorating all the courage shown by bloggers. Elitist entitlement. (I just wanted to say that again.) This is not at all a "hostile environment". You're still here, I'm still here, all the other 1-timers could still be here. All God's children, with the exceptions of Serge and Francis, have the opportunity to be here. You can't go to any other forum and call out the hosts, like you did, and still be welcome there (not booted off), like you still are here. You're a crybaby w/ elitist entitlement syndrome. Please, block me and get off this post. Go try to be constructive anywhere else on this forum. Maybe we could even start over and get along then. Just please don't stay on this one thread ragging on WS and it's editors, expecting any type of acceptance. I looked at your blog, it's cute. I'm older than 14, so I don't do twitter. You've told me I wouldn't last 3 minutes on any forum you ran so I guess the OWC is out. OK. I think that just about does it.

HEY VIN GREAT POST.

HEY 1WineDude, I'm going out after this to enjoy a bottle of juice with a friend. Have you got any TNs on the Pillar Box Reserve?


.

quote:

Originally posted by Walla2WineWoman:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by yhn:
I should remind you that you, too, are using an alias. That is not the same thing as being anonymous.
QUOTE]

duhrrr...and your point? This may be an alias, but I also keep a signature on the bottom of my WS posts. Therefore, you can go to my blog and get my name and email. So, what is it exactly that you have to remind me of? And duh...I know that alias and anonymous are not the same thing.

However, on many of those doing the name calling, etc such as VT2IT does not have any kind of info or signature that informs other members who he/she is. Of course, VT2IT is an alias, but also strictly anonymous unlike myself. So exactly what is the point you are trying to make? I don't need any reminding - - it is very clear to me.

Anonymity is crucial to journalism? What book of journalism did you read that in? That's news to me and I bet that the editors of the WS would find bit of info new to them as well. I don't think we would have a lot of respect for WS management if they left their editorials, reviews and articles all anonymous.

Wow - I'm outta here for now. I think maybe I need to catch up on my wine drinking like the rest of you, because being sober is no way to read this topic.

My point is your signature linking your blog may or may not link your identity. I would have to assume either way *or* go through some effort and check. YOU, while using an alias, ASSumed that a long-time user here, also using an alias, is anonymous. You DID NOT go through any effort to check. You declared an assumption.

The problem is you are so caught up in your little argument over a perceived slight - a point you have actually added weight to - that you can't see straight.

Okay, apparently you need some enlightenment. In the real world there is often retaliation for free speech. Would Deep Throat have come forward without the benefit of anonymity?

Like whistle blowers, forum users may have legitimate reasons for wanting to remain anonymous. Say, someone who works at a winery and has negative things to say about the industry. It may be simply to avoid the appearance of speaking for one's employer.

wow.. since wer'e allb eating a deadd cow, horse?
i don't know. after 3 bottles of port and 4 pints after can I please ask you new psoeters to keeep the replies ot under 1 sentence. I'm having trouble reading what youre' tgrying to say ... quite onfucsing actually.

quote:

Originally posted by yhn:

My point is your signature linking your blog may or may not link your identity. I would have to assume either way *or* go through some effort and check. .

Ummm..you are wrong. And unlike you, I DID check the anonymous blogging-bashers and never found any blogs or other links. So don't tell me what I did or did not do and speak for yourself about assumptions.

quote:

Originally posted by yhn:
Okay, apparently you need some enlightenment. In the real world there is often retaliation for free speech... Would Deep Throat have come forward without the benefit of anonymity?

Like whistle blowers, forum users may have legitimate reasons for wanting to remain anonymous. Say, someone who works at a winery and has negative things to say about the industry. It may be simply to avoid the appearance of speaking for one's employer

Ooooo...how clandestine...oooooooo....now we are comparing the WS forum to the likes of Watergate and Norma Ray? Grow up, get in the real world and cop a clue to your own enlightenment. If one has to hide to "avoid the appearance of speaking for one's employer" as you suggested, then perhaps they have no business speaking out at all.
ooooo....

quote:

Originally posted by Lentini:
My worst mistake of 2008 -

Posting on page 1 or 2 of this thread and subsequently receiving all the posts that came after.

I'm embarrassed for WS folks that WS folks are responding to the moronic posts, however well-worded their responses might be. And for Heaven's sake, shut this thread down. It is worthless.

I hear you Lentini. The problem with this post is that it remains at the top of the Wine Conversations regardless of whether someone is posting on it or not.

And the band played on.
So, round and around and around we go.
Where the world's headed, nobody knows.

Oh, great googalooga, can't you hear me talking to you.
Just a ball of confusion.
Oh yeah, that's what the world is today.
Woo, hey, hey.

I truly, honestly hope they close this thread sooner than later.

I enjoyed the thread for awhile - different points of view were shared in a relatively civil manner.

Not any more . . .

FWIW, I really don't care how many posts someone has. If they are new to a board, civil, and respectful, I will listen . . .

And this goes for those that have been on this board for awhile, as well. Tenure does not give you the right to be nasty to others . . .

Just my $.02 - back to watching the rest of the olympics, cleaning my garage, and enjoying a glass of 01 Lesec Cotes du Rhones Beaumes with some chinese food . . .

Cheers!

quote:

Originally posted by larry schaffer:

Just my $.02 - back to watching the rest of the olympics, cleaning my garage, and enjoying a glass of 01 Lesec Cotes du Rhones Beaumes with some chinese food . . .

Cheers!

I'm trying to turn a few people over with a pairing of szechwan with vintage ports, or even some young ruby ports.

I feel the full body and sweetness matches very well with the oil or spicy chinese food =)

All I've got is some leftover General Tso's Chicken and fried tofu with asparagus . . . Not the best match of flavors, but I was aching to break into my 'lesser' bottles tonight and see what this one held - and open a spot in the cellar for something us to sneak in (-:

Cheers!

