Tony Finch

No-one person in the world of skiis and vacuum cleaners wields anything like as as much influence as Parker does in the world of wine. These products don't have gurus in this way.

Ron,since yours and Steve's arguments force me to examine why I feel so strongly about it I'll say this.Once you start believing you can validly rank order all wines then why NOT all music and literature and art and drama and so on. Ultimately why NOT people.?Why not races and religions ? I know that's spinning off from Parker but its that way of conceptualising the world that I object to. There's only one syllable's difference between Wine Spectator and Wine Dictator.

I'm certainly not going to get into another debate about whether there's a "natural order" when it comes to food,wine etc.We had all that over on the other thread.What it boiled down to as I recall was you and others saying that some cuisines etc. were better than others "because they were". But I do agree with you about one thing.I don't blame Parker himself for the overwhelming popularity of his scoring "system".And I don't doubt for a minute that Parker himself believes in it. I do blame the gullibility of a public who wantto believe that one man can reduce wine down to a set of scores and rank order them in fiftieths.Its that so manypeople believe that a).its possible and b) desireable to conceptualise wine in this way or even the world in this way that I find depressing. But hey what do I care. a friend's coming to dinner and I've just opened a bottle of Cos d'Estournel '86 (Parker 95 pts) so I'm OK.(smells great by the way).

Ron,I don't accept that my criticisms of Parker amount to "character assassination".It has nothing to do with his character.He is probably the single most powerful figure in the world of wine as far as the market is concerned and I would therefore contend that the French may be motivated to take a close interest in him for reasons that may have little to do with love.I accept that it is not only Americans who follow,him though. Steve,you surely do love your hierarchies don't you? No wonder you consider your friend who praised Parker for creating a hierarchy of all the world's wines to be "very smart". Maybe its not so much that he's smart but that he would appear to concur with your apparent view that in an ideal world everything (and,dare I ask,everyone?)will be allotted their correct place in the hierarchy,as determined by Steve Plotniki and his smart friends.After all,you've already stated that Parker could be 100% right about Bordeaux. How did one man get to be such a genius?And how did you reach an even more exalted level whereby you're able to determine how right he is? It is not good enough to say if you don't like Parker you can ignore him.He's not just some crank who no-body much listens to.He is extremely influential and powerful.His "judgements" can have enormous impact on real people's lives and livelihoods.His system is bogus and his power is dangerous.He is pulling the wool over too many people's eyes and more people need to stand up and say so

You American girlies are something else.Stellabella almosts"faints with joy" when she walks into ...er...a pub (albeit a very good pub) and this makes Yvonne Johnson "drool with envy." This is gastroporn at its finest. When are we all coming together (no pun intended of course)

Ron,I am not going to concede credit to Parker for exposing problems in the French wine industry.The problems of their classification systems and that of beefing up Burgundy with stronger reds from the South were well-known and discussed in the wine media well before Parker rose to such pre-eminence,as were a lot of other issues in France and elsewhere. The truth is that Americans love Parker because he reduces wine down to a childlike level of simplicity-this is a 90 point wine,that is an 86 point wine-and so on.Why bother discussing its nuances,its subtleties,its qualities-that's all boring.Just tell me how many points it rates. Well,taste is too varied,too complex,too wonderful to be reduced to a pseudo-scientific set of numbers and its a great shame that so many of those conferring such power in the industry on Parker are too gullible and too lazy to understand that

I don't know if you meant the warning idea seriously Simon,but I think it is a serious point. If a restaurant calls itself "Gordon Ramsey" or "John Burton-Race at The Landmark" do punters have a right to expect said chefs to be actually in the kitchen doing the cooking,or at least supervising it? After all,that's what the name of the place and all the attendant publicity would seem to be advertising. If you go to the theater and the star actor is unable to perform wouldn't you be offered the option of your money back?(maybe not these days,I rarely go to the theatre-too busy eating- but it used to be the case).

[.Once man starts to rule on what is and what is not "legitimate" and people begin to nod in agreement we're on a very slppery slope boys and don't you forget it. Sorry Typo. Should read Once ONE man starts to rule.....

