+- WineBoard (https://www.wines.com/wineboard)
+-- Forum: GENERAL (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-100.html)
+--- Forum: Rants & Raves (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: To KC (/thread-12687.html)
- Thomas - 07-07-2004
Bob,
There is (once again) a discussion about Parker's rating system on his namesake Web site. And once again, a couple of people have misread posts, especially mine.
But what bothers me more is that Parker kindled the debate and then refuses to answer a direct question question that I asked more than once.
You might find it interesting.
- Innkeeper - 07-07-2004
Foodster, couldn't find your discussion. Could you post the exact URL?
- Thomas - 07-07-2004
IK, you have to register before you can get in that site. It's the eRobertParker.com Web site.
The discussion is in Wine Talk, under Parker's original post to Iris and Florida Jim.
In it I tried to get an answer as to who Mr. Parker targets as his audience for ratings. No answer yet.
- Kcwhippet - 07-07-2004
Here it is, IK.
http://fora.erobertparker.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=035477
Foodie, One of the problems I find with the ebob board is that too many of the responders seem to believe they're better than those of us "unwashed masses." They also tend to develop a serious case of tunnel vision that inhibits their ability to rationally judge another's views. Rather than contribute constructively, they seem to just want to find ways to let you know that your viewpoint is incorrect (sound like anyone here?). Because of that I tend to contribute only on those topics of interest to me that are basically innocuous and don't seem to be leaning toward controversy. As to why RP is now conspicuously absent from the topic he started, it's probable that he senses he's started something he wishes were best left alone. I know I can see your frustration coming out occasionally when someone responds to one of your posts in a direction that's 180 degrees from where you were going. That entire topic seems to have split up into smaller topics going in all different directions. Unusual group.
Did you notice, too, that one topic about 2001 or 2003 Pavie? Talk about conspicuous consumption. The guy has never had Pavie, but he wants someone to advise him on whether he should buy the 2001 at $170 or the 2003 (when it's released) at $140. I just don't get the allure of actually wanting to pay that much for that wine when there are so many other really great wines to be had for half the price or less. Besides, I'm not a huge fan of Bordeaux anyway.
[This message has been edited by Kcwhippet (edited 07-07-2004).]
- Thomas - 07-07-2004
KC, one of the things I do is email direct the people who post to find out if they are exactly how they appear on the board. Most are.
I have come to an understanding with Guillaume, who completely got my post wrong--or at least made up in his mind what he wanted my post to have said.
The idiot lawyer who was sarcastic--well, he's a lawyer. Mainly, these people are insecure about their own palates and so they need someone else to advise them.
As for Parker going silent: he'd be a fool to answer my question, which is why I asked it.
- wondersofwine - 07-07-2004
Well, I was able to get to the discussion (now on three pages) with the URL KC provided and found it interesting reading. I have enjoyed some of Florida Jim's tasting notes on WLDG web. Foodie, I know the "idiot lawyer" and think that's a little harsh. You'd probably like him in person and I'm sure you'd like his wife. I met them at a wine tasting in DC area in early 2004 and then said hello again when we attended the Macarthur's Beverages (Bassin's) California Barrel Tasting at the Watergate Hotel. I guess people passionate about wine (and web participants) constitute a small circle.
Anyway, the whole thread was an interesting read.
- Thomas - 07-08-2004
WOW,
Perhaps. Maybe he's a nice person but he did not stop to think before he spouted off, and when given the chance to re-think, he simply would not. Maybe the next time you see him you can tell him that I really am not as confrontational as I might seem--only get riled up when someone becomes annoying.
What got me is that he completely misunderstood my post, which should have tipped me off that he is a lawyer. When a lawyer either does not understand the facts, or does not want to acknowledge them, he/she goes into obfuscation mode.
The simple fact is--in many cases on that site--a lot of those people are insecure (and with money) about their own place with wine and so they follow (some rabidly) a guru and his numbers. Plus, many of those people don't consider anything other than a few lofty wines worthy of their attention.
Every so often I just want to make waves for them. I'd still, however, love to know, if Mr. Parker really believes what he posted about his rating system who then is his audience.
[This message has been edited by foodie (edited 07-08-2004).]
- Kcwhippet - 07-08-2004
"...many of those people don't consider anything other than a few lofty wines worthy of their attention."
As in the guy wanting recs on the 2001 and 2003 Pavie, not to mention the raft of replies from all those others who can't wait to throw a lot of money after the same wines. What is nice to see is something like the post on the 2001 Las Rochas Vinas Viejas - a fabulous wine from Spain at a really great price of about $10. Need more like that, sort of like Roberto's Hot Tips.
- winoweenie - 07-08-2004
I've quit even lurking on the site. Had to bite my keyboard too meeny times. WW