what does that mean?

what do you mean?

Eric, in statistics this is called robust estimation of the center of a distribution. Robustness here is defined as not being dramatically influenced by outliers (a few bad samples). The mean is well-known not to be robust. One bad sample can ruin it. The median OTOH is unaffected by outliers, so very robust, but it can be sensitive to small, uneven samples.

For example, {50, 80, 80, 80, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90} has a median of 90, which doesn't seem very representative. Neither does the mean (83). A commonly used robust estimate is the alpha-trimmed mean where you discard the highest alpha/2 samples and the lowest alpha/2 samples. In my example, the 0.2-trimmed mean would leave out the lowest 10% of the samples and the highest 10% of the samples, yielding a value of 86.25, which seems to me to be quite representative of this sample. (Note that this is a quantified version of the heuristic that Todd and others use naturally.)

There is a lot of theory and application of these ideas in many branches of statistics and signal processing. In the case of CT scores, are scores limited to the range 50-100? In that case, there is a limit to how much damage one or two outliers can do, so it is not surprising that the number of cases where there was a big difference between the mean and median was relatively small. OTOH those small cases seem to annoy some of your subscribers (judging by that thread).

Come on, that little detail was not going to come out unless someone called them on it. Look at Joe's 30 something posts over the years. Nearly every single one is a shill post. You want to see some other shilling? Look at Amazon reviews on Parker's books, and you can find some from the other eRP principal...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-rev ... centReview

Interesting, Eric. RMP must know about this and either go along with it (or encourage it)? So hypocritical.

PS After Eric posted, I asked Mr. Jones point blank if he was an investor in erp.com, as several in private emails had told me of this.

That was my feeling also Eric, but I was being charitable when I wrote that. Nice catch and good idea on checking the other posts.

Volleyball is a team sport. Joe seems pretty good at the occasional set by the net. The timing and origination of that thread was no accident.

Now, I should point out, that I too think a lot of recent events are pitchfork and torch mob stuff as well. I don't think Squires or Dr. Jay are on the take. I do think that as Bob expands from 1 to 2 to 5 reviewers that he actually needs to do some work to get people to adhere to the same rules. That said, the events seemed to set the stage for what I viewed as a more surprising set of events. Parker seemed rattled and more jittery than at any time I have seen in 7 years on the board. I can understand--people were trying to undermine his integrity, perhaps unfairly or at least largely on technicalities. (And I know Daniel and others feel more strongly that they were substantive issues and not technicalities). But what was exposed in that last thread is that Joe and Bob are just in a whole different place in terms of grocking what is happening with the web. I find it sad actually and more than a bit frustrating. Experts and amateurs can generate highly complementary data. The quality and insightfulness of the advice from Gene, Kevin Harvey, Yaacov, Mary and many of the bloggers was not lost on me and probably a lot of readers. I think it was in a whole different language to Bob and Joe. And the sad thing is that so many of us are trying to tell them this, because there is still a chance for them to succeed. Silly Squires. He sees mention of CT and gets defensive and assumes we want MyWines to go away. I don't care about MyWines in many respects. Cellar management is a niche category. The far bigger game is around generating ever more useful recommendations, millions per year someday, and, rather than charging people $100/year to see them, to give them away for free (monetized through more standard commerce or traffic based approaches) and thus ensure that 1,000 or 10,000 times as many people see the reviews and act on them. Classic AOL walled garden thing going on. Actually huge insight into that was Bob's plea last week for people to pay up (especially the top BB posters, all 73 of them and 2/3 of whom are subscribers already). $100/year subscriptions. That is the product. That is Bob's hammer. Everything else looks like a nail. Any attempt to convince them is a different way seems to be met with derision or bewilderment.

Totally agree. I was a long time subscriber and finally canceled a few years ago, frankly, because I got tired of Squires' (and occasionally Parker's) insulting comments and client-unfriendly approach. I'm sure I'm not the only one. When Bob posted that silly call for people to pony up, I thought two things. 1) I won't pay to be insulted at worst or censored, etc., at best. 2) I thought, then, "Bob doesn't get it." He should be encouraging AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE to go to his site....forget the tarrif. He has the potential to get so many people to look at his site, but he has absolutely no idea either that its important, or how to harness it.

