darlenee1 wrote:I hope this is someone you are close friends with, and not that you are just a nasty person.

See three posts above this one. Some people...

Edit: before. Two posts from the bottom of the last page.

MaskedMarvel wrote:East Coasters will be eagerly awaiting their boxes while West Coasters spoil all the dot fun.

Well the post does not open until 8/23, so we east coasters will get it that day most likely.

kylemittskus wrote:I know what it means and I read the post and saw the website. My post was pleading that the Noir de Noir be tonight's offering. I was not asking what it was. The "in the dark" was refering to PW's comment that he likes to keep us "in the dark." I am fully aware of the word Noir, (Film Noir, Pinot Noir, etc.)

Either get your life together or stop jumping on me for your erroneous assumptions.

PSquishy, PSquishy, PSquishy.

It did read that you were asking if Noir de Noirs = "in the dark", since you had the question mark after it. I thought you hadn't read any of the previous posts either.


A big part of the problem is when we get too concise in our posts, people will read things into it that we may not mean. As has happened many times before.

kylemittskus wrote:See three posts above this one. Some people...

Edit: before. Two posts from the bottom of the last page.

PSquishy, this is why you get in trouble. You post something questionable. Get called out on it, and pretend it's not what you meant.

L's ready to get out the PSquishy grinder .....

MarkDaSpark wrote: It did read that you were asking if Noir de Noirs = "in the dark", since you had the question mark after it. I thought you hadn't read any of the previous posts either.

Indeed. The problem with typing is the lack of emotional or non-verbal interaction. However, two things. First, I was asking (more rhetorically) if Mr. Wellington's "in the dark" comment meant the Noir de Noirs was being offered tonight. This does not denote that I had not read the previous posts. But even given that, in my opinion, which is admittedly "youngin'" and of course, humble, there is no need to retort with such a caustic attitude (on DD's part). It's just bad ju ju (spelling?).

MarkDaSpark wrote:Get called out on it, and pretend it's not what you meant.

And "it's" (that's) not what I meant. I have been reading vigorously.

darlenee1 wrote:I hope this is someone you are close friends with, and not that you are just a nasty person.

Please check your PMs.

ddeuddeg wrote:Please check your PMs.

The PM will say something like this:

"I react to arguably ambiguous posts with unnecessary rudeness. Besides, kylemittskus is a :::fill in the blank:::."

I'm currently writing a utility that will blow up all negative posts for the last two pages and replace them with flowery posts on the exciting wines of this week. Anyone want a copy?

cheron98 wrote:So it's another red offering...

I believe your right, now what hasn't shown up that would make sense to sell out

ltraffis wrote:I believe your right, now what hasn't shown up that would make sense to sell out

Anything/everything by the one and only Peter Wellington?

MaskedMarvel wrote:I'm currently writing a utility that will blow up all negative posts for the last two pages and replace them with flowery posts on the exciting wines of this week. Anyone want a copy?

Your approach to this is a welcome breath of fresh air. Thanks, and my apologies to you and any others that may have been offended.
By the way when you get that utility written, could I please have a copy? I'm sure I'll find a use for it some day.

kylemittskus wrote:The PM will say something like this:

"I react to arguably ambiguous posts with unnecessary rudeness. Besides, kylemittskus is a :::fill in the blank:::."

Alright, Squishy, you're coming dangerously close to the line. That was uncalled for. Sit! Stay! Good Squishy.

bhodilee wrote:That should totally be the new two a week slogan

Thanks for the plug, and I was sober!!!!

kylemittskus wrote:And "it's" (that's) not what I meant. I have been reading vigorously.

I think that is the problem that people have with you. You say it's one thing. But the way you type it out means something else.

You may have meant to ask if the Noir de Noirs was being offered tonight, but that isn't what you typed. Some of your many posts are the same way. You mean to say one thing, but it comes out totally different.

You need to be a little less concise, and more explanatory. Stop using big words so much (especially when you misuse them all too often), and type more out for your explanation. Less confusion, and fewer posts upset with you.

