People who cellar wine - but only cheap cr*ppy ones...

Adair · Post by **Adair** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 9:50 am

Anonymous wrote:What I would really love to hear is Gary W's take on all this. I reckon he might have a really interesting point of view. What do you think Gary?

Now this is absolutely ridiculous, yet marvellously funny - bringing Gary in to adjudicate!!!
Hahahaha

PaulV · Post by **PaulV** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 10:18 am

fun way to get your posts up though :lol:

Wizz · Post by **Wizz** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 10:23 am

So glad to see some of you have posted (using your membership!). I had a dread fear that Mr Guest was one of you.

cheers and Christmas Greetings to all,

Andrew

Adair · Post by **Adair** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 10:24 am

PaulV wrote:fun way to get your posts up though

150!

Paul,

Yes it is. Aside: I am still remembering that 1986 Vat 1. As soon as a friend allows me to use his website for my wine pictures, I will post a picture of that 86 Vat 1 bottle. I still have it, on the top of my lounge roon wine rack.

Kind regards,
Adair

Guest 1 · Post by **Guest 1** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 11:50 am

For the record (feels like cluedo):

1. Guest 1 and 2 are not the same.
2. The Guest who asked GaryW to join in was not me (I may be a silly billy, but...) :wink:

3. Personal attacks - I didn't make any, just used my objective subjectivity, and unveiled sarcasm.
4. Beth Orton said "one drink too many and a joke gone too far". Stan, if you're offended I apologise. But you did miss the whole point. I was not attacking anyone's passion about anything. It was not my intention to offend. Nor was it Graeme's as he has now clearly stated.
5. Graeme, no offence intended to you, but I think your original point may have offended some people. Did me.
6. Ric, why would I go you? Nothing wrong with your comment. Athough my intention was to make a point and respond to (what I considered to be) an outrageous comment, not to be mischievous for the heck of it.
7. Wizz, I might be you. :shock:

8. I loves you all.

9. Enjoy your xmas.

10. Bugger! If I'd used my real name I'd be blitzing the posts by now. :roll:

11. Jeez I had some crap wine last night. I am so sick today. :wink:

12. I'm not trying to have the last say here, but...

NAZI, NAZI, NAZI!

Adair · Post by **Adair** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 11:54 am

Guest 1 wrote:6. Ric, why would I go you? Nothing wrong with your comment. Athough my intention was to make a point and respond to (what I considered to be) an outrageous comment, not to be mischievous for the heck of it.

... because it is always fun to "go" Ric! :wink:

Adair

Guest 3 · Post by **Guest 3** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:32 pm

[quote="Anonymous"]
There you go again. Crappy wine? There's no such thing as bad wine, only wine you don't like.
[quote]

Gosh

, how true that is!
Finally I understand why wine ratings start from 85 points at least.

bacchaebabe · Post by **bacchaebabe** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 4:59 pm

This is the best thread for ages. Nothing better than hearing people say what they think. What a dull place we would would live in otherwise. Been laughing my head off. Almost like the old days!

Completely agree with Graeme anway. What is the point of maintaining a cellar and stocking it with crap. There I've said it. Hey, I've been known to buy cases of lambrusco and even drink it and enjoy it but I have at least got the common sense to know there is better wine out there and buy some of that as well.

Nothing wrong with even having 90% of your cellar filled with quaffers to drink everyday but to never rise above it ever, when you have the means does seem a bit strange. There are so many $10 wines that improve out of sight with a year or two, you'd be mad not to cellar a few of them. Of course the trick is to find the ones that are worth cellaring and the rosemount split labels aren't among them. You only have to talk to the person that sells the wine (even at liquorland) to improve your knowledge just a little. Gee you could even ask your son-in-law who's obsessed with the stuff.

I think it was a fair enough comment of Graeme's and believe was he said originally was clear enough. Of course it is everyone's right to disagree and have another opinion. That's why we all like different wines and all our cellars are not the same. Gee, some people on this forum don't even like white wine. I personally can't understand it but I respect their opinion but reserve the right to have a dig whenever I feel like it. Make's life more interesting after all.

Like Ric, I've seen plenty of arguments on this forum over the years but I've never bought into the so called problem of anonymous posters. It doesn't bother me at all if people register or not. The only thing that annoys me with this new system is when there are three guests and you can't tell which is which. I don't like stupid or personal attacks but most of what I've seen has been rather witty and funny but still conveying the message which at the end of the day is just another person's opinion. And the guest has stuck around to argue it out and is obviosuly not an uneducated drive by poster.

