Did anyone read Parker's latest screed?

[Chris_Seiber]

Did Bill Klapp just chide me for repeating my point of view too many times? 50 times would be a conservative estimate for you – in one thread.

Bill, you say your thing, I’ll say mine, our views will resonate or not resonate with whomever, and the world will keep turning. I will now yield the thread to you and your thoughts about Robert Parker, which I’m sure offer the board something brand new that you haven’t shared repeatedly in the past.

[Tom_Blach]

I think Parker has hated wine for many years. It’s quite understandable, but it’s really time to quit.

[Vincent_Fritzsche]

I think one of the most interesting aspects of Parker’s post is his logic, essentially, that if all these lesser known grapes were so good, surely people would have figured it out before now.

To me, that’s pretty much the definition of anti-intellectualism. Why bother thinking because surely everything’s already been thought.

But it’s especially rich coming from Parker, himself the upstart back in the day, an almost new media guy who threatened the establishment and caused them to react poorly, only fueling the fire of change he represented. Hmm, sounds familiar.

Perspective is calling but looks like Parker’s land line is busy.

[Bill_Klapp_deactivated]

@Ken V

@M. Linzbach

I’m not sure Bob wrote this as there are not enough “…” in the post.

@dbailey

Classic example of why posting when drunk is a bad idea.

Just to be clear, this was NOT a post on the Squires board, but rather it is an “Article of Merit” on eRP.com.

So this is not something he wrote off the top of his head.

Exactly, and as such, it is proof of what a bigoted and mediocre mind he possesses and what a truly crappy writer he is. Only Bob Parker would write a piece of merde like that and bury it, along with the puff piece bordering on oral sodomy that one of his neighbors did for a business-school term paper, in the root cellar that is humorously and ironically called “Articles of Merit”. But that said, let me go on record as saying that Jon Bonne and Alice Feiring are equally crappy writers, save the absence of ellipses. It seems like nobody can write worth a damn on the radical fringe…

[Bill_Klapp_deactivated]

@Chris Seiber

Did Bill Klapp just chide me for repeating my point of view too many times? 50 times would be a conservative estimate for you – in one thread.

Bill, you say your thing, I’ll say mine, our views will resonate or not resonate with whomever, and the world will keep turning. I will now yield the thread to you and your thoughts about Robert Parker, which I’m sure offer the board something brand new that you haven’t shared repeatedly in the past.

The difference, Chris, is that the only constant in my posts is my disdain for Parker. Beyond that, I have a thousand different ways to express my disdain, from highlighting inconsistencies in and destroying the logic of the garbage that he cranks out to humor at his expense. You merely recycle a single idea over and over again…

[Scott_Brunson]

@Vincent Fritzsche

I think one of the most interesting aspects of Parker’s post is his logic, essentially, that if all these lesser known grapes were so good, surely people would have figured it out before now.

To me, that’s pretty much the definition of anti-intellectualism. Why bother thinking because surely everything’s already been thought.

But it’s especially rich coming from Parker, himself the upstart back in the day, an almost new media guy who threatened the establishment and caused them to react poorly, only fueling the fire of change he represented. Hmm, sounds familiar.

Perspective is calling but looks like Parker’s land line is busy.

Bonus points for being both correct and funny.

[Paul_Jaouen]

And the folks that bought WA are OK with this idiotic rant?

[Bill_Klapp_deactivated]

Maybe it seems less idiotic when translated into Chinese!

[Oliver_McCrum]

@Bill Klapp

But that said, let me go on record as saying that Jon Bonne and Alice Feiring are equally crappy writers, save the absence of ellipses. It seems like nobody can write worth a damn on the radical fringe…

Totally disagree with this, Jon Bonne is a very good writer, and not on the fringe. I would love to see him reach a wider audience than the Chronicle.

[Dav_d_Parta_n]

@john holdredge

f*ck Ohio State.

Muck Fichigan

[G_D_y_e_r]

@A. Mishaan

I realized I forgot to include an example of the fascist imagery that appears more than once:

Of course, they would have you believe some godforsaken grapes that, in hundreds and hundreds of years of viticulture, wine consumption, etc., have never gotten traction because they are rarely of interest (such as Trousseau, Savagnin, Grand Noir, Negrette, Lignan Blanc, Peloursin, Auban, Calet, Fongoneu and Blaufrankisch) can produce wines (in truth, rarely palatable unless lost in a larger blend) that consumers should be beating a path to buy and drink. Most aren’t, and just how absurd this notion is becomes evident when the results are oxidized, stale, stink of fecal matter as well as look like orange juice or rusty ice tea being poured into a glass and passed off as “authentic”, “natural” or “real” wine. This is the epitome of cyber-group goose-stepping, a completely deranged syndrome that somehow the internet has allowed to persist.