That was the problem I had with an earlier post last week. They were asking for additional input on cellar time for Laura's wines. I read it that they hadn't read anything and were too lazy to look up Laura's post on the cellar time. They "meant" they wanted more opinions on cellar time from others, but they wrote it like they hadn't read the previous post on it. I could have pointed it out, but figured it wasn't worth it.

We try to be concise, but we lose too much sometimes. And we are sometimes on hair trigger. So I'm just saying be less concise, and more explanatory, and you'll get less posts upset with you.

MarkDaSpark wrote:I think that is the problem that people have with you. You say it's one thing. But the way you type it out means something else.

You may have meant to ask if the Noir de Noirs was being offered tonight, but that isn't what you typed. Some of your many posts are the same way. You mean to say one thing, but it comes out totally different.

You need to be a little less concise, and more explanatory. Stop using big words so much (especially when you misuse them all to often), and type more out for your explanation. Less confusion, and less posts upset with you.

That was the problem I had with an earlier post last week. They were asking for additional input on cellar time for Laura's wines. I read it that they hadn't read anything and were too lazy to look up Laura's post on the cellar time. They "meant" they wanted more opinions on cellar time from others, but they wrote it like they hadn't read the previous post on it. I could have pointed it out, but figured it wasn't worth it.

We try to be concise, but we lose too much sometimes. And we are sometimes on hair trigger. So I'm just saying be less concise, and more explanatory, and you'll get less posts upset with you.

Noted. You spelled "too" wrong. Ironically, while criticizing my word usage.

kylemittskus wrote:Noted. You spelled "too" wrong. Ironically, while criticizing my word usage.

Yes, something YOU NEVER have a problem with either. Pot calling the kettle black.

kylemittskus wrote:Noted. You spelled "too" wrong. Ironically, while criticizing my word usage.

And see, that's another thing. You keep correcting people for little pithy things. Don't do that. It's annoying. It's the web; it doesn't have to be perfect.

Must be a full moon tonight.

Correction: Waxing Gibbous

kylemittskus wrote:The PM will say something like this:

"I react to arguably ambiguous posts with unnecessary rudeness. Besides, kylemittskus is a :::fill in the blank:::."

From someone who accused me of erroneous assumptions, this is ironic.
Monday evening, pickles1128 wrote:One can never have too much Wellington in your cellar...
This was your response:
"One" is third person; "your" is second person.
Your point is still understood though.
I'm afraid I couldn't see the useful purpose to that response, and I let it bother me way too much; it just seemed nasty, I read your subsequent posts with a hostile view, and eventually over-reacted. I'm sure you read my response to MM's post by now. I want to make myself perfectly clear: when I apologized to everyone who was offended, I meant everyone, including you.

BTW, for the record here is the text of the PM, I sent darlene:

I didn't mean to come off like a nasty person. This was addressed to someone who took the liberty of correcting someone else's (not mine) English usage yesterday, with no apparent useful intent other than to show off. He has made a habit of this kind of immature posting, and I let my feelings get the better of me this time. I very much appreciate your having taken time to offer your thoughts on this. It is a good reminder that the wine.woot blog is not a suitable venue for a personal attack, however it may have been intended.

There will be no further personal attacks from me, despite the provocation.

cheron98 wrote:And see, that's another thing. You keep correcting people for little pithy things. Don't do that. It's annoying. It's the web; it doesn't have to be perfect.

I shouldn't have started this. Time for a truce, cease-fire, whatever.

Predition for tonight's offer:

Le Pique Nique Rose
Sauvignon Blanc
Chardonnay
White Port

4 pack - $55

My dream offer:

Noir de Noir
Victory
Cuvee' R
Anything old vine or 100 yr...

4 pack - PRICELESS

cheron98 wrote:It's the web; it doesn't have to be perfect.

I wish.

Have a little teeny outage of the Woot servers, and watch people howl.

rough crowd here tonight.

