Jump to content

  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Wine Spectator Top 100 Wines

Howie

By Howie
in Wine

 Share

Recommended Posts

baruch

baruch

Posted
Posted

btw, thx to EVERYONE for enlivening the conversation/debate. this turned out to be what this site is all about & i (personally) am very appreciative to those who took the time & effort to discuss an interesting sideline to the opening topic :biggrin:

baruch

baruch

Posted
Posted (edited)

actually, i couldn't resist adding just "1" additional comment to all the "winsobs" out in that hazy wonderland of pomposity, arrogance, stubborness, & last, but not least - self-rightousness; particularly after re-reading the above comments, which sound very "republican-bushlike". its a lonely side to take, but some1 has to puncture these balloons of abrasiveness.

the "winsobs" STILL don't get it - u don't understand the premise, nor the message. yes, i am insinuating the boors & snores, & i don't think we need a lesson on artisanal wines, except by some1 who actually makes them.

what's not to understand about WS? it is clearly the People mag for wine - duh! anyone who doesn't understand that simple fact needs a hard lesson in journalism economics. WS does fulfill a void, & should be read with 1 upraised brow! i believe those that are NOT "winsobs" understand! the "experts" among u would or should be able to separate the "skin from the grape" & not whine about the hype or the lists. but, little minds are very idle, & need something to occupy their attention. so they choose to put on the "winsob" hat & preach, & hope they can browbeat others to just give in & accept their inaccurate points-of-view.

is guigal's Chatneuf du pape that bad? while clearly not great or a "#!", it is not so terrible that 1 of our "esteemed" colleagues doesn't have to attempt to prove his superiority by expressing what we all should taste & like. my solution is: where is your top ten for 2000 or 2001? then compare & contrast vs being overbearing & underwhelming. as to different tastes, etc... i would totally DISagree with these outlandish comparisons & simplistic statements. just as the comparisons between a '95 vs a '96 Medoc would make an interesting tasting, we DON'T need the comic gallery to shoot rubber-tipped arrows. i assume that "U" would disagree with robt parker & why 1 wine is a 91 vs another which is HIS 89. wine NOT in the eye of the beholder is one of the more arrogant & pretentious statements i have read. the nerve to even suggest this holier-than-thou attitude is simply indicative of someone who is seriously insecure of his wine knowledge.

i would like to believe (?) u are in that .001% category, that should only be petted once in a while; & thx to u & your fellow "winsobs", wine is not as widely drank or understood in this country as it SHOULD be.

i am NOT defending WS as some have stated in your hazed purplish outlook, & again i hasten to add the example comparisons are both naive & immature. your opinions should be pointed out as your own, & if there were any real "stuff" put forward, instead of this constant overbearingness, it would be interesting vs the constant bombardment of ignorant arrogance.

to those who read WS, etc - read for enjoyment & understand the direction, but to really learn - taste & visit. its laughable to use Luce, Gingrich, & Hefner, actually its the height of hypocrisy, but this may be too subtle a point, so it is not worth the detail

another question? i wonder if Mr. Example can tell the difference bet a wet-aged vs a dry-aged steak, or bet a 4wk old dry-aged vs an 8wk old dry-aged steak? but this is about WINE, so i will keep to wine, not silly naive, childish comparisons.

there are many bad wines, many good wines, & even a # of great wines. the challenge is in the discovery, not in the arrogance & pomposity put forth constantly by our browbeating WINSOB posse!

in conclusion, i am donning my bullet-proof tux as i hit the "add reply" key.

KIM: "a votre sante"

Edited by baruch (log)
Steve Plotnicki

Steve Plotnicki

Posted
Posted
is guigal's Chatneuf du pape that bad? while clearly not great or a "#!", it is not so terrible that 1 of our "esteemed" colleagues doesn't have to attempt to prove his superiority by expressing what we all should taste & like.

Yes it is that bad and worse. Not only isn't it a number one, it shouldn't even be number 501. That's how bad it is. In fact among 1999 Chateuneuf-du-Papes that are not luxury cuvees, but which are made by reputable producers, I wouldn't be surprised if the Guigal came in dead last.

i assume that "U" would disagree with robt parker & why 1 wine is a 91 vs another which is HIS 89.

