Originally Posted by ama
I agree that level of discourse in this thread often wanes pretty far off my interest level, but then again, everyone needs to start somewhere. I think the way that you sometimes present your "inconvenient facts," as you call them, is rather aggressive and has tones of speaking down, not education. I don't think that you indent to speak down to people, but the highly technical way in which you sometimes present information often betrays your intentions
I don't subscribe to the grunt and ground-slap theory of communications, true enough. Nor the hit and run tactics of the Twit generation who cannot sustain their focus for more than 20 seconds or 144 characters, whichever comes first. I am who I am. I have a certain reverence for knowledge and a certain disdain for unsubstantiated speculation. The one thing I can't abide is the almost stereotypically "feminine" penchant for turning a discussion into a critical examination of how
something is being said rather than what
is being said.
Originally Posted by ama
Again, I know that you are precisely correct, but I suppose I'm not bothered at all by the imprecise terminology often used, as I think that the actual, not legal, lines as to what is a scotch have been blurring rapidly in the last decade
. That also seems to be the tone of the thread and of the world whiskey communities. Even some people in the Scotch community, like John Glaser, can't wait for the the strict terminology to be done away with.
I don't think that will ever happen, though it does make for an interesting discussion.
This will never happen to me. Perhaps because I have a deep reverence for Tradition, perhaps because I'm part Scots...the better part...and perhaps because I think all such blurring/dumbing down is, well...dumb. And, beyond that, I believe we'll all be poorer if it does come to pass. Part of what makes Scotch so appealing (a small part...but exploited avidly enough in commercials and advertising) is the Traditions and the culture that gave it birth.
"Blur" is the stand-out concept in your above remarks. IMO, that's exactly what is wrong and exactly what I object to. Ideally, we don't experience any part of the world with just our nose or our palate. Ideally, Scotch engages our emotions and our intellects, as well. IMO, blurring those lines is, again, lowest-common-denominator thinking and leaves us with something that is the liquid equivalent of meaningless pap. Blur the definitions=blur the distinctions=blur the taste and the uniqueness. Why?!!! What's to be gained? The ability to seem to communicate without the responsibility or the commitment of actually communicating?
And after all this blurring, what have you got?! More importantly, what will you have you lost
There are lots of wonderful tipples in the world...some old, some new. The best part of wisdom is to enjoy them for what they are and not, from some misplaced sense of modernism or liberalism, what you wish they were or
what they're pretending to be.
IMO...Edited by DWFII - 1/9/13 at 6:33am