It is kind of sad; but as usual, we're totally in sync on this one.

Roy, thanks for the welcome. While I won't detail my issues with the other board on this forum, I will point out that a great many of the interesting/knowledgeable posters have been jumping ship for a while now. I'm sure there are many stories to tell. But really as Roy points out, its nice to have a fresh start. (Not intending this post as a love fest btw) But, it felt like many friends on the other board felt tied to the other site since we made so many friends there. Mass exodus was the best way this could have gone and its great to see. This past week literally 8 people mentioned this site, so word is getting out.

Ray - welcome!!!!

We need that smiley face that jumps into the wine glass that RMP uses 8 times a post. Whether he's talking about a wine, a critique of something, or insulting a blogger.. he puts that smiley after the sentence.

Eric

That Amazon review is from April 24 (YESTERDAY) and is from Braunstein in Atlanta. Braunstein is nother principal? I recall meeting someone from Atlanta who was a principal at EWS a few years ago.

Circling the wagons...

Dan, yes. See the link below where Mark Braunstein is cited as a business partner with Robert Parker.

http://www.usaweekend.com/03_issues/030 ... 12web.html

Dr. Mark Braunstein: "Home care technology pioneer"
http://www.homecareautomationreport.com ... php?id=479

It certainly appears as though he is a shill for parker. Not condoning it but it's not that uncommon for individuals to write positive reviews for friends, business partners, colleagues, etc.

The action, in a vacuum, isn't all that surprising. As you say, people do it as a favor for a friend or business partner. But in the context of TWA and Parker's mantle of holiness, it really impeaches his innocence and high moral ground; don't you think?

The Amazon review (there are 3 of then on 3 Parker books) is old--I think your computer is playing tricks on you...

Eric,

there is a comment on the review that was made on the 24th of April. The commenter notes that the review should be removed because of the financial connection between Mark and Parker.

WVG,
I would agree with you completely but I am giving parker the benefit of the doubt because I don't know for a fact that parker knows of the review written of his book by somebody financially tied to him. If he does then yes it is pretty awful and just another disappointing action by parker of late.

Circling the wagons, getting ready for war...that is all that I see...until Parker reprimands his critics with more than just "no more free trips to Argentina" this will continue to fester. And as it festers, the skeletons will come out of the closet. I am sure Parker would not want people researching his actions as a critic. Thus far, people have stuck to Squires and Miller.

As long as a wine critic is allowed to review wines of his best friends with the best friend in the room and the wine is not served blindly...then that critic will never gain any credibility.

Jay Miller had no credibility to begin with in the world of wine, now it is starting to damage Parker, which was unforeseen by anyone previously.

What you you saying? He's not helping you sell all that Aussie wine with his ratings

Gene

I totally understand where you're coming from. Until recently, I gave RMP every benefit of the doubt. And he may well not know about the review on Amazon.

What got to me--and caused me to revise my assessment of him--was Joe James posting about his admiration for TWA in the same thread in which Parker asked for board participants who are not subscribers to "show a little love" and subscribe. Parker had to have seen James flag waving and words of support. And Parker of course saw Joe James' thread against the wine bloggers because he (RMP) himself posted on it. Right there, Parker could have (should have) mentioned his professional relationship with Joe and Joe's involvement in erp.com and thanked Joe for his comments. Nowhere did Bob ever acknowledge his business, personal or financial relationship with James until others began to ask questions. Even then, Parker did not disclose the full relationship until more questions were asked and finally, it was actually James who acknowledged he had "a small interest" in erp.com.

When this kind of non-disclosure has happened with others on the board, they have been kicked off.

