Big changes at the Wine Advocate- Parker reportedly cashes out and gives up editorial control

[Faryan_Amir-Ghassemi]

Thanks. As you were gents

[Paul_H_Galli]

This Thread = Much ado about nothing…
Please dry up and go away…

TTT

[Bruce_G]

You certainly do have my sympathies, Paul.
To be forced (one wonders how… threats of physical violence? blackmail?) to not only read through but also respond to a thread that you find so unappealing.
And on Christmas Day, no less.
What a world, what a world.

[M.Kaplan]

Parker has brought much of the chortling displayed here on himself by treating many of us (current and former paying subscribers) as off-brand used toilet paper while holding himself and TWA as the only beacon of truth in the universe. Like Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon, Parker has feet of clay (had to go with the biblical simile on Christmas). You really can’t blame us for pointing that out. Pointedly. 98.53452 points, or so.

[jfdulac]

Dumb question here, but…why announce the sale at all if there is still some dotting if the Is and crossing of the Ts to be done? Especially if those loose ends have to do with ITB/ethics issues, which are hugely significant for TWA? (Not to mention that the contributing staff wasn’t yet on board.)

[Peter_Chiu]

@jsteiker

I’m just amazed at the ignorance and nastiness of many of the commentators here, especially Mr. Klapp. Seems like the root of the problem is that lots of folks don’t like Parker’s palate or influence. Its a free market out there boys and girls. You are free to like or not like the WA’s take on particular regions, producers or wines. The idea that there is some grand conspiracy with money at its core seems ridiculous and petty.

Like many here, I find the WA useful in particular regions where I can correlate my preferences to the mix of the ratings and commentary. There are regions and wines where my tastes differ and I either don’t buy or use different writers and publications as my guide. The WA is a tool and entertainment around my hobby, not some 900-pound Gorilla.

Parker has build a tremendous publication and a tremendous business because of his talents as a taster and writer. He’s entitled, as are all of us on this board who can afford to buy the wines he writes about, to make money in the free market selling his products and skills. If you don’t like or trust him or his palate, don’t subscribe to his publications. If you don’t like his influence in the wine world, build a better alternative. Please just stop whining, complaining and hypothesizing grand conspiracies!!

I’m just amazed at the ignorance

Who is ignorance…Jim ?

I am happy that you like TWA and please continue your support

[Ken_V]

@jfdulac

Dumb question here, but…why announce the sale at all if there is still some dotting if the Is and crossing of the Ts to be done? Especially if those loose ends have to do with ITB/ethics issues, which are hugely significant for TWA? (Not to mention that the contributing staff wasn’t yet on board.)

This is not dumb at all. It is the heart of it. Parker is like a great chef who insists on running his own restaurant instead of sticking to the menu and letting people who know what they are doing run the front of the house.

[Hank_Gillespie]

I’m more than a little amused that, with over 500 posts thus far, there appears to be a continuing
annoyance at the meager release of information regarding the sale of Robert Parker’s business.
Surely anyone involved in the sale of a privately owned business has the right to some privacy
concerning the details of the sale. Parker did announce the sale, albeit after the dancing lady in
Singapore ( supposedly an employee )jumped the gun to get her story out first. To be sure the
subscribers to TWA have an interest in this transaction, but I suspect there are only a few such subscribers
who post on Wineberserkers. Instead this preoccupation by some posters on this forum resembles an elder ladies
quilting get-together, where local gossip is the primary subject of conversation, filled with partial facts,
innuendo, and a delight at someone else’s possible folly.

Undoubtedly there will be some who wish to diminish my thoughts on this by crying foul, or worse, by insisting
they have a right to information, etc., but if the shoe fits around the ladies table… well, perhaps they
will have to continue to wear it.

Hank

[Neil_Gilmour]

@Hank Gillespie

I’m more than a little amused that, with over 500 posts thus far, there appears to be a continuing
annoyance at the meager release of information regarding the sale of Robert Parker’s business.
Surely anyone involved in the sale of a privately owned business has the right to some privacy
concerning the details of the sale. Parker did announce the sale, albeit after the dancing lady in
Singapore ( supposedly an employee )jumped the gun to get her story out first. To be sure the
subscribers to TWA have an interest in this transaction, but I suspect there are only a few such subscribers
who post on Wineberserkers. Instead this preoccupation by some posters on this forum resembles an elder ladies
quilting get-together, where local gossip is the primary subject of conversation, filled with partial facts,
innuendo, and a delight at someone else’s possible folly.

Perhaps the motivation of some of the bashes is jealousy. After all, the subject of several years of bashing appears to have cashed out for millions of dollars. Pretty good payday for a newsletter with a small subscription base.