Anyway, enjoy whatever you guzzle over christmas and drive safely.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 5:26 pm

Like Kris I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread - even learnt a few things like thinking a bit more about what I type.

I must say I have some sympathy for Guest. When I quickly read Graeme's initial piece I thought it sounded a bit elitist which rather surprised me coming from GG. Guest sought of reflected some of my initial thoughts but probably went a hell of a lot further than I would have. Anyway after GG explained his position I then reread his initial words and in now see what he was trying to convey. But gee it just goes to show you got to be bloody careful what and how you write if you don't want to be misinterpreted.

Nevertheless if it had been clearer we wouldn't have had so much fun reading it would we :wink:

Cheers

PaulV

PaulV · Post by **PaulV** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 5:28 pm

bugger forget to log in :oops:

above

Cheers

PaulV

michaelw · Post by **michaelw** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 11:21 pm

I too agree with Kris. This was even better than the Cork vs Screwcap threads that have graced the forum over the past 12 months or so.

Chug a lug, have a great festive season.

Guest 1 · Post by **Guest 1** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 11:32 pm

nazi?

Mark G · Post by **Mark G** » Wed Dec 24, 2003 11:57 pm

Well I've read through the thread, and apart from the funny bits and sarcy bits, it strikes me as a bubble in a bottle. Honestly, we all know people that drink wine, because well... it's wine. They enjoy "wine" but don't go past that - they invariably piss us off / amuse us / enlighten us with their amazing void of knowledge / tell us the percentage alcohol before we could get hold of the bottle to check / and ... show us that there is a spectrum of drinkers out there which are beyond our comprehension.

I sympathise with Graeme, living in a fibro "shack" (golly there is a Talking Heads song in that somewhere), he must dispair at a hobart passive cellar just needing a bit of love. I can see guest (1,2 or god knows what) popping his eyes at the "audacity" of Graeme to determine what is good vinuously, and the rest of the gang responding as only they know best (enter Ric, popov, and adair - stage left). I'm currently developing a vineyard in MR and the variety of responses I get with regards to the wine we'll produce ranges from superlative to swill, golly just like the average wine drinker :!:

Hope everyone enjoys their christmas break, and drive safely out there.

Cheers

Mark G

Vertullo · Post by **Vertullo** » Sun Dec 28, 2003 10:30 pm

I think the basic problem is that deep down Graeme doesn't think too much of his father in law. (No offense intended)

TORB · Post by **TORB** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 8:59 am

Vertullo wrote:I think the basic problem is that deep down Graeme doesn't think too much of his father in law. (No offense intended)

Yep, and some people think and genuinely believe that the moon landing in 1969 was a film stunt and that it never happened. Just because someone believes or thinks something doesn't make it true. "No offence" intended Vertullo but I cant see how you can draw that conclusion based on what GG stated, but you are entitled to believe what ever you wish. Have a good one.

Muscat Mike · Post by **Muscat Mike** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:29 pm

Vertullo wrote:I think the basic problem is that deep down Graeme doesn't think too much of his father in law. (No offense intended)

I think that you do not think too much at all. What do you think of my extremely thoughtful statement?? :roll:

MM.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:56 am

I am the Guest of Tue Dec 23, 2003 6:37 am and I am different to the Guest of Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:09 am .

I like to post anonymously because I dont consider that it should make any difference- are my views any less valid?
Many of you like to build up an online persona because you are regular posters and it helps others understand you and your palate. Great idea - but I dont have the time- so until I do I will post anonymously.

GraemeG my post was meant as an observation not a personal attack- sorry if it came over that way. I stick by my observation that your original post did come over as a little arrogant. I have noted that you have since clarrified your position, but since I did not have the benefit of those later posts and because I have not had the time to read all your past posts to understand where you were "coming from" like some of the regulars such as Adair, my post was a direct response to what you had written.

I will understand if you dont reply because you have stated(somewhat unconvincingly) that you dont reply to anonymous posters.

Anonymously Yours

AA

Kieran · Post by **Kieran** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 2:16 pm

I have no problem with people posting anonymously, but it's hard to conduct a discussion in a thread when you don't know which posts were made by the same person.

Kieran

Stan Graham · Post by **Stan Graham** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:25 pm

Some very interesting follow ups. A fair bit of back peddling and explanation.

