Parker feud, hope this is OK ?

David's comment wasn't directed at me, but I know I would be beyond offended if accused of rigging the results.

Mike,
I'm not sure how one would describe throwing out 2 of 14 tasters' results as anything but editing/obscuring. Personally I suggested that Thomas just post in spreadsheet form each taster's scores for each wine (if tasters preferred they could be listed by number or letter) and let people decide what is relevant. Pretty standard procedure to have raw data out to be compared to analysis.

My offer to arrange a tasting is sincere, I do think it would be informative and fun. I'm pretty certain that I'd end up near bottom as far as accuracy- I've long known that I am not especially blessed in the organleptic department- but I'm not too wrapped up in that.

[Robin Garr]

For the record, I am inclined to agree with Dale. It appears to me that Thomas made an error in reporting David's scores, then somehow managed to turn David's correction into a reason to leave the forum. Hmm.

I also agree with those who argue that this thread has moved far from its original purpose and has turned mean. I don't want to lock it - there's been a lot of excellent information in it. But can we declare this sub-thread dead and, if the overall thread continues, stick to the original topic and avoid personal attacks on each other? Let's give it a try. If we can't manage to sort things out in a civil way, then I'm afraid the lock will have to come down, but I really feel bad about doing that in a discussion about overly authoritarian moderation in another forum.

David's comment wasn't directed at me, but I know I would be beyond offended if accused of rigging the results.

Mike,
I'm not sure how one would describe throwing out 2 of 14 tasters' results as anything but editing/obscuring. Personally I suggested that Thomas just post in spreadsheet form each taster's scores for each wine (if tasters preferred they could be listed by number or letter) and let people decide what is relevant. Pretty standard procedure to have raw data out to be compared to analysis.

My offer to arrange a tasting is sincere, I do think it would be informative and fun. I'm pretty certain that I'd end up near bottom as far as accuracy- I've long known that I am not especially blessed in the organleptic department- but I'm not too wrapped up in that.

David's comment wasn't directed at me, but I know I would be beyond offended if accused of rigging the results.

Mike,
I'm not sure how one would describe throwing out 2 of 14 tasters' results as anything but editing/obscuring. Personally I suggested that Thomas just post in spreadsheet form each taster's scores for each wine (if tasters preferred they could be listed by number or letter) and let people decide what is relevant. Pretty standard procedure to have raw data out to be compared to analysis.

My offer to arrange a tasting is sincere, I do think it would be informative and fun. I'm pretty certain that I'd end up near bottom as far as accuracy- I've long known that I am not especially blessed in the organleptic department- but I'm not too wrapped up in that.

Dale,

My opinion would be based on my perception of the words David used in his post. He did not state his perception of the facts of the situation under discussion; from my perspective, he just lobbed a bomb at Thomas, totally unsupported by any other words in his post. And David's response seemed to be after Thomas complimented him on having a consistent palate.

Message fora are a totally visual media. Readers are not listeners who hear inflection and emphasis. Maybe I would have a different perception if I heard David's words. But I didn't and the impression was made.

[David M. Bueker]

Folks (including Thomas),

Pardon my directness, but since we never even saw overall average scores for the wines in the event, and were given just a top level summary of the results I felt it was not an accurate representation of what happened. For the record I think that the Weimer wine would have come out at or near the top, with a couple (but not all by any means) of the Germans close behind. The problem is we'll never know.

Thomas & I had numerous PMs back in November. He was disappointed that I did not wait for his analysis to post my notes. Ok, but to get only a summary, with no real backup was odd & has bothered me greatly since the event.

David's comment wasn't directed at me, but I know I would be beyond offended if accused of rigging the results.

Mike,
I'm not sure how one would describe throwing out 2 of 14 tasters' results as anything but editing/obscuring. Personally I suggested that Thomas just post in spreadsheet form each taster's scores for each wine (if tasters preferred they could be listed by number or letter) and let people decide what is relevant. Pretty standard procedure to have raw data out to be compared to analysis.

Dale,

I am uninterested in furthering this thread, but I'll answer your question and then be gone.

Two tasters from a neighboring city came as a couple, male and female. The sheets they submitted came without any notes whatsoever plus not one of their scores for any wine ever topped 70. their results lent nothing to the tasting.

It's neither uncommon in professional tastings to test for consistency (a test which David met) nor to remove anomalies. My mistake, if I made one, was to tell the tasters that I removed the two--but I figured everyone can add and I would have been accused of removing two scorers anyway.

It's too bad I made the mistake yesterday of reading David's score wrong. It probably reinforced his feeling that I hold a grudge, which until yesterday I did not. No one of course has mentioned thta at the beginning of the tasting I explained to everyone that I am uninterested in the numbers--they were there for the tasters who couldn't do it any other way. What I was interested in was to see whether or not, in a double blind, Finger Lakes Riesling could be considered by tasters on a par with German Rieslings.

I was not there to prove or disprove anyone's tasting abilities, but I fear that with too many wine geeks, that's the approach taken at a tasting. In that light, David saw fit, after being asked not to, to go ahead and post HIS results on about three bulletin boards before I tabulated the tasting results. By doing that, he immediately changed the focus of the tasting in the heads of others to a horse race rather than a learning experience, and no matter how many times I tried to change their direction, the threads stayed with the horse race.

I've asked Robin to remove all my posts. he has declined. As I said, I am uninterested in going any further. Just thought I should tell my side of the story now, since I won't be around to do it later.

David's comment wasn't directed at me, but I know I would be beyond offended if accused of rigging the results.

Mike,
I'm not sure how one would describe throwing out 2 of 14 tasters' results as anything but editing/obscuring. Personally I suggested that Thomas just post in spreadsheet form each taster's scores for each wine (if tasters preferred they could be listed by number or letter) and let people decide what is relevant. Pretty standard procedure to have raw data out to be compared to analysis.