I would contend that anyone who has had conferred upon them the power to be "devastating" to anyone who makes good wine(although not in his lordship's "style") cannot help BUT be an egomaniac.This is more than just a "gripe" It is an outrageous hijacking of a complex field of human endeavour and an attempt,concious or not,to mould it in one man's grotesqely overbloated image. "Thwarts illegitamacy"?? What ARE you talking about? Is there illigitamate music? Illigitamate poetry? Illigitimate art? BAD music,BAD art yes,but that's not quite the same thing.Once man starts to rule on what is and what is not "legitimate" and people begin to nod in agreement we're on a very slppery slope boys and don't you forget it.

Indiagirl,if this issue is more than just taste (will I like it/won't I like it,un answerable,ultimately by anyone other than you) then it is about "other issues". One of those issues may be "animal cruelty.Many vegetarians appear to believe that ALL rearing and killing of animals for food iswrong/cruel. How it is done is irrelevant. If you believe this you will not enjoy meat because you will see yourself as complicit in animal cruelty. If you take the position that it is possible to rear/kill animals for food in ways which are not cruel then it will be possible for you to find sources and suppliers whose practices reflect a more 'enlightened' view of animal husbandry. You might have to pay more.But then maybe that's what we'll all have to do if we want to see the abandonment of some of the practices described in posts above.

But do you wonder if you're missing something by NOT drinking your own urine? Does it occur to you to urinate into the curry?(sorry,but this is your analogy). No-one can "prove the benefits" to Indiagirl of eating meat.The question "is it worth it" is unanswerable by anybody other than her.And there is no way for her to answer it other than to try it and see if she likes it.She can ease herself in slowly or she can try that hunk of pork.Either way animal flesh or fish has to pass her lips before she can know.Finally it IS as simple as that.

To be honest after all this yadda I'm still not sure what question Indiagirl is asking.She wants to know what she is "missing".Well its easy enough to find out.Just go ahead and stick that piece of pork in the curry and see if she likes it. If she doesn't like it then she knows she's not missing anything doesn't she. What's stopping her? "The issues" of course,the ones this thread has gone on to talk about.To Indiagirl it's not as simple as going out and buying that piece of pork and giving it a try.To her it marks the crossing of some kind of moral/spiritual rubicon.This is OK as long as she realises that this is a totally self-imposed situationand there's no-one who can advise her without imposing their own self-imposed considerations upon her. So my advice is-forget all considerations other than your own taste.If you hate it,then you'll know your not missing anything and if you love it,then the other half of that culinary world opens itself up before you. Go for it!

The notion that meat eaters by definition care less about environmental damage and animal cruelty than vegetarians is one of many bogus claims made by vegetarians in their need to assert their moral superiority over omnivores. The truth is that some meat eaters care about animal cruelty and some don't. Some vegetarians worry about the environment and some don't. If you're definition of "animal cruelty" includes the killing of any animal,however they're reared and slaughtered,for food then, with respect ,you're arguing at the moral level of a five year old child.

Not so recent,but was there last June.This was my third visit, each time for lunch. I can't pretend to remember what we ate but what does stay in the mind is the cosseting warmth and comfort of the place and the single-minded dedication to perfect service. Its the sort of place you want to settle to for the day,or preferably several days.Every thing is done to make you feel special and relaxed at the same time. Yes,the a la carte and wine list prices are ferocious (although this time half a bottle of wine was included in the set lunch price) but this is the culinary equivalent of going back to the womb and you have to pay a bit for an experience like that.

I think you're confusing a number of issues.The environmental problems you describe are not caused by the consumption of meat or fish per se.They are caused by the EXCESSIVE CONSUMPTION of meat and fish and the constant pressure for a highproduction/low cost industry.These are different issues altogether. For most people being vegetarian does not mean having "a plant based diet." Cardiovascular problems you describe are not caused by eating meat or fish per se.They are caused by a combination of genetic predisposition and certain lifestyle choices which may include excessive cousumption.Americe has an obesity problem not because people eat meat but because people eat too much food and burn off too little. A vegetarian who smokes 40 a day is more likely to suffer health wise than a non-smoker who eats steak twice a week and fish twice a week.

As I understand it there is nothing in mainstream Hinduism which forbids the eating of meat,apart from beef.Most Hindus in India are largely vegetarian through economic,rather than religious reasons. The idea that being vegetarian "serves a higher good" is both obscure and highly questionable. The idea that a vegetarian diet in itself is "healthier" than a non-vegetarian diet is bogus.

