Huntsman
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2004
- Messages
- 7,888
- Reaction score
- 1,002
Allow me...
Condescending at a minimum, with the implication that some people are too stupid to learn.
The staccato voicing again indicates condescension from a superior --a sense that your are rolling your eyes as you typed. Taken with the prior fragment, I'd say you probably were.
This is a response in reasonably good grace.
The bolded sections indicate that you are playing the "not an everyman" card so often used in politics, and painting yourself as a sensible, normal guy who understands value for money, in apposition to "the others" who can just buy the purported best without having had to acquire the understanding and depth of knowledge you so clearly possess. This is the snarkiness that so characterizes reverse snobbery.
The first personal attack was yours, up there in bold above. As for substance, I learned nothing, because I don't know how the wine you spoke of compares. Is it just as good, or just incredible for it's pricepoint? Are the Cabs posted better, but at a huge toll in diminishing returns? "Be hard on the problem" indicates you feel there is a problem.
Not stating your preferences? So....that tells me that your words aren't merely your opinion, but that they are absolute standards?! A tad haughty, wouldn't you agree? Hopefully that has helped answer your questions. IUtoSLU may elaborate further, as could I, but those are the main indicators. Of course, you may have meant it another way, and I don't know you (didn't even know you had a shoe collection), but that's how you come across. ~ Huntsman
I guess we've been down this path before
Condescending at a minimum, with the implication that some people are too stupid to learn.
...buy the 2004 beringer knights valley alluvium for about $13, taste blind against the BV and two other cabs, report back.
The staccato voicing again indicates condescension from a superior --a sense that your are rolling your eyes as you typed. Taken with the prior fragment, I'd say you probably were.
Good thing you'll not be invited over, so you'll not have to drink my swill
This is a response in reasonably good grace.
I'm reminded of a dinner where the host served nothing but parker 100 point wines. As I'm in the business, he singled me out afterwards to ask what I though of the wine. My thought was that if, like my host, you have $100 million or so in the bank, you may as well spend the money. For me (and most of the rest of the population), the game is to find high QPR wine. That doesn't mean cheap wine, it means at every price level, finding the best QPR. I am asserting that you have chosen high quality wine that has a low QPR. If your net worth is such that you don't care about QPR, good on you. If you;re interested and get to NYC, bring your wine, I'll bring mine, we'll get a couple of other people involved, and we'll put it to the test.
The bolded sections indicate that you are playing the "not an everyman" card so often used in politics, and painting yourself as a sensible, normal guy who understands value for money, in apposition to "the others" who can just buy the purported best without having had to acquire the understanding and depth of knowledge you so clearly possess. This is the snarkiness that so characterizes reverse snobbery.
Yup, I was selectively pointing out the wine that had a low qpr in the hopes of saving you, and others that might follow your lead, some money. I think you are seriously over-reacting...I was dispassionaltely discussing the relative merit of a wine and you shifted to a personal attack. Be hard on the problem, easy on the person.
The first personal attack was yours, up there in bold above. As for substance, I learned nothing, because I don't know how the wine you spoke of compares. Is it just as good, or just incredible for it's pricepoint? Are the Cabs posted better, but at a huge toll in diminishing returns? "Be hard on the problem" indicates you feel there is a problem.
I wasn't stating my preferences, I was making the suggestion that piobare was overpaying for the quality of the wine and could do better elsewhere. I believe most people in the wine industry would agree with my assessment. I appreciate you feel my comments were antagonistic towards piobare but I'm having a hard time understanding it. It would be great if you could take a sentence or a set of sentences from my post and explain what you found as out of place and unwanted. This will help me moderate my responses in the future. thanks, vp
Not stating your preferences? So....that tells me that your words aren't merely your opinion, but that they are absolute standards?! A tad haughty, wouldn't you agree? Hopefully that has helped answer your questions. IUtoSLU may elaborate further, as could I, but those are the main indicators. Of course, you may have meant it another way, and I don't know you (didn't even know you had a shoe collection), but that's how you come across. ~ Huntsman