The Auswine Forum

$130 on Teusner FG Shiraz 06 & 08
The 06 managed to blow my mind... Pity I can't afford to drink wines like that every day, but at the same time I am thankful I don't have to resort to drinking cleanskins (Or Goon) every day

$370 on a '67 Grange (a while ago now) as a 35th present for my (then) squeeze. Hey, it was a worthwhile purchase - nicely matured for not much more than the current vintage.

$240 on a 1964 bottle of Janneau (spelling?) Armagnac for a friend birthday.

I occasionally venture over $100 on Champagne, but not often. And sometimes for a single barrel, single malt.

I may have forgotten other times;)

Pétrus '81 a few years ago, still remains the most money spent.
Last year purchased HoG '91 but that was shared with a group. And also last year, d'Yquem '62 would have been more than Pétrus but price shared with another person. To be drunk this year to celebrate three relatives' 50th.

Buy clothes from an online spam store? too right, that would be money well spent

chardonyes wrote:I´m going to go as far to say that there is absolutely nothing cool with spending $50k on wine! When you look at the bigger picture, think of the good that could do in the world.....

This character is spamming us, with hidden links in the text to an online clothing store, called the Iconic ...

very bad form indeed!

.

Gavin Trott wrote:

chardonyes wrote:I´m going to go as far to say that there is absolutely nothing cool with spending $50k on wine! When you look at the bigger picture, think of the good that could do in the world.....

This character is spamming us, with hidden links in the text to an online clothing store, called the Iconic ...

very bad form indeed!

.

I think most of his 16 posts have been spam.

rens wrote:

Gavin Trott wrote:

chardonyes wrote:I´m going to go as far to say that there is absolutely nothing cool with spending $50k on wine! When you look at the bigger picture, think of the good that could do in the world.....

This character is spamming us, with hidden links in the text to an online clothing store, called the Iconic ...

very bad form indeed!

.

I think most of his 16 posts have been spam.

Yes, me too.

But this kind of spam actally works against the spammer, so now the clothing store as above has been 'outed' so as to speak, and people will avoid.

That's why I leave some of these, sometimes ... like the Howard Park one ... a little show of

It doesn't pay to spam us.

Hoping it may help??

.

Gavin Trott wrote:This character is spamming us, with hidden links in the text to an online clothing store, called the Iconic ...

very bad form indeed!

rens wrote:I think most of his 16 posts have been spam.

Gavin Trott wrote:Yes, me too.

But this kind of spam actally works against the spammer, so now the clothing store as above has been 'outed' so as to speak, and people will avoid.

That's why I leave some of these, sometimes ... like the Howard Park one ... a little show of

It doesn't pay to spam us.

Hoping it may help??

IMO the best thing would be to remove or at least disable the working link once the spammer/beneficiary has been identified, or preferably just delete the thing and ban the poster. Why reward a possible spammer (especially if they're a third party like in a possible scenario said back in the Howard Park one) with future possible hits to the websites in question?

Over at Bert's place when one person clicked a link in a similar dodgy post he got a phone call from his IT guys when the work firewall lit up - he thinks the posts come from a very sneaky/sophisticated bot, so if they are snuffed out it's not like anyone will give a stuff anyway.

My 2c,
Ian