[Jay_Miller]

@Neil Gilmour

@Hank Gillespie

I’m more than a little amused that, with over 500 posts thus far, there appears to be a continuing
annoyance at the meager release of information regarding the sale of Robert Parker’s business.
Surely anyone involved in the sale of a privately owned business has the right to some privacy
concerning the details of the sale. Parker did announce the sale, albeit after the dancing lady in
Singapore ( supposedly an employee )jumped the gun to get her story out first. To be sure the
subscribers to TWA have an interest in this transaction, but I suspect there are only a few such subscribers
who post on Wineberserkers. Instead this preoccupation by some posters on this forum resembles an elder ladies
quilting get-together, where local gossip is the primary subject of conversation, filled with partial facts,
innuendo, and a delight at someone else’s possible folly.

Perhaps the motivation of some of the bashes is jealousy. After all, the subject of several years of bashing appears to have cashed out for millions of dollars. Pretty good payday for a newsletter with a small subscription base.

It’s a wine board. People here are interested in talking about what happens in the world of wine. While I, personally, have no comment on the transaction I certainly understand why people interested in wine would want to talk and perhaps speculate about it. Heck I read the whole thread even though I started skimming early on.

[Mike_During]

I think the motivation is more along the lines of the less clout he has with TWA the less influence he will have on how the wines are reviewed and points weighted. If highlighting the fiasco of the takeover goes someway in doing this, all for the better I think.

[Bill_Klapp_deactivated]

@Hank Gillespie

I’m more than a little amused that, with over 500 posts thus far, there appears to be a continuing
annoyance at the meager release of information regarding the sale of Robert Parker’s business.
Surely anyone involved in the sale of a privately owned business has the right to some privacy
concerning the details of the sale. Parker did announce the sale, albeit after the dancing lady in
Singapore ( supposedly an employee )jumped the gun to get her story out first. To be sure the
subscribers to TWA have an interest in this transaction, but I suspect there are only a few such subscribers
who post on Wineberserkers. Instead this preoccupation by some posters on this forum resembles an elder ladies
quilting get-together, where local gossip is the primary subject of conversation, filled with partial facts,
innuendo, and a delight at someone else’s possible folly.

Undoubtedly there will be some who wish to diminish my thoughts on this by crying foul, or worse, by insisting
they have a right to information, etc., but if the shoe fits around the ladies table… well, perhaps they
will have to continue to wear it.

Hank

Do you have anything to contribute to the thread, Hank? This wasn’t anything, just so you will know. Your post indicates that you are not even reading this thread, or you would know that Parker gave an exclusive to his good friend Lettie Teague, which gave rise to the comedy of errors that continues today with a bloviation tour de force by your boy, Blusterin’ Bob. Don’t mean to single you out, Hank, but it is time to get tough on ignorance around here. It may be bliss for you, as the old saying goes, but it don’t feed the bulldog on this thread. Come back when you can offer a cogent and convincing defense of Parker’s business and ethical decisions. I, for one, will not be staying up late waiting for it. And for those who contribute nothing but whining about how harsh and nasty my tone is, take a careful look at Hank’s post, then go over to the great man’s website and savor some of his paranoid-delusional attack dog stuff directed at his own subscribers. What is going on at the Wine Advocate is comment-worthy news. Parker acolytes are not…

[Andrew_Kaufman]

@Bill Klapp

@Hank Gillespie

I’m more than a little amused that, with over 500 posts thus far, there appears to be a continuing
annoyance at the meager release of information regarding the sale of Robert Parker’s business.
Surely anyone involved in the sale of a privately owned business has the right to some privacy
concerning the details of the sale. Parker did announce the sale, albeit after the dancing lady in
Singapore ( supposedly an employee )jumped the gun to get her story out first. To be sure the
subscribers to TWA have an interest in this transaction, but I suspect there are only a few such subscribers
who post on Wineberserkers. Instead this preoccupation by some posters on this forum resembles an elder ladies
quilting get-together, where local gossip is the primary subject of conversation, filled with partial facts,
innuendo, and a delight at someone else’s possible folly.

Undoubtedly there will be some who wish to diminish my thoughts on this by crying foul, or worse, by insisting
they have a right to information, etc., but if the shoe fits around the ladies table… well, perhaps they
will have to continue to wear it.


