Bob Ross wrote:Dale, I have to admire us for referring to the "New York Times". I just realized that the people who work there generally refer to it as "The Times" in the newspaper itself.
Bob, I know an editor at the NYT, and you're right! But he is aware of the Times (based in London, but not of it). While I believe in clarity, if someone at the NYT is discussing their coverage, it seems to me pretty reasonable to shorten. But then again, few people are as admirable as you and I!
David M. Bueker wrote:I understood your post quite well. again I'm just getting back to my much earlier comments regarding how one can acknowledge a style one is either a fan or not a fan of without resorting to pejorative descriptors.
David, it seems to me that Oliver is doing just that (much better than Parker does, for instance). It seems clear he thinks RP is good at recognizing and liking a style, which Oliver doesn't like.
Paul W.,
Actually, back in'97, you were one of the people who used the "French TV Interview" as a reference to Parker's ability (I may have too!). We all function on the information we have.
The interesting (to me at least) question is the idea of Parker's consistency (and honesty).
I find it fascinating that the French TV story, repeated for 11 years as independent proof, has never actually been independently verified. I find it very peculiar that Mr. Parker didn't express outrage at being tricked into this situation, and then it not being shown . I also find it strange that Mr. Parker, scarcely a small ego, would not have immediately had this tape copied (a hundred copies!) into US format. It would clearly be the most impressive feat of tasting I've ever heard of, yet he seems to act as if he wishes the subject dropped. How strange. Maybe someone will dig up the video.