MaskedMarvel wrote:Predition for tonight's offer:

Le Pique Nique Rose
Sauvignon Blanc
Chardonnay
White Port

4 pack - $55

My dream offer:

Noir de Noir
Victory
Cuvee' R
Anything old vine or 100 yr...

4 pack - PRICELESS

I'd be all over your dream offer!

deaconbluez wrote:rough crowd here tonight.

Where's WD to clean-up this mess?

conroo wrote:Where's WD to clean-up this mess?

Sometimes, as long as no one is bleeding, you just have to let the children fight and get it out of their systems.

deaconbluez wrote:Sometimes, as long as no one is bleeding, you just have to let the children fight and get it out of their systems.

I deserved that, but as noted above, it's now out of my system.

deaconbluez wrote:Sometimes, as long as no one is bleeding, you just have to let the children fight and get it out of their systems.

Besides bickering here, what's everyone doing to bide the time until more wine shows up? I went to the Missouri State Fair tonight; had a corn dog and funnel cake. Couldn't find anyone this year selling deep fried Twinkies, though.

deaconbluez wrote:Besides bickering here, what's everyone doing to bide the time until more wine shows up? I went to the Missouri State Fair tonight; had a corn dog and funnel cake. Couldn't find anyone this year selling deep fried Twinkies, though.

Watching men's gymnastics. What else?

ddeuddeg wrote:I deserved that, but as noted above, it's now out of my system.

I'm glad you didn't take offense. Sometimes I wish I had a sarcasm font so people wouldn't get offended.

deaconbluez wrote:I'm glad you didn't take offense. Sometimes I wish I had a sarcasm font so people wouldn't get offended.

Deac! Nice to see you. Glad you got to the state fair. We missed Wisconsin which is closer to us and has ridiculous amounts of dairly goodness.

conroo wrote:Watching men's gymnastics. What else?

Women's beach volleyball!

lauratchi wrote:Deac! Nice to see you. Glad you got to the state fair. We missed Wisconsin which is closer to us and has ridiculous amounts of dairly goodness.

Hey, Laura, how are you doing? I've been working way too hard lately and haven't had much time to hang out here.

deaconbluez wrote:Hey, Laura, how are you doing? I've been working way too hard lately and haven't had much time to hang out here.

You shouldn't work so hard. Not much new up by us. We are doing fine. Work is swell. Joel is starting school soon. All sorts of normalcy.

ddeuddeg wrote:Women's beach volleyball!

I hate working overnights. Miss all the good Olympic sports.

As for tonight, if the 2004 Cuvee R showed up... My CC bill (or my wife) will kill me next month!

MaskedMarvel wrote:I'm currently writing a utility that will blow up all negative posts for the last two pages and replace them with flowery posts on the exciting wines of this week. Anyone want a copy?

Yes, please! I would love a copy. This place is so full of interesting exchanges. I think that is why I spend all my money here, besides the obvious wine addiction, that would be the reason.

And from forever ago...

ddeuddeg wrote:You won't regret it.

I bought two btw, I couldn't stand the idea of falling in love with the wine and only having one bottle. I've learned my lesson from the Mandolina Italian Quartet.

Princessjolie wrote:I've learned my lesson from the Mandolina Italian Quartet.

Ah, I loved the Mandolina quartet, too. What great memories.

woopdedoo wrote:Must be a full moon tonight.

Correction: Waxing Gibbous

See, now, there is a right funny name. And, sadly, wikipedia did not indulge my interest in why it is called that. Anyone else know?

Regarding the off-topic banter going on tonight (now thankfully ceased),... see what happens when Woot runs out of wine!

I think we all have to step back and congratulate ourselves for ordering over 4,000 bottles of the fine Wellington reds.

For tonight's offering.. I could use more clues but I suspect none will be forthcoming. I'm still thinking it might be an unusual white mix, Marsanne/Roussanne/mystery -- besides, I love those varietals (especially the mystery one). But prevailing opinion seems to be red, or a non-wine item, or something else. 1 1/2 hours to go!