Joe Dressner's Manefesto on Natural Wine

This should get some discussion:" onclick=";return false;

Hear, here.

The most amazing part of the manifesto is he drank an 11 year old white Burg that wasn’t oxidised!

I’m feeling obtuse today:
“hear, hear” is short for “hear him, hear him” which is used in British Parliament in lieu of applause, a forbidden form of expression in both the Houses, Commons and Lords.

Don’t take it personally! I normally let it slide on the interwebz.

“Hear, here” is a bit of an inside joke. It was intentional.


Not really.

I see the discussion of this article is actually happening in the Asimov Natural Wine thread, so I’m moving there.

So, basically, it takes Dressner 14 long, internally inconsistent paragraphs to say there’s nothing to say about natural wines, and even though we might come across as self-important assholes (whoever “we” are), screw you if you don’t belong to our self-important, self-selected elite, 'cause the rest of you wouldn’t know an authentic wine if it bit you on the ass.

Or words to that effect.

With Joe’s writing, it’s usually 50/50 offended people/people who laugh at it, but it was a satirical piece with some of his views mixed in. His point is that defining the term and setting parameters is ridiculous for natural wine. It was satire plain and simple. That’s the way I took it. But many many people get offended by satire. That’s why Sarah Silverman is no longer on the air.

Calm yourself Mr. Tryba…spelling is not Roberto’s “fortay”! [wink.gif]

He’s wrong about industrial wine being able to satisfy thirst. . .

I don’t get offended by satire, but perhaps Joe isn’t much of a satirist.

Actually, I am pretty good at it and go back and edit a lot of posts for typos but we are CRAZY busy today so I missed that one…

[rofl.gif] So which one is it?

It is not satire. It is passive-aggressive pussy-tire. It is typical of what passes for satire anymore where the author wants it both ways - to stake a claim AND pass it off as a joke, picking which one is most convenient. And at the end of the day, everything else is secondary to getting atta-boy chortles from your peeps.


Huh. And all along I thought it was because she isn’t funny, that she had one schtick – to refer to excretory or sexual functions in as obvious a way as possible without getting censored. When that had run its course, she had nothing to say (I did like the fcuking Matt Damon vids, but I would bet she had almost nothing to do with the writing or production)



[head-bang.gif] [head-bang.gif]

If you can’t define a term reasonably closely it has no actual meaning. See page 1 of the Natural wine thread…

One man’/s opinion. I think she’s a genius and this last season before she got cancelled, where she had 100% creative control was some of the most brilliant comedy I have ever seen. Sure, its very outside the box and it’s not LCD, so everyone won’t find it funny. But I do, and am sad to see it go.


We’re like Ebert and Siskel without the love. neener

Jorge, typos and misspelling due to not knowing how to spell a word are VERY different things so it’s both.