Dale, I think that the appropriate words are similar to the ones you just used and the statement that David just posted. Both were much more factual than the prior post(s), lets the rest of us in on what was going on, we can make our own judgments. Much less incendiary as well.

Pardon my directness, but since we never even saw overall average scores for the wines in the event, and were given just a top level summary of the results I felt it was not an accurate representation of what happened. For the record I think that the Weimer wine would have come out at or near the top, with a couple (but not all by any means) of the Germans close behind. The problem is we'll never know..

Not to prolong this, but in an earlier post Thomas stated that in all but one case tasters liked the first example of the first duplicated wine but not the second, and disliked the first example of number 2 but liked the second. Of the 3 tasters who posted here (David, Salil, and Joe Cz) the trend is correct (people liked the first sample of number 1 more than 2nd, vice versa forthe second), but the description/analysis is not. A quick search of thread shows:

David
Weimer #1 was his fave FL, #2 he liked less- it was in middle of pack but still his 2nd favorite FL overall
Prejean #1 was his least favorite wine of tasting, #2 was his next least favorite

Salil
Weimer #1 was his fave FL of the day, he liked #2 less yet it was still his second favorite FL
Prejean #1 was his next to least favorite wine of night, he just listed that #2 was just as unpleasant (no score)

Joe
Didn't like the Weimer either time, his points varied by 1. (80-81, he actually liked 2nd sample better)
Liked Prejean #2 a bit more than #1 (81 vs 85).

In no case would I describe the difference as liking one and not liking the other. That's why I prefer to see the data myself rather than someone's analysis.

Thomas
Please reconsider. Your input to the forum is valued. Don't close the door (even if you feel like leaving the room for a short while).

All
I think in hindsight, words on both sides of this falling out could have been expressed better. It is really easy to fall out on internet fora, with the lack of face to face subtlety and interpretation. A good reminder for people to use the preview, to judge whether their post may be inflamatory. This is an absolute must when engaged in fierce debate and when it really is vital to run the post through the diplomacy filter.

I do value the positive nature of 99% of posts on this forum and find people on the whole very supportive of others. In all instances we need to decide whether we value this atmosphere more or less than gaining the upper hand in an argument. For me the former is vastly more important, though also recognising I've lost sight of this before (it's easy to do).

The positive nature of this forum is the main reason I'm here (likewise why I've warmed to Rogov's forums which have a similar positive vibe).

regards

Ian

Very well said Ian. My sentiments exactly. Thank you.

[Robin Garr]

Thank you, Ian. Well said, and I appreciate it.

Now, may I repeat my previous request that all combatants, er, participants DROP the fricking Riesling Tasting discussion? I don't care if the Parker/Squires discussion rages on for months, although I probably won't be participating in it. But this side alley has generated more heat than light. It doesn't benefit its participants or the forum, and I really don't want to have to lock down the whole thread because of it.

All
I think in hindsight, words on both sides of this falling out could have been expressed better. It is really easy to fall out on internet fora, with the lack of face to face subtlety and interpretation. A good reminder for people to use the preview, to judge whether their post may be inflamatory. This is an absolute must when engaged in fierce debate and when it really is vital to run the post through the diplomacy filter.

I do value the positive nature of 99% of posts on this forum and find people on the whole very supportive of others. In all instances we need to decide whether we value this atmosphere more or less than gaining the upper hand in an argument. For me the former is vastly more important, though also recognising I've lost sight of this before (it's easy to do).

The positive nature of this forum is the main reason I'm here (likewise why I've warmed to Rogov's forums which have a similar positive vibe).

No reason to bash each other here, when there are other people more deserving of the bashing! Focus people!

We can't end this with 299 posts.

Tom T.

I seriously doubt it will end with 301.

Is there a way to count how many posts in a thread? (no smart alec answers PLEASE! )

Ahh , by reading the top or bottom of the page At least I learned something new today!

[James Roscoe]

Did Robin unlock the golfball thread?

Actually, I think I was off by one. The counter counts the number of replies so you must add one (for the original post) to get the total number of posts in the thread.

Is that correct?

Tom T.

You were reply 300.

[Jenise]

This sandbox squabble has become ugly. I won't add my subjectivity to that of everyone else but, though I was quick to welcome Linda's original post, I want to express my support for David in the subsequent exchanges.

Cool, Oswaldo, and I have to agree. David is a fine man, and though I can see why some find him brusque at times he's a good friend and one of this forum's most valuable contributors.

The Wine Spectator has weighed in

https://wwws.winespectator.com/Wine/Blo ... 44,00.html

The Wine Spectator has weighed in

https://wwws.winespectator.com/Wine/Blo ... 44,00.html

Unfortunately, the article is only available to WS subscribers.

If you are not a subscriber, here was an important message..."At Wine Spectator we have strict ethics policies. While we do accept samples from wineries, we always taste them blind to remove any potential bias, either real or perceived. And we do not accept any junkets—we pay our own airfare and accommodations when we travel, and set our own itineraries. That way we remain independent and avoid any conflicts of interest."

[James Roscoe]

This sandbox squabble has become ugly. I won't add my subjectivity to that of everyone else but, though I was quick to welcome Linda's original post, I want to express my support for David in the subsequent exchanges.

Cool, Oswaldo, and I have to agree. David is a fine man, and though I can see why some find him brusque at times he's a good friend and one of this forum's most valuable contributors.

Does David get 98 points? When did we start rating contributors? I guess I only get 86 points.

[Jenise]

Does David get 98 points? When did we start rating contributors? I guess I only get 86 points.

Well, at least you have upside potential.