I went and looked up all of Mr. James' other 29 posts (he has 30 in total); many are accolades of Parker, Parker's books, and TWA. No doubt these are genuine--I'm sure he admires and adores Parker--after all, he has done work for Parker and even has an equity stake of whatever (even small) amount. That's not the problem. The problem was this was never acknowledged by any WA personnel until people asked, directly. By never disclosing it until people asked, it furthered the impression James was just another admirer of the board who felt bloggers were a threat. It puts a different face on it to learn James has a financial connection with the health of erp.com and has done ongoing work for Bob.

Even with the questions asked, the disclosures were half a measure in coming until more and more questions were asked.

That's my problem with the whole thing and why I have revised my assessment of Bob's approach.

Wilfred,

Well stated.

Joe James's post about blogs was very well placed. Not long after the thread went up (43 minutes to be exact), Parker posted saying how wonderful the thread was. As people questioned who Joe James was, Parker commented (2 hours after the thread was started), "Give Joe a break..I consult professionally with him frequently about eRMP issues..mostly legal".

In fact Parker posted on that thread 4 times int he first two hours of its life, applauding Joe James's efforts constantly.

How many times does Parker post on any thread 4 times? nevermind within the first two hours.

That thread was placed there, it should have never been posted. I pm'd Joe James, requesting to reveal himself. He waited 24 hours to do so. All the while, Parker was posting saying, "way to go, joe...leave him alone!"

Gimme a frickin break!

Daniel, don't you admire a good game of beach volleyball? It was just a nice set and attempted spike. It appears it was blocked though...

Well, here's how I see all of this. To me we pay WA and IWC to be fair and impartial. Jay clearly behaved boorishly (like a doctor who accepts one of those ski-junkets protrayed as educational training but paid by drug companies). Gross, inappropriate, etc.

But I think the actual "line that must not be crossed" isn't just bad behavior. It would be stuff like:
* TN is fake (some else wrote it, or he modified it at their request)
* He took money, wine, or something else from a place he was reviewing
* ... or his close relative or best friend did
* He was drunk or stoned while working

I won't explain the circumstances but by now I've interacted directly with someone who was there, experienced the $500 fees, etc. Basically, Jay seems to have been the very lavishly feted guest of honor -- fancy hotels and meals, etc, and the money apparently went towards the costs (which must have been steep). Yet that guy doesn't think Jay's reviewing was compromised in this sense of false. The Ordonez tasting is perhaps more egrarious -- fits hedonist's gazette, not the normal WA standard.

So where does this leave me? I think Parker shouldn't put up with this crap, and actually I think Jay is a so-so reviewer in any case. But I don't think he's a criminal. Just a fool.

PS: to Roy Hersh -- I see that you often post here.

As a guy who fairly recently turned pro, there has got to be an alure to suddenly being invited to verticals of Nacionale back to 1827, no? And those fancy dinners with those wealthy old-world families that own the big port houses. And how often do they insist that you take a bottle of some favorite port home with you?

People can pretend that wine tasting happens in labs by people in white coats. But in fact it happens at the homes of rich people who love to eat in 3-star restaurants and love to impress their visitors. Those visitors wear jacket and tie and perhaps even black-tie. Being a pro is a heck of a life style, while you're out there working. After all: you're their best advertising, and anyhow, they love what their families have been doing for 10 generations and want to show you how fantastic their wines or ports or whatever are. These people are passionate about life and wine, and food, and if you spend time with them, it infects you too.

So if people are shocked -- shocked -- to learn that Jay is living large, hey, what world are you from? Never noticed that Parker lives pretty large too? Steve Tanzer seems kind of quiet by that standard, and yet I don't see all of you arguing that Steve is doing it better or right... The best we can do is to trust (or not trust) the reviewers and hope that integrity will lead them to be honest in their TNs and scoring. And yes, Roy, I think you are managing to stay honest. No longer sure what I think of Jay, but I didn't like his TNs and scoring in the first place.

