Again, I don't disagree, but you're fixing on my example to declare my argument monochromatic where I painted it in colors. Restated: The exotic Ms. MacNeil cited 10 variables plus an "Etc." in her definition of terroir, and she could easily have listed more. I'm arguing that soil may be primus inter pares if only because gout de terroir literally means "taste of the soil," and in the admittedly fuzzy mix of elements that makes up terroir, then chalky Chablis or rocky GV ought to stand head and shoulders above the others, because, well, rocks rock, dammit! But I never said - or never meant to say - that it was the only variable.
More in another post ... I just ran into something so curious that it deserves its own post ... nay, another thread.
Oh, sure, the old "Wait, I have another call coming in" run around.
You are the one that made the example, not me.
Although you get major creds for responding so elegantly (monochromatic, nay, using French and Latin phrases---got any Classic Greek there?---that was well don, sir, well done), I don't see why you have this concern over super-simplifying things and assiduously avoiding complexities.....the subjects of terroir, and for that matter varietal tipicity, are complex. Very complex. With terroir, the more simple you make it the more fuzzy it gets for me; and it seems the more complex interpretation I have is fuzzy to you because it has so many variables. (!?!)
Hey, at heart, this isn't a matter requiring agreement anyhoo, right? It's just personal interpretation. So you need to pare down terroir to mean only one thing at a time; okay I can handle that.
I can juggle more than one ball at a time successfully (unlike BushCo, I can do nuance).
It's been fun going back and forth, but we can let this drop if you want, Robin. We've both stated our positions pretty clearly, and it's been fun doing so.