My point is this. If you hate the taste of meat,poultry and fish you are missing nothing whatsoever by being vegetatrian. Viz,if I'm a non-smoker because I hate smoking I miss nothing by not smoking. If you are a vegetarian for reasons other than taste then you are imposing restrictions on yourself for reasons which maybe questionable,obscure or plain bogus(eg.a vegetarian diet is "healthier" than a non-vegetarian diet) and so on. .You therefore need to ask whether those reasons are valid enough for you to forgo all of the culinary experiences that come with not being vegetarian.And yes there are loads of them.

Steve-please!My problem is NOT that anyone should place French haute at the top of a "hierarchy of cuisines".Its that Michelin do not acknowledge THE EXISTENCE of any meaningful cuisines outside of French haute. In order to rank order cuisines,should one feel the need,one has to recognize their existence and their validity to be ranked in the first place,even if they finish bottom of the ranking.I sometimes like to play this little game for myself,though heaven knows what for. Michelin has got its head so far up its own haute backside that only grudgingly recognizes a world where other cuisines are valid enough to be mentioned in the same breath,or pages.Hence their guide has become increasingly irrelevant and anachronistic,and will continue to do so unless they broaden their scope and admit that another culinary world exists out there.

Many Chinese may not eat at this level but there are some who argue that Chinese and Japanese cuisine at the highest level is easily as technically "evolved" as French haute cuisine,which,after all,is a level that most of the French never eat at.I suggest a viewing of the film "Eat,Drink,Man,Woman" to confirm the high class technical skills needed to produce Oriental food at that level. And once again,my argument with Michelin is NOT that they,re "not good" at giving proper recognition to other philosophies of cuisine. It's that they do not accept,or do so only grudgingly that there ARE any other philosophies of cuisine.And punters in London DO recognize it,and are happy with it and have no problem with a world in which a Japanese restaurant can be as fine as a French one.

If you are vegetarian because you genuinely dislike the taste,smell etc.of flesh,fish or fowl then you don't have a problem and it doesnt occur to you to add the pork to the curry. If you are vegetarian for another reason then you need to start asking yourself why and thinking the answers through to their logical conclusion.Why put limits on yourself for any reason other than taste?

I'm sorry but Parker IS wrong.Wrong in his concept that every single wine must and can be judged as better,worse or the same as every other wine.You may enjoy some pieces of music more than others and be able to say why.But do you rate all pieces of music you listen to on a 50 point scale? Is there ANYTHING else that you enjoy that you rate in this way? What has wine done to deserve this heinous treatment?Yes,it is can be a complicated subject but like music,poetry,literature its not hard to dip in and out at the level that suits you.Critical opinion is not hard to find,should you want it. But Parker is doing more than offering "critical opinion".His scoring system posits a level of exactitude in judgment that deliberately blurs the distinction between opinion and fact.I don't care how many times you say "it is only a subjective opinion", the scores are rapidly becoming regarded as unquestionable fact and purchasing patterns are increasingly reflecting them.By convincing people that wine can and should be conceptualised this way Parker has become a blight on the wine world and it is a shame to see so many knowledgeable people in the media defending the indefensible.

Steve-if you are going to dismiss billions of Chinese ,Indians Thais,Japanese...er..Syrians, not to mention Italians as "people who include eating bugs in their diet" then there truly isn't anything more to argue about.

Absolutely.The honest,All-American boy image is an essential element in maintaining Parker's credibility as an upright,fearless judge whose integrity is beyond reproach as he moves around in the murky jonny foriegner ridden world of wine.

99% of people think that roses smell better than garbage,but to return to food and drink not even 50% of people think that French food is the most "technically evolved" or "the best". In fact the majority of people who do think so happen to be...er.....French,with maybe some Northern Europeans and Americans agreeing.The "superiority" of French food is an imposed hegemony by a white western minority and is patently NOT a "fact". I have no problem with someone telling me that Montrachet is better than St.Veran either "because it is" or for any other reason.My problem is with people who tell me that we live in a world where it is IMPOSSIBLE,even INCONCEIVABLE for Montrachet EVER to be less good than St.Veran.I believe Michelin inhabits that world and that is why it should be seriously questioned.