To Ken Birman,

Your for who hasn't sinned may cast the first stone line of reasoning doesn't cut it here, sorry. My impression -- right or wrong -- is that your profession may be in academia. If so, you are more than well aware of consensus standards to obtain tenure, publish in peer-reviewed journals, act as a peer-reviewer, etc. As others have commented above and elsewhere, the branding of ERP, included the mystique of the Ralph Nader of wine critics, unimpeachable ethically, objective, with internally consistent, accurate, and precise RMPoints. And where has this narrative taken us now?

A trusted retailer advised me years ago to watch my back on eBob because of behind-the-scene manipulation. So, in a sense, the novel aspect of what has been now disclosed for all to see is that a few Totos managed to pull the curtain back for all to see.

Kudos to the Totos and Tylers !!

IMHO, the suggestion that Parker’s integrity is for sale lacks intellectual honesty and is grossly unfair. He receives over $5,000,000 in subscription revenues alone. Add in speaking engagements and other activities, which would add more to the pot. Every meal, trip, lodging he accepts for free, is one less expense he gets to write-off on his taxes. What exactly is the value of financial gain to be achieved?

Grossly Inflated Hypothesis: 20 trips (@2,000/trip) plus 200 meals (@300/meal) totals about $100,000. Subtract the tax benefit of the write-off. Oh yeah, that really makes sense.

Knowing the risk of these allegations to his business, who here feels he would take the risk for the value of the “gifts”?

To attack the man’s character without any real substance to support the allegations is distasteful to me.

Wine tasting is not an exact science, IT IS SUBJECTIVE!

Could a wine critic‘s reviews be influenced expressly or subliminally by visits and or relationships with the producer is a worthy topic of discussion. My guess would be yes, because as human beings we are under the influence of our emotions no matter how much we try to suppress them. Keep in mind that influence could be negative as well as positive. Also consider all the other factors that could influence a critic’s review:

Time of day
Their emotional state
Their physical health
Palate fatigue
Environmental conditions for the reviewer
Environmental conditions for the wine history (Serving conditions, bottle age, etc)
ETC

Why not just send all wine to a laboratory for analysis to remove any subjective elements?

I have no objection to critics meeting privately with winemakers and distributors, accepting gift bottles within reason, and attending fine dining affairs. Hospitality and cuisine are organic to the industry. I can understand that readerships, however, would be alarmed by the abuse of accepting large and expensive gifts and trips. I would like to see critics who are participating in $500-$1000 a person dinnners and events (even when they are paying their way) limit those activities to charitable functions, where the wineries and/or distributors are also contributing their time and wares to a worthy cause.

As a winery owner, and I think Brian agrees with me on this, I'd like to see all critics and publications use a variety of tasting techniques and venues, instead of a cast-in-stone philosophy that cannot be realistically--or fairly--adhered to. A combination of non-blind peer tastings, blind peer tastings, blind non-peer tastings, regionally-based food and wine blind tastings. In other words, revisit at least some high-scoring and medium-scoring wines from a different direction. I also think that critics should not, to be fair, visit the same producers every year.

Of course, this would mean that the readership would have to let go of the security blanket of a single, rock-hard annual score by which to live by. And a readership's fanatic devotion to the previous year's darlings would not drive a critic's itinerary the next year. Philosophically, complete independence of a critic may be impossible to achieve. How can a critic be completley true to him/herself, and continually challenge him/herself without losing the support of a majority of their readership who want the security of seeing their previous choices validated again and again? Particularly if there's a lot of money in play? I suspect that some of the people complaining about possible bias in wine critic circles would actually be quite alarmed if the wines in their cellar were re-scored after a blind tasting in an expanded peer group. Think about it--if you were a critic, which pressure would be strongest--your readership's desire for transparency, originality and equaniminity; or your readership's expectation for coverage of their favorite wineries, expensive cellars, and desire for validation?

Perhaps it comes down to the individual wine collector to seek out a range of opinions, as many do, incorporating a mix of young renegades with nothing to lose and an original voice; and more established critics with tons of experience and deep roots, but also a large degree of inertia.

Jay--I haven't seen anyone say that Parker's integrity is for sale. Rather, his judgment has been questioned--by stating that his "independent contractors" are not required to adhere to the same standard he set for himself.

