AFWE

[Robin Garr]

I didn't see it, honestly. I had been looking at posts for the past two days and I never saw it until mine disappeared. I could be wrong, I have no problem with that.

Ago, all sorted out now? David was simply doing an act of routine maintenance. I assure you that there won't be any censorious moderating here. The only time we would ever remove a post would be for outright spam (and we generally are able to block spammers from joining), or abusive personal attacks, and in those very rare occasions we'll announce the decision and its details.

David, like Jenise, helps me do routine maintenance around here. We meant nothing stealthy about him not having a public moderator's badge. Frankly, it's simply that this is a non-hierarchical group that we try to operate as much as possible as a community of peers, and I've never been enthusiastic about having priestly castes. However, David has volunteered to be marked as a moderator, and if that's the group's preference, I have no problem with that. Just bear in mind that moderators in this forum - including me - don't act as bosses or police. That's why I bear the title "Janitor" and Jenise "Dishwasher." We think it makes a statement.

Nice to know that there's someone out there defending the right of the common, working class Joe to drink his 100 point wines without interference from that anti-flavor elite. If I could afford to, I'd go out and buy one myself, just to stick it to the AFWE!

Perhaps its time for a bit of balance here: a thing most of us look for in a fine wine. The fact that I do not appreciate Mollydooker wines (and, yes, I DO find them "undrinkable" in the sense that I feel no desire to finish my first glass) does not prevent me from fully accepting that they may please many other people. Or from sharing some tastes with those people. This is possibly what differentiates me (and, hopefully, a lot of other people) from all those who believe that there can be "right" and "wrong" in matters of taste. We are talking about aesthetics here, and we all know that this is a complex area where the personal and the cultural, the innate and the acquired, intermingle. We are also talking about a pleasure: something that is not essential in the sense that we can survive without it. Let's keep it that way and exhange our opinions, even if they are strongly held because we love wine and some wines just make us vibrate in a mysterious way. I get a little worried when people start using words like "fascist" in these discussions. I am sure that it was not really meant that way. Let's sit down together, and, virtually (we live thousands of miles apart), share a bottle of one of each other's favourite wines.

We really do not need for admin issues - like whether threads ought to be merged - to take over a topical thread. There's also no need to bash anyone for liking obviously well-made wines, even if they are not in a style of personal preference.

So, site admin should remove those posts in this thread that only criticize an reply to admin matters. And you can remove the op portion of this reply, too.

OK... Back to business.

While I almost never reach for Aussie shiraz done in the over-the-top, low acid, thick fruit style, I have at times enjoyed them in the past. And sometimes they can be a value play at Steakhouses that overcharge for the usual suspects.

[Robin Garr]

So, site admin should remove those posts in this thread that only criticize an reply to admin matters. And you can remove the op portion of this reply, too.

Bernie, I have a name.

I'm also disinclined to perform the kind of surgical thread maintenance of which you speak. Time-consuming, and a slippery slope toward the kind of fighting over what gets nuked and what doesn't that we're not going to have in this forum. Ignore 'em. Move forward.

I know it's uncool in geek circles, but I like the Mollydooker wines when taken for what they are. I've had The Boxer Shiraz, and the Carnival of Love Shiraz, both of which are great big, way overblown wines. While the wines may not be a perfect expression of the source grape, I find it hard to believe that anyone would find them undrinkable.

Believe it.

[David M. Bueker]

I will freely admit that I found the one of two Mollydookers I had on Feb 6th to be drinkable, but only in a most extreme, pair it with blue cheese sort of way. I found the Shiraz (Boxer) to be decent enough, but the Cabernet (Maitre D) was completely candied and repulsive to my taste.

Yes, but isn't it true that in a claret-induced rant you once referred to the WA crowd as " the anti-balance wine hoi polloi"?

Not as far as either I or Google can recall.

-Paul W.

sorry, Paul, I meant to put a smiley at end of my (poor) joke.

Perhaps its time for a bit of balance here: a thing most of us look for in a fine wine. The fact that I do not appreciate Mollydooker wines (and, yes, I DO find them "undrinkable" in the sense that I feel no desire to finish my first glass) does not prevent me from fully accepting that they may please many other people. Or from sharing some tastes with those people.

David,

This thread has taken a decidedly ugly turn, so I will strive to keep my comments light. I absolutely agree with your comments on the relative nature of taste. Each of us has a palate that varies, at least slightly, from everyone else. I would most certainly never try to inflict my tastes on anyone else. My concern is with the loaded nature of the word “undrinkable”. Minus the context of a face to face discussion it implies a value judgment of the worthiness of such wine, in my opinion. Your clarification explained that you did not like the wine, to the point that you did not wish to drink anymore of it. I have had wines that were so spoiled, or corked, that they were literally difficult to put in my mouth and swallow. I would liken your dislike of MollyDooker to my dislike of Sancerre. I find it largely to be diluted, generic, over-priced swill. If I am given a glass of a Sancerre I may give it a sniff and taste, but I don’t drink it. I don’t drink it, because I don’t like it, not because I find it “undrinkable”. I certainly defend your right not to drink MD. Heck, I have steadfastly refused to drink the wines of DRC and Petrus over the years. I find them completely undrinkable... of course, the undrinkability is economically induced in this case.