Hank

Do you have anything to contribute to the thread, Hank? This wasn’t anything, just so you will know. Your post indicates that you are not even reading this thread, or you would know that Parker gave an exclusive to his good friend Lettie Teague, which gave rise to the comedy of errors that continues today with a bloviation tour de force by your boy, Blusterin’ Bob. Don’t mean to single you out, Hank, but it is time to get tough on ignorance around here. It may be bliss for you, as the old saying goes, but it don’t feed the bulldog on this thread. Come back when you can offer a cogent and convincing defense of Parker’s business and ethical decisions. I, for one, will not be staying up late waiting for it. And for those who contribute nothing but whining about how harsh and nasty my tone is, take a careful look at Hank’s post, then go over to the great man’s website and savor some of his paranoid-delusional attack dog stuff directed at his own subscribers. What is going on at the Wine Advocate is comment-worthy news. Parker acolytes are not…

Nasty reply Mr. Clapp. Not necessary nor insightful. Obviously your mileage varies.

[Bill_Klapp_deactivated]

@Neil Gilmour

@Hank Gillespie

I’m more than a little amused that, with over 500 posts thus far, there appears to be a continuing
annoyance at the meager release of information regarding the sale of Robert Parker’s business.
Surely anyone involved in the sale of a privately owned business has the right to some privacy
concerning the details of the sale. Parker did announce the sale, albeit after the dancing lady in
Singapore ( supposedly an employee )jumped the gun to get her story out first. To be sure the
subscribers to TWA have an interest in this transaction, but I suspect there are only a few such subscribers
who post on Wineberserkers. Instead this preoccupation by some posters on this forum resembles an elder ladies
quilting get-together, where local gossip is the primary subject of conversation, filled with partial facts,
innuendo, and a delight at someone else’s possible folly.

Perhaps the motivation of some of the bashes is jealousy. After all, the subject of several years of bashing appears to have cashed out for millions of dollars. Pretty good payday for a newsletter with a small subscription base.

No, Neil, comments like that one redefine “dumbass” for the 21st century. Shanken, who is no doubt worth a multiple of Parker, could be jealous, I suppose, but I don’t think so. Tanzer and Meadows, neither of whom has enjoyed a big payday, could be jealous. All of the wannabe wine critics in the blogosphere could be jealous, but they seem more intent upon replacing Parker when he is gone and know to a certainty that they do not have anything to cash out just now. I am sure that there are some on this thread worth more than Parker will ever be. I, for one, live a far better and healthier life than Parker apparently does, and I do not need $10 million to do it, because, well, I am smarter and have better taste than Parker. Does that help illuminate how damn stupid dragging out the tired, old “they are just jealous, Bob” saw really is?

[Bill_Klapp_deactivated]

@Andrew Kaufman

@Bill Klapp

@Hank Gillespie

I’m more than a little amused that, with over 500 posts thus far, there appears to be a continuing
annoyance at the meager release of information regarding the sale of Robert Parker’s business.
Surely anyone involved in the sale of a privately owned business has the right to some privacy
concerning the details of the sale. Parker did announce the sale, albeit after the dancing lady in
Singapore ( supposedly an employee )jumped the gun to get her story out first. To be sure the
subscribers to TWA have an interest in this transaction, but I suspect there are only a few such subscribers
who post on Wineberserkers. Instead this preoccupation by some posters on this forum resembles an elder ladies
quilting get-together, where local gossip is the primary subject of conversation, filled with partial facts,
innuendo, and a delight at someone else’s possible folly.

Undoubtedly there will be some who wish to diminish my thoughts on this by crying foul, or worse, by insisting
they have a right to information, etc., but if the shoe fits around the ladies table… well, perhaps they
will have to continue to wear it.


Hank

Do you have anything to contribute to the thread, Hank? This wasn’t anything, just so you will know. Your post indicates that you are not even reading this thread, or you would know that Parker gave an exclusive to his good friend Lettie Teague, which gave rise to the comedy of errors that continues today with a bloviation tour de force by your boy, Blusterin’ Bob. Don’t mean to single you out, Hank, but it is time to get tough on ignorance around here. It may be bliss for you, as the old saying goes, but it don’t feed the bulldog on this thread. Come back when you can offer a cogent and convincing defense of Parker’s business and ethical decisions. I, for one, will not be staying up late waiting for it. And for those who contribute nothing but whining about how harsh and nasty my tone is, take a careful look at Hank’s post, then go over to the great man’s website and savor some of his paranoid-delusional attack dog stuff directed at his own subscribers. What is going on at the Wine Advocate is comment-worthy news. Parker acolytes are not…

Nasty reply Mr. Clapp. Not necessary nor insightful. Obviously your mileage varies.