No one has asserted that Parker is "on the take." The issue is influence over his contractors. Although many physicians earn large salaries, there is a legitimate reason why the "perks" drug companies can offer physicians are being dramatically cut back. It is because research has shown these perks influence prescribing practices, even by physicians who are otherwise well compensated. Why would this behavioral science of reinforcement be different for wine writers--are they more immune from these types of influences (even non-conscious) than physicians?

Why do you think people paid for--I am told--private airplane flights and river cruises for Jay Miller? Just to see a lovely smile on his face?

My greater issue with RMP is more with the non-disclosure of otherwise conflicting relationships, such as Joe James. To me, that's worse than the Jay Miller thing. From what I can read on the boards, Miller has not established much in the way of gravitas and what little he had has now largely evaporated. But Parker has great gravitas that has been well earned over decades. Why he would risk that by tolerating the antics of some of his contractors and investors is beyond me. To take it one step further, why he would risk it by allowing (some have asserted encouraging?) his professional advisers and part-owners of erp.com to post enthusiastic back-ups of his (RMP's) positions without disclosing any relationship until pushed, after the fact, is hard to decipher.

Oddly, that's exactly what I'd rather see. I don't engage in these arguments because I have little use for wine critics. I don't care what other people like, so why should I care what they say? The palate calibration argument falls flat on my powers of cognizance.

I know, I know: how can I ever taste as many wines as the critics? To that argument I say: so I'll die missing a few wines or I'll die trying to taste all of them. Either way, I'll be able to handle it.

Perhaps you are right and I was inferring something that was not intended. Failure to disclose is an integrity issue to me personally.

I think it's fair to assume that RMP is now aware of these alleged inconsistencies between his standards and those of his staff. Either of the possibilities exist:

He has refused to investigate the issue because he is being insincere about apply his standards to everyone on his staff
He has investigated the issue and has taken disciplinary action, but has not publicly acknowledged it
He has investigated the issue and has seen no inconsistencies
He has investigated the issue and has seen inconsistencies, but has been reluctant to take action
He has not investigated the issue but has "reminded" everyone about the standards and potential impact by ignoring them.

I have no idea on the on the intent of the sponsors for private airplane flights and river cruises for Jay Miller" . Perhaps to buy bias (does not mean they got it).

Wine writers need to interact with the industry. By involving themselves in the world they are subject to it influences.

On: http://www.drvino.com/

Policy and practice at the Wine Advocate - Parker responds




See also: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _76448015/

deleted: duplicative of others remarks

Well, WA does invite this sort of criticism. The "independent" word in the banner and all that.

Ken Birman wrote:



Did you read my earlier post in this thread? Not much else to disclose beyond what I wrote in that introspective and voluntary post; which did not come at the behest of a mob of questions into my integrity. It was more like an expose that I chose to include, because I thought it might make for some interesting insight for others ... and for me as well. I pointed out my own foibles and would never duck away from the direct questions that others mentioned, (here in this thread and elsewhere) have chosen to circumvent or not answered in a direct manner.

Actually Ken, reality is way different than some of your suppositions. I have never been one to back away from direct questions. Please don't confuse me with other journos that have been accused here of doing so. IF you or anyone else has the "tough questions" bring it on and I am happy to respond to any posed re: my tasting regimen, ethics or integrity issues. Otherwise, pointing out possibilities ... removed from reality, is just pointless drivel.

In case you'd like more transparency: I have been going to Portugal and meeting the Port trade since 1994, although an amateur, as described by someone not being paid to do so. I was already drinking Port and seriously studying for a dozen years at that point. I began discussing and writing on Port "online" in 1995 on AOL's wine message boards, in a small newsletter (Much Ado About Grape) and then for Robin Garr's Winelover's Pages (Words About Port) and later, posting on Parker in virtually every Port thread for the past seven years. I began my newsletter over 5 years ago and then www.ftlop.com was created in 2005.

