jwhite6114 wrote:Thanks for keeping us honest TMR. It is very true that few people are questioned for vague positive comments, though there is no more evidence provided to support them. I think there is a slight difference though in how we perceive positive vs. negative input: pos. is received a bit more skeptically and sort of as "well, you may like it, though I may not," whereas negative often comes in as, "damn! That's harsh!". The negative can seem offensive and we naturally jump to the defense of the injured party. It's as much about perceived abuse as it is about useful information.

As one who requested (I hope I didn't DEMAND) further clarification from Clay, I see great wisdom in TMR and jwhite's comments here. As a new school year is about to begin, I can think of no better time for 2 of my pals to assist me in experiencing an epiphany.

Are you guys ever going to sell some nice Lake Michigan Shore wines?
www.miwinetrail.com

I know, wrong place to ask, but still... it's great stuff, better climate for some of the sweeter wines than the California wineries.

winefarm wrote:Quick side bar -

This week's side deal is legit. We know these lobsters. We like these lobsters.

WD

Yeah, but it's just come across as kind of shady to me, WD, sorry... the guy took the very long way around to finally clarify that the $29.99 shipping was on top of the lobster cost. The site is very unclear about that, and his responses were unclear. He still hadn't come right out and SAID it, you just had to wade through the double-talk to figure it out. But that's just me. Which made me sad because I'm a huge lobster fan, and I was looking forward to finding out more about it. Kinda turned me off it though. Sorry!

jwhite6114 wrote:Thanks for keeping us honest TMR. It is very true that few people are questioned for vague positive comments, though there is no more evidence provided to support them. I think there is a slight difference though in how we perceive positive vs. negative input: pos. is received a bit more skeptically and sort of as "well, you may like it, though I may not," whereas negative often comes in as, "damn! That's harsh!". The negative can seem offensive and we naturally jump to the defense of the injured party. It's as much about perceived abuse as it is about useful information.

the wines in question are 'injured parties' & the subject of 'perceived abuse'?!? it is wine at which these comments are primarily directed after all. now, calling the wineMAKER a six-fingered freak (*) w/ no sense of taste, that is a different story altogether...

(*) sorry, i couldn't help myself, i just had to do it.

themostrighteous wrote:i find it absolutely fascinating that unspecific positive comments such as "if you haven't tried this, then you should, because it's great!" from which we learn nothing useful at all about the wines or the winery in question are so broadly embraced as-is, ie we demand no further clarification from the commentator, while similar but negative ones such as clay's are not, ie we (oft immediately) demand further clarification from the commentator. which difference in treatment makes absolutely NO SENSE at all since the primary objective of this forum is to exchange information about the wine(s) currently being offered. the only logical thing to do w/ ANY nonspecific comment is to either request SPECIFICS from the commentator or ignore it until & if the commentator chooses to give them to us. but they are certainly not worth getting excited about either way IMO.

My 2 cents;
This is OUR community and input is appreciated. My thoughts though are what one person likes another may not. Just because CLAYs taste may be"more refined" than others shouldnt discount this or any other wine that appears. Several people at work read the comments and the take was he sounds like a wine snob and THAT is why they will not discuss wine as they feel intimidated.(Clay not to say you are so dont get ticked).I agree we should discuss taste. But just because someone likes The penguin shouldnt be chastised for having an uneducated palate. Promote our love of Wine.
Also you may think the place is cheesy whereas others may have very fond memories which include the wine.
To all best of life and enjoy

ddeuddeg wrote:As one who requested (I hope I didn't DEMAND) further clarification from Clay, I see great wisdom in TMR and jwhite's comments here. As a new school year is about to begin, I can think of no better time for 2 of my pals to assist me in experiencing an epiphany.

nothing wrong w/ requesting specifics as you did (or even demanding them as i might) - i just found the contrast in treatment by others interesting. not to mention the fact that you get bonus points IMO for responding to a negative comment w/ an objective request rather than another negative comment. cuz life's just too short to get that excited about the little things. but OMMV.(*)

(*) since yours certainly doesn't seem to.

ddeuddeg wrote:As one who requested (I hope I didn't DEMAND) further clarification from Clay, I see great wisdom in TMR and jwhite's comments here. As a new school year is about to begin, I can think of no better time for 2 of my pals to assist me in experiencing an epiphany.