That would be Mr. Klapp, Mr. Kaufman. I feel that having made many substantive posts on this thread entitles me to take out a few of those sniping from the peanut gallery from time to time. You apparently disagree. Fair enough. But alas, you are not my mother, nor my second-grade teacher, nor even a contributor of anything of substance, so you will pardon me if I do not warm to your judgment. To be clear, I am not a self-proclaimed wine critic, nor did I just botch the sale of my business. This thread is ample evidence that I am not receptive to lame, third-rate behavior mod techniques. Nor to first-rate, brilliant techniques, come to think of it, not that any have shown up here so far…

[Bill_Klapp_deactivated]

Now can we wait patiently for some news on the matter at hand? I will go and take a look at Parker’s video and see if all of my questions and concerns have been addressed…

[Hank_Gillespie]

@Bill Klapp

@Hank Gillespie

I’m more than a little amused that, with over 500 posts thus far, there appears to be a continuing
annoyance at the meager release of information regarding the sale of Robert Parker’s business.
Surely anyone involved in the sale of a privately owned business has the right to some privacy
concerning the details of the sale. Parker did announce the sale, albeit after the dancing lady in
Singapore ( supposedly an employee )jumped the gun to get her story out first. To be sure the
subscribers to TWA have an interest in this transaction, but I suspect there are only a few such subscribers
who post on Wineberserkers. Instead this preoccupation by some posters on this forum resembles an elder ladies
quilting get-together, where local gossip is the primary subject of conversation, filled with partial facts,
innuendo, and a delight at someone else’s possible folly.

Undoubtedly there will be some who wish to diminish my thoughts on this by crying foul, or worse, by insisting
they have a right to information, etc., but if the shoe fits around the ladies table… well, perhaps they
will have to continue to wear it.

Hank

Do you have anything to contribute to the thread, Hank? This wasn’t anything, just so you will know. Your post indicates that you are not even reading this thread, or you would know that Parker gave an exclusive to his good friend Lettie Teague, which gave rise to the comedy of errors that continues today with a bloviation tour de force by your boy, Blusterin’ Bob. Don’t mean to single you out, Hank, but it is time to get tough on ignorance around here. It may be bliss for you, as the old saying goes, but it don’t feed the bulldog on this thread. Come back when you can offer a cogent and convincing defense of Parker’s business and ethical decisions. I, for one, will not be staying up late waiting for it. And for those who contribute nothing but whining about how harsh and nasty my tone is, take a careful look at Hank’s post, then go over to the great man’s website and savor some of his paranoid-delusional attack dog stuff directed at his own subscribers. What is going on at the Wine Advocate is comment-worthy news. Parker acolytes are not…

I expected to hear something from the quilting circle, Bill. Thank you for your usual insightful comments.

Contribution, I guess, means something to do with adding food to your bulldog’s dish, but I really tried to be
concise in expressing the view that most of the comments I read on this thread had more to do with frivolous gossip than preserving
the right of anyone selling a privately owned business and keeping the details private.

Sorry if I offended your sensitivity regarding Ms. Perrotti-Brown, the Singapore Fast-a-Foot lady, but she’s the one that jumped out first on the block, wasn’t she?

Anyway, Bill, you haven’t convinced me that your viewpoint on this has merit, at least not sufficiently to change my opinion regarding
the gossip table with the quilting group. Now, the subject might be worth discussing over a glass of fine wine, where we could go
over the fine points of your viewpoint and mine, Bill, but this forum is too much one sided for me to take much away, I’m afraid.

When Martha Stewart decided to take herself, or her business, to the public marketplace, I was one who failed to appreciate how
that would meet with any kind of success. How could making something useful with old clothes pegs appeal to Wall Street. At least she
went to the top. Well, I was proven wrong - a failing that sometimes arises regarding my perspectives. Most of us are not infallible…
but it seems that some people are, especially when they can recite their monologue without fear of interruption on forums such as this.

Hank

[Peter_Chiu]

Facts…I may remember it wrong !!

Hank - Are you one of subscribers who won a gift from Parker for a wine-question contest in his Board lately ?

It is Ok if you do not wish to answer the question !

Fact speaks for itself and please do not take my question if a negative way …

What I meant is…you answered the question ( or questions ) right in the contest and earned he gift fair and square.

[Ron_Kramer]

Cripes what a bunch wannabe critics and whiners. If you don’t like what the man does don’t listen to him, don’t buy his books or his newsletter or whatever. The man was a standard bearer in the wine industry for years and has garnered many many honors and was the guru touted by wine retail for many years but in recent times he has been demeaned and vilified by many who know dick. I have dined with him five times and met him at events as many times. A finer gentleman you could not find. He has led me ( and multi-thousands of others) directly to an incredible amount of good wine beginning with the $6 Domaine du Pouy back in another lifetime on the low end and saved me thousands on the high end. You have questions and concerns about what he is doing with ‘his’ business? Stuff it and find someone else you trust more.!
Nary a one of you has achieved a modicum of what he has so maybe it is just jealousy that drives you guys.

[Peter_Chiu]