I have been involved in Nacional verticals on several occasions, only two were very comprehensive and both were private events, one of which I moderated and the other of which I paid to attend. Both were held privately (TN and FL) and were not at the behest of the Port trade. I go to numerous "trade only" Port events and that took place for many years before I began my FTLOP venture, as I was purchasing wine and creating wine lists (as just one of the many facets within my career) working for hotels, restaurant chains, modest size casino chains and a group of golf resorts ... long before being paid for my writing.

I have long owned the Port to get into lots of "events" such as horizontals and verticals, most of which I have organized or been part of organizing. There's been only one notable exception in Portugal, a pair of vertical tastings held specifically for a dozen Port journalists to supply their tasting notes for two books on Port. Otherwise, I have been the guest speaker/moderator at many private tastings going back over a decade now, however, I was not paid for these appearances, as it was all for the love of Port, until the very recent past. I don't now, nor have I ever tried to be Port's version of Robert Parker or one of his minions. For four years I gave away my newsletters for free, only the last year of which donations were accepted. It is one year ago this month, where I finally started on a subscription basis, as money was not the impetus for beginning my writing; I had an oath to uphold (to the IVDP Confraria) and take that more seriously than anything besides my own family.

I openly accept bottles as samples (and write assessments about every one received) and I have given a clear indication as to what I do and don't do in an earlier post in this thread as mentioned. However, when visiting Portugal ... everything is way above board to the percentages mentioned earlier. I can't say that our groups are never given a random bottle of some Port, usually a 10-20 year old Tawny ... but it is not me being singled out to receive these, and again, it is during our group visitations that I fully pay for. I typically give my bottle to another guest on our tours, because i carry a shipper with me and make very pointed, specific purchases at either of two wine shops when I am there and don't have room for other bottles.



All of what you say in the paragraph directly above this, is true. However, it really has zero play when it comes to my critical writing of tastings done blind, in every case. Travelogues aside, when I do my professional vintage assessments, I will put my regimen on a par with ANY critic or journalist on the planet. Again read my earlier post; but I don't know how many go through the painstaking regimen of tasting every single bottle 4-6x or more, over a two to three day period (blind), for their evaluations of Port wine, to be as accurate as humanly possible. Assuredly, I am not alone in my thoroughness.



Thanks Ken. Trust me, those who know me here, know I don't live large, except for the love of/for my family. I have a modest cellar by most standards and I would venture that there are less than 3 bottles in it, that I did not purchase. I don't know Jay and have only seen Steve Tanzer at a Vinifera Conference here in Seattle circa 2000. OTOH, I have met and tasted with virtually all of the major Port journalists/critics in Europe and N. America, except for RP who is no longer involved with Port ... nor had he ever visited the Port region. Otherwise, I am not one to say anything about their methods or credibility.

Lastly, I can say that I am looking forward to Jay Miller's very first Port report on the upcoming 2007 vintage, which will be his first, publicly, on Port wine since Parker "hired" him to do so, a few years ago. I have only read his Washington wine report and not any others such as Spain etc. I will definitely give him kudos publicly if I think he has done a fine job with his review (as I did when Mark wrote his very first WA article on Douro wines two years ago) or take him to task, as I did so, directly, (but politely on Ebob) when I felt Rovani did not provide a balanced report on the 2003 Vintage Ports. I also openly invite folks who disagree with my vintage forecast assessments to do the same, here or on Ebob or even on my own site.

So although I believe anyone writing about wine is by nature in a glass house, I also feel it is their duty to be forthright and answer any and all questions about their tasting regimen, ethics and standards, and hope this has satisfied your curiosity.

Wine Critics and their Discontents: http://wine-econ.org/2008/10/15/ppppp.aspx

Roy, I'm NOT being critical. I'm sure some people do have a view under which such things wouldn't happen. I always assumed that that was the way the wine-tasting world works, and I have no issue with it as long as the reviews maintain their integrity. As yours apparently have.

