Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker
Ian Sutton wrote:Cam
Might it be fair to also add that they've since dropped the threat of legal action (as per thread on Oz board). Still a valid topic for all of us to consider, but I guess it's fair to give the full picture...
regards
Ian
MTBakerDave wrote:Seems like your website doesn't work with IE7.
What's Urchin Tracker, by the way?
Dave
Known for his fashionable hair
8224
Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:43 pm
Sacramento, CA
Sam Platt wrote:In the end it turned out that I could criticize in the harshest possible language, and defamation only came into if I had published untruthes about the author. Which I hadn't. Nothing more came of the matter.
Thomas wrote:Cam, are you technically trained to pick out mercaptan, or any other technical flaw?
Cam Wheeler wrote:I should probably seek out some advice from a legal professional in case this occurs again.
Bob Ross wrote:But, broadly speaking, when words or pictures about a person are published to a third party, that diminish or are likely to diminish the person's reputation, then that person is said to be defamed."
Thomas wrote:Cam, are you technically trained to pick out mercaptan, or any other technical flaw?
Having said that, if I produced wine and an untrained individual told me something specific and technical was wrong with it, and I knew otherwise, I would challenge the critic to prove it.
FLDG Dishwasher
33907
Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:45 pm
The Pacific Northest Westest
Cam Wheeler wrote:Should wine reviewers (that includes people who post on message boards, personal sites etc) hold back reviews of bad wines?
Thomas wrote:Mark,
If you read again what I posted you will see that I said, if a critic hasn't the technical training to offer proof, then it is best to confine the criticism to subjective sensory impressions and not to specific technical flaws--smells of rubber, onion, et al, is all that is needed. No need to say it suffered from mercaptan, which is a specific technical chemistry. So we are in agreement there.
On your premise that "most people can," perhaps, but how does the reader know if the critic is one of those "most people?" Some critics that I have read over the years really don't know what they are talking about some of the time, and I am sure almost any one of us can make that statement about one or anither wine critic.
It's fun and sometimes informative to criticize, but critics must also take responsibility for their words.
Jenise wrote:Whew, such language from a pacificist!
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Rahsaan and 10 guests