Funny -- this thought has been running through my head all morning. I think, too, that negative comments are received more seriously for a couple of other reasons:

1 - we tend to say something nice as a default, and so nice comments are accepted as non-confrontational. negative comments (especially strongly worded ones) are less the norm, and thus we pay more attention to them

2 - positive comments have less impact on us ... imagine you're at dinner, and someone says "Try the meat, it's fantastic!" Well, I may or may not depending on if I am still hungry, if the meat looks attractive to me, or if I even eat meat. If someone says "The meat is rancid," I will not only actively avoid the meat, I may avoid the whole dinner.

3 - we start from the assumption that the offers we see here are good. A comment of "You'll regret not buying this," is seen as additional support of the starting point of view. A comment of "I wouldn't buy this for $5 a bottle" is a contrast to the starting view, and thus demands more attention and support of its own. We do this all over the place, I think: if you ask someone if they like a song on the radio and they say, "Yes," then you move on; if they say, "No," you're (at least I am) likely to follow up with, "Why not?"

Clarification is always good (and much more helpful) ... and please excuse my continued rambling on this one. Your post (TMR) just really made me think about this one (and for that, I thank you -- it has been fun).

themostrighteous wrote:the wines in question are 'injured parties' & the subject of 'perceived abuse'?!? it is wine at which these comments are primarily directed after all. now, calling the wineMAKER a six-fingered freak (*) w/ no sense of taste, that is a different story altogether...

(*) sorry, i couldn't help myself, i just had to do it.

I'd say that it is human nature to empathize with anything we perceive to be injured -- human, mammal, inanimate or otherwise (unless it's ugly or smells bad, and then we assume it is just getting what it deserves).

jwhite6114 wrote:I'd say that it is human nature to empathize with anything we perceive to be injured -- human, mammal, inanimate or otherwise (unless it's ugly or smells bad, and then we assume it is just getting what it deserves).

and here i thought that you were going to jump at my PB reference. i am... (strangely) disappointed.

cheron98 wrote:Yeah, but it's just come across as kind of shady to me, WD, sorry... the guy took the very long way around to finally clarify that the $29.99 shipping was on top of the lobster cost. The site is very unclear about that, and his responses were unclear. He still hadn't come right out and SAID it, you just had to wade through the double-talk to figure it out. But that's just me. Which made me sad because I'm a huge lobster fan, and I was looking forward to finding out more about it. Kinda turned me off it though. Sorry!

Perhaps cheron has a point that $50.00 for a delivered pound of lobster meat might make for some pretty expensive lobster rolls.

themostrighteous wrote:and here i thought that you were going to jump at my PB reference. i am... (strangely) disappointed.

I don't want to set anyone off on a mission of vengeance ... so I let it lie

Edit: lay? lye? lei?

themostrighteous wrote:and here i thought that you were going to jump at my PB reference. i am... (strangely) disappointed.

Perhaps some of us are under the impression that the occasional PB reference not only doesn't need an apology, there may in fact be a minimum weekly requirement for such references. Of course, that impression may be incorrect, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

winefarm wrote:Quick side bar -

This week's side deal is legit. We know these lobsters. We like these lobsters.

WD

And then you cook them and eat them? Maybe I don't trust you guys so much anymore...

jwhite6114 wrote:Thanks for keeping us honest TMR. It is very true that few people are questioned for vague positive comments, though there is no more evidence provided to support them. I think there is a slight difference though in how we perceive positive vs. negative input: pos. is received a bit more skeptically and sort of as "well, you may like it, though I may not," whereas negative often comes in as, "damn! That's harsh!". The negative can seem offensive and we naturally jump to the defense of the injured party. It's as much about perceived abuse as it is about useful information.

For me it's this simple if I'm interested in a wine and someone gushes about it I kinda ignore it cause I'm interested anyway and that's not gonna sway me without a detailed tasting report. Now if someone says, this wine is horrid I wouldn't buy it with your money. Well, that makes me want more specifics because I'm spending my money on an unknown variable and if someone is telling me that variable isn't good I'd like to know their reason. Is it the wine they don't like, did the winemaker kick their dog? What about it caused such a harsh negative reaction.

LA has Disneyland; Napa has Sattui Winery.

joemad9 wrote:LA has Disneyland; Napa has Sattui Winery.