Earlier, someone commented that I'm in a University setting and compared this to tenure reviews. To me that standard is much higher than what I expect from wine tasting publications. The academic version, of course, is different: we achieve our requirements by controlling who we contact for tenure recommendation letters -- and we flag the ones that were from people suggested by the candidate. In program committee roles, though, I've seen my share of really nasty, inappropriate behavior. You do your best to work around it when that happens, but it certainly has the potential to harm the field in many ways.

So I do see the issue very clearly -- this insidious kind of influence is a "bad thing". But at the end of the day the issue becomes trust. I trust Roy to be honest about the ports he recommends and to relay his accurate observations. And I'm jealous that his role gets him into the 3-star restaurants where they do those nacionale tastings. But I was never so naive as to think it was different, and I just hope Roy maintains his integrity.

So this is why I would urge people to ask if the integrity of the reviewer is compromised by the behavior. But there is also an issue that sometimes the answwer could be "yes" and yet we would have no concrete court-admissable proof. Then I recommend that we refrain from sharing our suspicions in too nasty a manner.

I've done my share of bboard speculation. Ended up understanding this same point I'm now making. It doesn't go anywhere useful.... without proof of a "crime" that is.

Ken is an academic, and a first rate one at that. Welcome aboard here, Ken. I hope you'll stick around. One of the good things here is that posts and threads don't easily disappear or get locked, and certainly not just because someone who can disagrees with you.

Though I have to say I agree more with M. here. [M, what's your first name?]

Ken,
Thanks for wading back in. One issue that seems to be constantly conflated is a wine evaluation's repeatability or reconstructability. I agree with you that the consensus standards in academia can be and are higher and HOPEFULLY less subjective. On the other hand, Parker appears to lambaste peer-review panels: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/12/parker1.htm

This leads me to question whether the casual reader often catches what might be construed as a sleight of hand: Trust me, trust your own palate, but distrust peer reviews. Huh?

I understand that such stances might improve one's brand, but it runs counter to fundamental quality control and quality assurance principles. How can one wish to have it both ways?

Mitch -- thankfully the Mitch Miller jokes have faded...

n;

If tenure reviews are so objective, why don't you explain Ward Churchill to a lot of people in CO!

He's an easy one that's been in the news! You guys have a long way to go to even get the credibility of Parker and company!

Gordon Fritz:
For the record, its "M." Gordon, why have I gotten an impression that you like to bait posters and support the status quo? With respect to the CO kangaroo court, you might wish to read: http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/0 ... ill-redux/

The closing sentence is:

Ole Ward apparently pissed off some powerful people, No Gordon?

as a doc who boorishly does accept the rare pharma junket let me assure you i do so without a pang of guilt or inkling of remorse in this era of shrinking reimbursement, expanding Medi-Cal rolls and still heavy med-mal insurance premiums. please show me another profession where one works harder in his late 40's to earn less in non-adjusted dollars than he did in his early 30's.

that being said these junkets have almost never had a real impact on my clinical practice though legit information is often disseminated and discussed. just sayin' i don't like this particular commentary.

now everyone can go back to being astonished by the fact that critics ply their trade while occasionally receiving payola.

Sorry Mitch, I actually typed Ken, but somehow deleted the Ke:

Anyway with Churchill, from what I've read at a distance, you have a school that wanted to hire a minority. In this case an Indian. So Churchill claims he's an Indian and gets in on a minority hire. His academic credentials were crap. But guess what, he isn't any more Indian than Bill Clinton is the first black President! No one ever checked to see if he was really an Indian. Then after being confronted later with the truth, he laughs and said his heart is Indian and that's all that counts!

His thesis was on a topic that was disproved and laughed at years ago. That the Army, in the 1880s, infected blankets with cholera or some contagious disease to kill off the Indians. Of course, in the 1880's were Army was such experts with contagious diseases that not one troop passing out the blankets got sick. Him being a joke was never an issue in getting tenure.

The guy is a sham. Tenure review is a sham. If you belong to the right political party and are liberal enough, you pass. Parker has more credibility than 99% of the tenure review boards, imo.

Well y'all are 99% OT. Just sayin'.