It isn't about disagreeing with Robert Parker, I disagree with him all the time. You can go to his chat room eRobertparker.com and disagree with him online. But the thing about Robert Parker is that there is a reason why he says one wine is 91 and another is 89. But the WS has no discernable reason for why they chose their list. It makes no sense to anyone who has any expertise in wine.

wine NOT in the eye of the beholder is one of the more arrogant & pretentious statements i have read. the nerve to even suggest this holier-than-thou attitude is simply indicative of someone who is seriously insecure of his wine knowledge.

You actually have this backwards. You are the one who is being arrogant when you say call people with more expertise then you are arrogant just because they are stating their knowledge. It's people like you who force the quality of food and wine items down for everyone else because they want to insist there is a correlation between what they like and items of quality. But in reality, and it is plain for everyone here to see, there is no correlation at all.

baruch

baruch

Posted
Posted

itsawonderfulthing - u just can't resist, can u? i wish trying to figure out the discount rate in a cash flow model was as easy in figuring u out :rolleyes:

umm, how do u know what vintage I was referring to?? see what i mean in how supercilious you can be!

i guess u forgot to read what i thought WS really is, i.e., a "people" wine mag, but then again, you are so quick to impose YOUR opinions, i assume u passed right over that part, n'est-ce pas?

let's see, pls remind all of us what an "expert" in wine is?

if the list is so stupid, if the WS is so stupid, why even quote it atall, particularly among the "winsob" society.

notice i'm trying to write with small sentences & small words, so small minds can follow - continuez:

that's precious: "people that have more expert ise..." gee, mr. expert, u would not be referring to you, would u?????????????

i hope that i can humbly help to tear down some of the extreme pomposity of those who "think in their own mind" they have superior knowledge over others!

p.s. thx for supplying the selected "quotes"; not only does it save me the trouble, but its interesting to note

what u deemed quotable & how u applied it - freud or dr. berenson would have a field day :biggrin:

Toby

Toby

Posted
Posted

baruch, the 99 vintage was what this thread started out about -- so it would be logical for Steve and everyone else to conclude that's the vintage you were talking about.

Steve Plotnicki

Steve Plotnicki

Posted
Posted
i hope that i can humbly help to tear down some of the extreme pomposity of those who "think in their own mind" they have superior knowledge over others!

The problem is you didn't do anything of the sort. You just made yourself look foolish and resentful to anyone who knows anything about wine.

baruch

baruch

Posted
Posted (edited)

a. don't assume when one does not have all the facts, particularly when the "discussion" veered, in case

u didn't notice, or skipped the "dirty" parts.

b. O i think i did, have have read enough innuendos & retorts about this annointment of yourself as chief

winsob, that i am convinced u & your arrogance are the problems. but, then again, i would not have

expected a "mea culpa".

Edited by baruch (log)
baruch

baruch

Posted
Posted (edited)

how about recognizing the "winsob" society with Mr. P as the "chief"?

how about reviewing my ORIGINAL piece, then determining the differnce bet an invective vs a commentary? then how about reviewing subsequent comments to determine who led the commentary elsewhere with scantily-clad "invectives"!

free speech or free thoughts anyone????????????

& btw, i gather that wasn't French? anything to say about that F-G, or is that what u call just "maturity & moderation among our more "dignified" members?

Edited by baruch (log)
baruch

baruch

Posted
Posted

:unsure: i just don't know - does the proverbial "chief winsob" have "foot in mouth disease" or just having trouble speaking intelligently & maturely??

baruch

baruch

Posted
Posted

sorry wilfrid, u can only be "Vice-Chief Winsob", the society allready has its "Chief", but u can supply the scantily-clad "invectives" at the next meeting :biggrin:

g.johnson

g.johnson

Posted
Posted

Anyone find all this 'u r some1' stuff unreadable?

Sorry baruch, not meant as a dig at you personally but punctuation, capitalization and the the redundancy of language are there to aid comprehension.

g.johnson

g.johnson

Posted
Posted (edited)
...the the redundancy of language are there to aid comprehension.  [sic]

Eh?

It's it's a a good good idea idea to to say say everything everything twice twice in in case case you you miss miss it it the the first first time time.

Eidt: Or weren't you commenting on the typo?

Edited by g.johnson (log)
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...