And Omaha has a zoo, whats your point? Disneyland is fun, the zoo is educational, Sattui makes nice wines. Oh, wait I get it, your'e saying Sattui is a lot of fun like Disneyland! mmmmmmmm, alcoholic Disneyland.....

The forums this weeks seem to have taken on a different flavor this week. I appreciate the candor that seems to exist here to make my decisions. I actually appreciate the negative more than the positive as I have limited funds and unlimited taste. However in terms of whether good or bad comments need to to be substantiated for me it was not the Clay's comment was negative it was that it came across as a slam. We all have different tastes and one persons dishwater is another fine wine. I would hope that we can discuss merits of the offerings with positives and negatives but without slamming the product in question. It was these attitudes that kept me from enjoying wine for a long time as people would hint that I had an untrained palate so did not know what to like. I actually appreciate Clay weighing in and it made me think however I would hope we can say we do not like a certain wine of style as a matter of taste without belittling it.

WD I absolutely love Riesling and I am constantly looking to expand my appreciation of them but you cleaned me out on the Wellingtons, just saying in the hope that we can see more in the future regardless of how popular this offering is. My guess is it is always hard to follow a Wellington week..

bhodilee wrote:And Omaha has a zoo, whats your point? Disneyland is fun, the zoo is educational, Sattui makes nice wines. Oh, wait I get it, your'e saying Sattui is a lot of fun like Disneyland! mmmmmmmm, alcoholic Disneyland.....

Disney IS for alcoholics, well alcoholic parents. The Epcot in FL has an Around The World thing going.....along with their beers. Let's just say the next morning was a little too bright out!

bkarney wrote:Disney IS for alcoholics, well alcoholic parents. The Epcot in FL has an Around The World thing going.....along with their beers. Let's just say the next morning was a little too bright out!

I'd not be able to drink, I hate Mickey Mouse and would punch him if I were drunk.

bhodilee wrote:I'd not be able to drink, I hate Mickey Mouse and would punch him if I were drunk.

Come join me bowtie for the upcoming Epcot food and wine . And Yes I LOVE WDW, The mouse and all.

clayfu wrote:the joh jos prum auslese mosel saar ruwer wehlener sonnenuhr is even better. (2005). After 2 hours in the decanter massive mouthfuls of honey, pears, bread. Almost like a syrupy champagne. Delicious. Of course.. good luck finding that anywhere for $50 now. Your suggestion is still very good ^_^

they have some version of the joh jos at costco .... not sure which one though, and I believe it is/was around $23

DAMN FAY! 2 days of tropical storms and the center is expected to come over Brevard County tonight.

ERMD wrote:DAMN FAY! 2 days of tropical storms and the center is expected to come over Brevard County tonight.

Oh, noes! Please hunker down or evacuate, and I hope you come through this OK.

Just a slight wind bag (60 mph) but a whole lotta rain. Only worry is Torandos; but having lived in Iowa the ones here in Florida are itty bitty. Kinda depressing weather;where did I put that other glass of wine

iceeblue7 wrote:The forums this weeks seem to have taken on a different flavor this week. I appreciate the candor that seems to exist here to make my decisions. I actually appreciate the negative more than the positive as I have limited funds and unlimited taste. However in terms of whether good or bad comments need to to be substantiated for me it was not the Clay's comment was negative it was that it came across as a slam. We all have different tastes and one persons dishwater is another fine wine. I would hope that we can discuss merits of the offerings with positives and negatives but without slamming the product in question. It was these attitudes that kept me from enjoying wine for a long time as people would hint that I had an untrained palate so did not know what to like. I actually appreciate Clay weighing in and it made me think however I would hope we can say we do not like a certain wine of style as a matter of taste without belittling it.

WD I absolutely love Riesling and I am constantly looking to expand my appreciation of them but you cleaned me out on the Wellingtons, just saying in the hope that we can see more in the future regardless of how popular this offering is. My guess is it is always hard to follow a Wellington week..

very well stated iceblue, on both accounts. the forum this week is a bit trivial, people have nothing better to do I guess ...

I think I am on the same fence you are also, Wellington was expensive, and I don't feel like spending $60 on 4 Rieslings when I already have a few, and can get quality at costco for cheaper, or at least 1 at a time ... oh and the sellout.woot TV marathon last week didn't help either

V Sattui is a good wine, I don't understand the negative comments on them. I like V Sattui wines very much, and I am going to order a couple of cases.