Man, I almost fell out of my chair laughing! The unintentional self parody is so spot on and rigorous, it’s uncanny. The parody of the self parody simple writes itself:

Of course, WA would have you believe some well-known grapes that, in the last couple of decades of viticulture, wine consumption, etc., have dominated discourse because they are of interest to casual drinkers and point chasing snobs alike (such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Syrah, Grenache, Cab S, Cab Sauv, Cannonau, CS, Shiraz) can produce wines (in truth, rarely palatable unless lost in a larger blend) that consumers should be beating a path to buy and drink. Most aren’t, and just how absurd this notion is becomes evident when the results are porty, over-extracted, stink of alcohol as well as look like mega purple or motor oil being poured into a glass and passed off as “unctuous”, “painfully intense” or “perfect” wine. This is the epitome of cyber-group goose-stepping, a completely deranged syndrome that somehow the internet has allowed to persist.

[jcoley3]

Parker = Lear
Bordeaux = Regan
Napa = Goneril
Burgundy = Cordelia

[jcoley3]

Tragedy ensues.

[Jim_V_a_n_P_e_l_t]

Read / skimmed the whole article. Definitely not a drunk rant. Quite well written. I had the nagging question throughout my reading - “gee…I wonder what initiated this? Seems like something really got under his skin”.

Asimov? Or declining subscribership?

I wouldn’t discount the latter, given his rather broad attack on all that might be perceived as his competitors.

Or perhaps it’s just an advanced narcissism.

[Greg_Pierce]

Parker is not attempting to inform or otherwise edify his readers with actual useful and/or interesting information. Instead, he wants to scare the shit out of folks with wild (unsourced) stories of the evil forces arrayed against the innocent wine purchaser (who just wants a tasty tipple), while positing himself as their savior – a wise and knowledgeable sage, dispensing only the truest and bestest facts about all things wine. All the better to convince folks to pay to read his advice (ignore the Australian/Singaporean moneychangers taking your shekels, btw).

He’s been doing this shuck n’ jive for his entire career – early on it was the evil british wine press that (supposedly) took bribes (in the form of cases of wine allegedly left in the trunk of their rental cars whilst tasting the swill at the chateau), then it was the dastardly wine retailers (who, supposedly, didn’t give a shit about what their customers liked/wanted, but just saddled them with whatever swill needed to be moved). Now it’s the natural wine and/or obscure wine aficionados who are taking the poor, naive wine purchaser for the proverbial ride, with only Bob Parker to protect them (mind you, by telling them to ignore anything new or different, but to keep drinking the same stuff he’s been writing about for the last 30 years).

Strangely, he’s never named any names to support his claims about the corruption/fecklessness of the members of the wine journalism and/or retailing trade. Perhaps it’s only his fevered imagination. Indeed, I imagine that Mr. Parker pictures folks like Ms. Feiring and Eric Asimov twirling the ends of their Snidely Whiplash mustaches while cackling wildly over their latest overtures to whatever “natural” or “obscure” wine they write about.

This is nothing but sensationalism – the wine equivalent of yellow journalism from the turn of the 20th century. William Randolph Hearst would be proud.

[jcoley3]

@Greg Pierce

then it was the dastardly wine retailers (who, supposedly, didn’t give a shit about what their customers liked/wanted, but just saddled them with whatever swill needed to be moved). Now it’s the natural wine and/or obscure wine aficionados who are taking the poor, naive wine purchaser for the proverbial ride, with only Bob Parker to protect them (mind you, by telling them to ignore anything new or different, but to keep drinking the same stuff he’s been writing about for the last 30 years).

Strangely, he’s never named any names to support his claims about the corruption/fecklessness of the members of the wine journalism and/or retailing trade. Perhaps it’s only his fevered imagination/

Great post, Greg. One of the things that has long infuriated me, and I mentioned this on his board when it was free, was his generic shabby treatment of retailers when so many of us were every bit as passionate about getting great wines to the public at any price. It was self-serving posturing.

The notion he has that “natural wines” are “hustling” the average consumer is belied by peeking in any wine recycling bin. They are a miniscule part of the market that draws a comically large bit of his attention.

[Larry_P]

@G. D y e r

Man, I almost fell out of my chair laughing! The unintentional self parody is so spot on and rigorous, it’s uncanny.

Poe's law

Poe’s law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the idea that without a clear indication of the author’s intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism

[Jim_Brennan]

Jim, stop selling the snake oil, and just tell us how many Parker points the damn wine received!

[Rudi_Finkler]

“Eurocentric, self-proclaimed purists”, “wannabes”, “lazy, self-aggrandizing producers”, “Euro-elitists”, “neo-intellectuals and extremists”, etc. …
Always the same inept Euro-phobic, anti-intellectual, populist and demagogic rhetoric…. How boring!

[jbray23]

I read it and was surprised that it wasn’t posted before the OP.
I shrugged my shoulders and thought that it was about time that he actually sit down and type out his feelings on the subject (in whole) vs. just typing in snide remarks in multiple, fragmented threads.