[David M. Bueker]

Sam,

It seems like the ugliness (misunderstanding) in the thread is pretty much ironed out now.

I was thinking about this issue, and think that as people have dialed up the criticism, Parker has dialed up the insults, and so on. It's like some sort of wine-based nuclear escalation process. I'm not really sure who started it (nor does it matter), but one can look back with hidsight at the "low brow Cotes du Rhone" comments and the responses that they elicited as something quite tame compared to current asbestos torching flame wars.

I would liken your dislike of MollyDooker to my dislike of Sancerre. I find it largely to be diluted, generic, over-priced swill. If I am given a glass of a Sancerre I may give it a sniff and taste, but I don’t drink it. I don’t drink it, because I don’t like it, not because I find it “undrinkable”..

Well, the difference here is that MollyDooker is a specific wine whereas Sancerre is a category. Much Sancerre is diluted, generic, and swillish, but then most wines from all categories are diluted, generic, and swillish.

I have a terrible confession.

Depending on the mood, the food and the company I can enjoy huge fruit-forward blockbusters no less than I can the most gentle and elegant Burgundy reds. As was written by men and women far wiser than I* - "to everything there is a season".

Best
Rogov

* As much as I adore Pete Seeger, not referring to him but to the book of Ecclesiastes

I would liken your dislike of MollyDooker to my dislike of Sancerre. I find it largely to be diluted, generic, over-priced swill. If I am given a glass of a Sancerre I may give it a sniff and taste, but I don’t drink it. I don’t drink it, because I don’t like it, not because I find it “undrinkable”..

Well, the difference here is that MollyDooker is a specific wine whereas Sancerre is a category. Much Sancerre is diluted, generic, and swillish, but then most wines from all categories are diluted, generic, and swillish.

If not brutish, nasty and short.

Perhaps, in response to Sam, I should put in a word in defence of good Sancerres, of which there are quite a few. Have you tried the wines of, say, Alphonse Mellot, or maybe Vacheron, or Vatan? If you don't like these at all then maybe you just don't like acidity and so Rieslings are also a lost cause for you. Hard though not to like a whole category of wines, although this can happen. There are many Australian shiraz that I like a lot, Including some the man with the saxophone player's name also likes: Torbreck for instance. Or, for even more refinement and yet plenty of intensity, the wines from Henscke. Perhaps the most moving one I ever tried was from Yarra Yering, although I suspect it had some other things in it. I love some fruity wines as well as less obvious ones, but what I find hard to drink is when the fruitiness goes to jam and becomes heavy. Yet I love vintage port (not too often), so go work that one out! Diversity is the spice of life I suppose.

Have you tried the wines of, say, Alphonse Mellot, or maybe Vacheron, or Vatan?

I was going to say Cotat as the best example of Sancerre for people who like weight and substance in their wine.

You may never achieve coolness Grasshopper...you are an engineer and live in Indiana, no?

And proudly so! They will have to pry the pocket protector from my cold, dead short-sleeve, white Arrow button down shirt.

You wear a short sleeve shirt in Indiana...In February? I bow before you in Awe, Grasshopper.

I LOVE Seventh Seal, by the way. Does that make me a bad person? I thought it was hilarious as well as pensive.

Brian = Hoosier!

sorry, Paul, I meant to put a smiley at end of my (poor) joke.

Well, I did flame Rovani once when he claimed that Parker was the world's greatest expert of all time on the subject of pinot noir and Burgundy. But my worst ad hominem jibe in that attack was to call him "clueless" (that in fact is what set Rovani off and started the flame war).

-Paul W.

[David M. Bueker]

It's amazing what trouble can be caused by the truth Paul (note to all - I have reason for my opinion on this unrelated to board matters).

I have a terrible confession.

Depending on the mood, the food and the company I can enjoy huge fruit-forward blockbusters no less than I can the most gentle and elegant Burgundy reds. As was written by men and women far wiser than I* - "to everything there is a season".

Well said, Daniel. At times hedonistic gobs of fruit and oak are called for. At other times, grace, elegance, and understated power.

-Paul W.

sorry, Paul, I meant to put a smiley at end of my (poor) joke.

Well, I did flame Rovani once when he claimed that Parker was the world's greatest expert of all time on the subject of pinot noir and Burgundy. But my worst ad hominem jibe in that attack was to call him "clueless" (that in fact is what set Rovani off and started the flame war).

-Paul W.

You know, I had never considered this before reading your story, Paul, but doesn't it seem as if, with the departure of Pierre "Attack Dog" Rovani from the WA and eBob, that many of his worst characteristics have been subsumed by his formerly low-key boss?

Just sayin'
Mark Lipton
A proud member of the AFWE

Much Sancerre is diluted, generic, and swillish, but then most wines from all categories are diluted, generic, and swillish.

What is the vinous equivalent of "misanthrope"?

Much Sancerre is diluted, generic, and swillish, but then most wines from all categories are diluted, generic, and swillish.

What is the vinous equivalent of "misanthrope"?

Anti-flavor wine elites?