Gatzby wrote:Feel free to use the report link, or to notify me (or one of the mods) directly.

K-O.

jwhite6114 wrote:I don't want to set anyone off on a mission of vengeance ... so I let it lie

Edit: lay? lye? lei?

I vote for lie...will check the grammar police

winefarm wrote:I vote for lie...will check the grammar police

This suggests "lay". The direct object being it.

The verb lay means to place or to set down. It always takes a direct object, the thing that is placed or set down.
Examples: Lay the magazine on the table.
I have laid the bike under the tree.
The verb lie means to recline. It does not take a direct object.
Examples: I will lie down around noon.
Let's go lie out on the grass.

ddeuddeg wrote:Perhaps some of us are under the impression that the occasional PB reference not only doesn't need an apology, there may in fact be a minimum weekly requirement for such references. Of course, that impression may be incorrect, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

my reference to "jump on" was intended as in "jump on board" or "run w/ it". it's not as if we have anything better to do here since IIRC nobody other than clay has offered SPECIFIC comments about the wines offered, including the winery, which has yet to answer questions that folks have posted (not just me). so a PB detour seemed most appropriate under the circumstances.

WD, these may be great wines, but winery participation has been unusually weak IMO. 'twould be great if you could prod them. it certainly couldn't hurt the offering.

ERMD wrote:Come join me bowtie for the upcoming Epcot food and wine . And Yes I LOVE WDW, The mouse and all.

<jealous> that is a SERIOUS festival for foodie & wineau alike!!! </jealous>

tkastorff wrote:very well stated iceblue, on both accounts. the forum this week is a bit trivial, people have nothing better to do I guess ...

Yes, when the winemaker (or representative) is not active, the forums tends to wander. Not too much we can discuss about the wines all on our own (and when we try, we end up in little spats over how someone chooses to express their dislike ).

As much of a riesling fiend that I am, I'm passing this week. Maynard has just released two new Caduceus wines so my wine funds are going there.

Here's hoping to more rieslings in the near future!

winefarm wrote:This suggests "lay". The direct object being it.

The verb lay means to place or to set down. It always takes a direct object, the thing that is placed or set down.
Examples: Lay the magazine on the table.
I have laid the bike under the tree.
The verb lie means to recline. It does not take a direct object.
Examples: I will lie down around noon.
Let's go lie out on the grass.

But in the phrase, "let it lie", "it" is performing the action as well. I think it equates to "I will lie down around noon."

tkastorff wrote:very well stated iceblue, on both accounts. the forum this week is a bit trivial, people have nothing better to do I guess ...

I think I am on the same fence you are also, Wellington was expensive, and I don't feel like spending $60 on 4 Rieslings when I already have a few, and can get quality at costco for cheaper, or at least 1 at a time ... oh and the sellout.woot TV marathon last week didn't help either

feeling a bit (self) righteous are we? (trust me, w/ a nom-de-plum like mine, i know.) oh, wait, was that trivial too?!?

methinks we need to take ourselves a little less seriously around here. it is WINE we are talking about here. but YMMV.

jwhite6114 wrote:But in the phrase, "let it lie", "it" is performing the action as well. I think it equates to "I will lie down around noon."

Excellent idea, as it is noon here I am going to lie down

bhodilee wrote:Excellent idea, as it is noon here I am going to lie down

Then lay yourself down, rest well, and dream of large women.

(that last part was for TMR)

ERMD wrote:DAMN FAY! 2 days of tropical storms and the center is expected to come over Brevard County tonight.

No worries, this storm is a joke, media is bored. I'm in Fort Lauderdale and we are getting the tail end now. I know it's not what you are hoping for but for the sake of the water table I hope this thing plops down over the lake to help bring that level up some, we need it BAD.

jwhite6114 wrote:Yes, when the winemaker (or representative) is not active, the forums tends to wander. Not too much we can discuss about the wines all on our own (and when we try, we end up in little spats over how someone chooses to express their dislike ).

yep. i think that it is fair to say that one of the reasons some of us buy quite a bit of wine here is that w.w offers us unique access to the people who either make the wines offered or who can get answers from them. these wines may truly be incredible finds (or so most everybody keeps posting), but they are not likely to sell themselves.

or they might, but not to me, unless i can learn a bit more about them.