In the spirit of how wine related this thread has become...

Chuck Norris destroyed the periodic table, because he only recognizes the element of surprise.

Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird.

Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried. Ever.

quote:

Originally posted by Walla2WineWoman:
I was referring to insults regarding bloggers from some of the anonymous readers and trying to make some clarity of it.

I find this really ironic.

I'll assume you're mad because the people are posting with impunity - i.e. because you don't know their name they have nothing to lose.

Yet you help Goldstein do EXACTLY the same thing to Wine Spectator. He acted with impunity (provided no legal action is possible). Granted, he didn't do it anonymously, but he had nothing to lose. He ran into someone's backyard, stuck a flag in the ground, and proclaimed himself king. And you decided to help him put the crown on his head.

And now you complain when it happens to you.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Brian Loring,

quote:

Originally posted by Red guy in a blue state:
And the band played on.
So, round and around and around we go.
Where the world's headed, nobody knows.

Oh, great googalooga, can't you hear me talking to you.
Just a ball of confusion.
Oh yeah, that's what the world is today.
Woo, hey, hey.

The Temptations or the Love and Rockets cover? I prefer the latter.

I have to say that I am blogger (booo!) and I'm posting anonymously because I don't want folks accusing me of achieving 15 minutes of fame or looking to drive traffic to my site. I could care less about these aspects.

But...enough already! Stop spending your energy on such useless and negative commentary. Your punishment is to write about the differences between Germany's QbA and QmP categories.

In all seriousness, we've gravely swayed off the subject at hand. This isn’t a debate about WS vs. the wine blogging community – both communities share many similar goals and the diversity and uniqueness that each bring to the table is critical and invaluable - and we have room for both entities.

Let's get back to the subject at hand which is to focus on the deceitful exploitation that will inevitably affect the WS award system process.

I had an opportunity to read the story of both Goldstein and WS. I also (briefly) scanned the comments left on this forum. Initially, I couldn’t help but laugh at the prank, but after further consideration, it is evident that Goldstein did something deceitful at the expense of WS. It’s a shame that WS has to defend their actions against such an attack. On one hand, many praised Goldstein's little devious attempts to debunk the awards. Why would anyone support this behavior? His explicatory actions damaged the industry as a whole - and who gained from it? Certainly not the wine industry.

The bottom line is that there are appropriate avenues that one might seize to promote and recommend changes to an awards system; shame on Goldstein for initiating such a prank to prove a point (for which I am still uncertain of his intent).

As WS stipulates, this will only force them to "put in additional safeguards" in fear of being manipulated or circumvented in the future. One can only assume their discussion(s) and decision(s) will take a bit of time to resolve.

...and I tend to agree with Molesworth on the "blogger" subject - bloggers need to "up" their game - it's constructive criticism for which every blogger should embrace. Reporting goes beyond regurgitating a second hand story - validate the facts before posting erroneous material - and my word of advice? Build upon the untold story.

This ridiculous outburst from a Ebober.

quote:

Originally Posted by Vera L.
Well, I don't know. Did you see the list and the "reserve" list? I think it would mean you could send them a wine that they scored horribly low before, but the same wine now gets an award. I know you think the WS is great, but Brian any which way you want to turn this fiasco, it simply shows how disingenuous that entire silly award program is and to me at leat, the entire WS. As others have pointed out, there is some useful information in that mag and all the gossipy wine stuff can be fun at times, but as critical wine journal it has zero credibililty and this sting was just one very visible proof of that. You obviously disagree and I am not particularly fond of these type of sting operations either, but the proof is in the pudding...or apples...or whatever.

SD-Wineaux's good response.

quote:

Disingenuous?!? You want to talk about being disingenuous while being tucked safely within Squire's site while you (and others) cast aspersions on WS ratings of wine over this 'sting'?

I've personally called into question the value of the WS awards program for restaurants (SD-Wineaux over there, in case you're interested). But to stretch this into questioning their credibility as a wine journal is ridiculous. Does Parker purchase all of the wines that he reviews or does he charge the wineries for the cost of their wines to submit them? Does he conduct research to ensure that the submitted wines represent what is available to the general public and don't come from Parker-barrels? No, and neither does Spectator.

The degree of homerism in this thread is appalling. Up to now, I've only ever posted in the Offlines section (and yes, just one offline so far at that). If this post costs me the opportunity to offline with more of you, then I can live with that.

Could 'we' please refrain from an 'us vs. them' tirade on WS vs Ebob boards? Please?

There are enough of us who frequent both who tire of these quickly.

The fact is that there are many in the wine world who relish the fact that WS gets slammed in any way possible - but not everyone on that board (or this) is that shallow . . .

Again, please shut this thread down unless we can continue to discuss the facts at hand.

Cheers.

Chicago Tribune August 24th tells the rest of the story and it's not pretty.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-sun-wine-hoaxaug24,0,7875970.story

The most damaging accusation: "This year, nearly 4,500 restaurants spent $250 each to apply or reapply for the Wine Spectator award, and all but 319 won the award of excellence or some greater kudos, Matthews said. That translates to more than $1 million in annual revenue".

Sure sounds like the advertising department has a pretty solid control over these awards. What a shame.

The most important fact.

quote:

Originally posted by SD-Wineaux:
In the spirit of how wine related this thread has become...

Chuck Norris destroyed the periodic table, because he only recognizes the element of surprise.

Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird.

Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried. Ever.

Chuck Norris was born in a log cabin he built himself.

Chuck Norris doesn't do pushups, he pushes the earth down.

There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.

Chuck Norris doesn't sleep, he waits.