I must apologise for my poor writing on my post as it was after a few good bottles that I penned my thoughts. But the point is a fair one made with some wit and a gerenous dose of sarcasm. Poor writing can irritate as easily as poor wine. If you hate poor writing, choose your sources carefully. It's obviously the same with wine.

I thank everyone for the criticism about the personal attack but I think it was a fair line of questioning disguised rather well.

But please know there are bad wines. Oxidised, undrinkably volatile, bacterialy infected and so on. They won't kill you but to all but the most 'tolerant' palate they are undrinkable for their faults. Rather like some writing is unreadable its faults, right?

Stan

Gavin Trott · Post by **Gavin Trott** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:33 pm

Kieran wrote:I have no problem with people posting anonymously, but it's hard to conduct a discussion in a thread when you don't know which posts were made by the same person.

Kieran

Hello

People seem to be enjoying the debate so I am leaving the thread here.

I agree about the numerous 'guests' and how confusing that can be.

However, check Stan's post, he entered as a guest, isn't registered, but was able to enter his name. So can the many guests, enter as a guest, post using a suitable name, yours or a logical other, and we will all be able to follow who's posting.

Just an idea.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 4:22 pm

Hi TORB

The moon landing in 1969 is a bit like believing in God.

a) people believe the moon landing happened in 1969 because they saw it on TV.
b) it did happen, but so did the film stunt because the original TV transmission failed.
c) it was a film stunt and the supposed first moon landing did not occur.
d) if you don't believe that the moon landing happened (and tell everyone that) you go on the CIA's bad guy list.

Then you made another very inflammatory statement -

"Just because someone believes or thinks something doesn't make it true."

Some yrs ago a French fellow named Descartes sat up all night struggling with this one. Then he finished his wine & wrote - "Cogito ergo sum" which means "I think, therefore I am." It is mistakenly thought that he is the "father" of modern scientific reasoning.

Hi Vertullo

Don't take what Muscat Mike said to heart. I think the basic problem is that deep down Muscat Mike doesn't think too much of psychology.

To Guest of Tue Dec 23, 2003 6:37am

I have a feeling of dread about this, because I have already brought up religion & psychology, which are taboo in polite company.

But are you the one? Should I be looking for the forgotten sandal in the dust? :shock:

And TORB, Adair, etc just pretenders??

Guest X.

PS. This is NOT a NWT, because I did mention wine once.

Guest 1 · Post by **Guest 1** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:26 pm

Gavin Trott wrote:
Kieran wrote:I have no problem with people posting anonymously, but it's hard to conduct a discussion in a thread when you don't know which posts were made by the same person.

Kieran

I agree about the numerous 'guests' and how confusing that can be.

However, check Stan's post, he entered as a guest, isn't registered, but was able to enter his name. So can the many guests, enter as a guest, post using a suitable name, yours or a logical other, and we will all be able to follow who's posting.

Just an idea.

I dunno Gavin. I must say I’m comfortable with things so far. From my calculations, we have:
Guest 1 (me)
Guest 2 (who crossed the floor when things got hot)
Guest 3 (bad wine starts at 84 points downward)
Guest Judge (stopped the game at the first mention of nazis)
Guest AA (aka Guest 6.37am Tue 23rd)
Guest X (the CIA guy who lost his sandals on the moon in 1969. If you zoom into the grainy background behind Neil Armstrong you can just make him out sitting in a director’s chair with a megaphone in his hand).

There is still an unidentified Guest from 8.45pm Wed 24th and until we get a new name for that person their may still be some confusion. Can we fit one more Guest in? Is there room? If so, thou shalt be known as Guest Room.

Mind you, to follow the religious theme, there may be no room left at the inn. :cry:

P.S. Religion, psychology might be taboo, but I think someone mentioned nazi once at that didn’t seem to stop the conversation. :wink:

Guest 23 · Post by **Guest 23** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:32 pm

Some yrs ago a French fellow named Descartes sat up all night struggling with this one. Then he finished his wine & wrote - "Cogito ergo sum" which means "I think, therefore I am." It is mistakenly thought that he is the "father" of modern scientific reasoning.

and further to the story

Shortly after the above quotation Descartes was dining in a restaurant. The Sommelier approach him and asked "would Monsieur like another bottle of wine?". Descartes said "I think not" and disappeared.