FYI: If I wanted to talk about other people and other places

especially places that go on and on and on about talking about talking about talking about some things only tenuously related to wine...

I CAN GO OVER THERE AND SUBJECT MYSELF TO THAT CRAP.

Because I am actually, as it were, HERE, and not THERE, that can be construed as meaning I have very little interest in THERE AND THE PEOPLE OVER THERE. Otherwise, I would be THERE, not HERE.

But since I am HERE, and don't plan on going over THERE, can those people who want to talk incessantly about THERE (and haven't been banned and have therefore come over HERE to WHINE ABOUT NOT BEING OVER THERE), go on over THERE and do whatever it is they do over THERE.

THERE not being HERE, is my point.

In all seriousness, guys, talking about these people is just about the most tedious and repetitive thing imaginable to those not interested in it. I'm not into censorship, but I sure am into restraint.

And if you guys don't straighten up----I'll just have to start a blizzard of posts on cork vs. alternative closures. I'm warning you. You know what I'm capable of. Or has Tim Mc so quickly slipped your mind???

There, there, Hoke . . .

Or is it here, here!

Love it! I've just about had it too...

[James Roscoe]

I notice that our old friend John Zuccarino is posting over THERE. I wonder if he is still into drunk dialing?

[David M. Bueker]

Bravo Hoke (although I think I said something like that on page 1 of the original thread & got lambasted for it).

Okay, but why are you posting THIS thread, which isn't at all about wine, HERE, which is where we are supposed to talk about wine? Or are you just trying to make a point about other people who do similar things?

[David M. Bueker]

But Bruce, in this thread we're just talking about talking about other places.

It's totally different.

CURMUDGEON! Peruse rapidly?

[David M. Bueker]

While wearing sunglasses.

This is very far from the point being made here, but I think maybe worth saying.

Studies by evolutionary psychologists suggest that language was basically invented so that people could gossip.

In other words, talking about other people was the original function of language.

The extreme alternative to this theory is the "Einstein-Newton School" -- the concept that language came about to allow advances in technology.

But most of our technology is about 100,000 years younger than language...

[David M. Bueker]

Frank,

The axe used to be the apex of technology. Don't confuse "technology" with modern electronics.

Frank,

The axe used to be the apex of technology. Don't confuse "technology" with modern electronics.

Beside the point here, no?

[David M. Bueker]

I thought we were just talking.

The theorist I was referring to is Robin Dunbar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

I notice that our old friend John Zuccarino is posting over THERE. I wonder if he is still into drunk dialing?

He pretty much dominates the eGullet wine board these days.

well said Hoke, well said..as I said a zillion posts ago to our friendly host, enough is enough

If you don't like it, just change the channel.

It's morning...a friday...was beginning to think of Shan-gra-la or Bali Hai...before I realised THERE is a real place

I notice that our old friend John Zuccarino is posting over THERE. I wonder if he is still into drunk dialing?

Ahh, I miss 'The Zucc'. Those were the days, my friend, not of wine and roses, but of unintelligible ramblings and misguided musings (not to mention dark nights of the soul). Talk about drama.

I notice that our old friend John Zuccarino is posting over THERE. I wonder if he is still into drunk dialing?

Ahh, I miss 'The Zucc'. Those were the days, my friend, not of wine and roses, but of unintelligible ramblings and misguided musings (not to mention dark nights of the soul). Talk about drama.

While driving through the Finger Lakes on my way to Philadelphia this past February, I stopped at Catherine Valley Winery. When I was leaving I looked at the Seneca Lake wineries tour map and noticed that I was only about 1/2 mile from John Z's winery, so I drove over there, but it was closed.

While driving through the Finger Lakes on my way to Philadelphia this past February, I stopped at Catherine Valley Winery. When I was leaving I looked at the Seneca Lake wineries tour map and noticed that I was only about 1/2 mile from John Z's winery, so I drove over there, but it was closed.

I think you should have broken into the winery, had your way with the wines, and left dirty glasses all around the tasting room.

If you don't like it, just change the channel.

well said Hoke, well said..as I said a zillion posts ago to our friendly host, enough is enough

There is merit in both arguments. Yes, if one knows to avoid it, it's easy enough to avoid that thread (and indeed this one ). However I suspect John, Hoke and others are making the comment that the content of the threads on e-bob antics tend to show different attitudes to this forum and we all see value in the positive behaviour & moderation here (the two occurring together is not coincidental IMO). In addition, we need to ensure that whatever issues & censorship that deny people a voice aren't simply played out here instead, weighing down on the good vibe of this forum.

IMO this cuts both ways - that just because a subject is blocked on e-bob, doesn't mean it can't be discussed here. However this isn't a soapbox/vehicle for firing potshots at Squires/e-bob moderation (sic.). It's not very clear cut where the distinction I describe is, so all I think we can ask is that people don't bring person to person ill-feeling from other fora here. i.e. don't continue an e-bob disagreement here.

Yes we'll talk about wine matters that may include Parker/Miller etc. They are wine personalities. I'm personally happy to read links to the latest train wreck on that site, but accept that others are tired of it (and come here to escape the nonsense). I guess we need to ensure we don't allow their squabbles to invade this forum - and if that means us thinking before posting a comment, then that's no bad thing.

regards

Ian

Well put, Ian.

I would add that it's not so easy, for me at least, to switch off so selectively, like Matt suggests. I feel like I'm sitting at a huge communal table, with rambunctious and spirited arguments going back and forth from all sides. I wouldn't be able to just stop listening without the metaphorical equivalent of leaving the room altogether, and with distancing comes estrangement.

I prefer, instead, to listen to what my colleagues are saying, even if I don't like the circularity or the tone, because the issue engages them so much.