"Tenure is a sham"?

Well, people who form these kinds of uninformed opinions lose quite a bit of credibility in my book. For example, here's a little in-class quiz for you: in Colorado, did the evil Professor Churchill get tenure before or after developing his 911 theory?

I doubt that you'll bother to check, but if you do, here's quiz question two: suppose a Professor with tenure goes insane. Or develops signs of senility. At what age (or under what conditions) must he retire?

Last in-class quiz question, for extra credit. Tenure is governed by what oversight body, and under what class of contractual commitments? Can one sue over tenure (and who can be sued, and what for)? And now the extra credit part: What oversight exists for wine tasting organizations? Can one sue over an incompetent wine tasting performance?

Back on topic:

If wineries paid $500 per bottle to have their wine tasted in Argentina, and Jay tasted how many wines? 500? 1000? 2000? there could have been a hefty profit.

Let's assume he only tasted 500 wines and that everyone paid their bill: 500*500 is $250,000. Even 3-star hotels, a charterd cruise and the most expensive restuarants in the country can't have run him more than $10,000 a day in true expenses. To which we can add maybe 10,000 for first-class airfare down.

Who ended up with the extra $200,000 or more of profits?

I guess to be fair we should assume that the organizers had an additional $25,000 of expense but you can still see how this venture might have made a nice chunk of change for someone...

Let's not lose sight of the big picture here. No one is saying anyone critic profited off of tasting wines. No one that I know of.

However, Jay Miller did not seek out wineries, they sought him out. Wines of Argentina paid for his trips to Mendoza. Any wineries that did not pay for his trip, but still wanted reviews, were asked to chip in $500 cover admin fees for the trip.

Jay Miller did not seek out wineries, importers sought him out. Jay Miller did not travel to Spain alone. He traveled with Jorge Ordonez and Eric Solomon and possibly other importers. The importers showed him the wines that they import. In many instances, when smaller importers of these wine regions send samples for his review stateside, he does not even bother to taste.

Jay Miller did not seek out wineries, importers sought him out. His best friend is Dan Phillips, owner of the Grateful Palate. His travels to Australia have been with his best friend. Dan shows him his wineries and then they have, on at least one occasion (presumably more often) vacationed together.

In none of these instances has Jay Miller tasted and reviewed wines blind. This is all about bias. This is all about The Wine Advocate, one of the most influential wine publications in the world, showing favoritism beyond recognition to certain wineries, importers, etc.

Read this blog from 2007. Read Jay Miller's comments, when questioned about his review style. All lies, as was pointed out by Victor Honore in 2007.
http://www.drvino.com/2007/05/21/decant ... rt-parker/

I found this over the weekend myself when i was doing a little research on Miller. Pretty horrific showing by Miller. I have no respect for his tasting notes at all at this point. The bigger challenge for me is he works for the Wine Advocate so I now have to question their standards... If you dig through the internet archive you can find this bio of miller where he talks about having tasted "65,000 wines for the wine advocate over a 13 year period" (note: he owned a wine shop, and was also a wine importer and wholesaler) http://web.archive.org/web/200502070228 ... aybio.html . Has someone already posted what the connection was between miller and WA at the time and how was it he tasted 65,000 wines for the WA?!?!? The question is what did parker know and when did he know it?

Gene

Jay owned Bon 604 for a number of years and admitted to sitting in with Parker on reviews for TWA. When Jay took the full time position, HE STILL OWNED BIN 604. Only after a few people mentioned it on the Squires board, did he actually sell the store.

I let you draw your own conclusions.

Look at his recent posts about Cayuse blind tasting at Charleston in Baltimore. Charleston is a fantastic restaurant. The owner (Cindy Wolf) is married to Jay Miller's partner in Bin 604. Parker dines at Charleston as well.

I went to college in Baltimore. I ate there when I visted a few years ago. Great restaurant. Awesome wine program...but...

Are you implying it was not really blind? Or that the restaurant refilled all of the Cayuse bottles with La Turque and La Mouline? I am confused at what you are getting at.