Parker feud, hope this is OK ?

I just read the following on http://www.winebusiness.com, which is a site I read daily looking for what's on the market around the world, and who is doing what.

http://www.drvino.com/2009/04/15/the-xd ... parkercom/

and hope it's not out of line, but one of the bigger reasons I LOVE this venue, not to mention the cool folks that I have met over the years. I had a problem a few years ago with one of the posters who is also a taster for E-Bob, where the taster was referring to cherry pickers, but of course anyone they were associated with were not to be considered that, as they were experts and wine lovers. It created for me such a situation, that I felt bad enough to cancel my subscription due to an over-abundance of ego for the elite. Reading this certainly reminded me, that the cancellation was called for.

After I read the above link and all the comments, I thought I should go check out the BB and see if there was anything about this still on the board.... nope, but what I did find very interesting is the first post on top, by Bob himself talking about the expense of the BB and hoping that the members would show it some love as it was expensive to maintain, or maybe advertising would be in order ( I am not real computer literate, but I can only assume he is considering a charge to read or post on the BB ) Somewhere in the back of my old and feeble mind I remembered when Squires and Parker mingled to create the BB on the Parker site, and lo and behold I found the following :

"Welcome to the Mark Squires' Wine Bulletin Board housed on the eRobertParker.com web site as a service to the wine community. "

the above resonates something that is free, from the kindness of thier hearts for the "wine community"
If it is indeed Mark Squires board, then it should be Mark that is responsible for it
If Mark is actually a bit of a control freak, as shown by the above link, let him absorb the cost for his personal soapbox

Maybe, just maybe, now is not the time in our lives or economy to be seeking out additional dollars to simply read another's opinion, in particular if often times that opinion is to serve one's own purpose. Its kind of like a winery taking a price increase this year, not a real wise idea !

Just one more reason I love WLDG. Thanks !
L

Wow, thanks for posting that, Linda, truly fascinating. So glad to be here and not there.

[David M. Bueker]

Linda - I would submit that bashing Mark Squires and/or his board (and he is the administrator of it - yes Parker funds it, but Mark works for Parker & the board is free) is not appropriate on this forum.

The linked exchange is certainly regrettable (though the linked aritcle as usual tells only about half of one side - I read the thread when it was live & not only was it turning ugly (which Mark had no part in), but it was duplicative of numerous other threads on the same topic), but carrying your grudge over here does no good for this community.

I think it would serve this site well if we did not pursure this subject any further.

[Jenise]

Linda - I would submit that bashing Mark Squires and/or his board (and he is the administrator of it - yes Parker funds it, but Mark works for Parker & the board is free) is not appropriate on this forum.

The linked exchange is certainly regrettable (though the linked aritcle as usual tells only about half of one side - I read the thread when it was live & not only was it turning ugly (which Mark had no part in), but it was duplicative of numerous other threads on the same topic), but carrying your grudge over here does no good for this community.

I think it would serve this site well if we did not pursure this subject any further.

Hey, lighten up--I enjoyed reading that. If I still had Mark's correspondence with me over my initial registration on eBob to show you, I think you'd be shocked at just how "regrettable" he can be.

Lots of people have had regrettable experiences with Mark Squires... I don't think there's any need to debate the subject. IMO, it's been proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that the forum over there is managed specifically to benefit Bob and ERP, and that its Mark's job to be the bad cop for Bob and derail unsympathetic conversations. I emailed Bob once about it, and have an email that (to me) indicates that Bob fully supports the heavy-handed approach to forum moderation.

Still, there are probably people here who are friends and associates of those involved, so it's probably best to leave the subject alone (having said my piece).

Thanks for posting that, Linda. (I even read all the comments).

I post here, I post there. I've spent "real world" time with posters from both places. One thing though- a couple of years ago, someone over there said some bad things about me because I reccomended a vintage from Germany (one we did not have a lot of SKU's of btw) claiming that as a retailer, any opinion I had was tainted. Mark posted within the hour that I was to be treated civily and that I'm a good guy.

[Jenise]

I post here, I post there. I've spent "real world" time with posters from both places. One thing though- a couple of years ago, someone over there said some bad things about me because I reccomended a vintage from Germany (one we did not have a lot of SKU's of btw) claiming that as a retailer, any opinion I had was tainted. Mark posted within the hour that I was to be treated civily and that I'm a good guy.

Good for Mark. I've never understood, btw, the idea fostered in some parts of the internet that retailers can't have opinions as solid and qualified as anyone else's, and that they shouldn't be free to share them. I've only met one online who ever seemed to overtly hype product, but his whole demeanor was so over-the-top everyone quickly figured him out for what he was. Most are just the opposite--crazy about wine, and as objective as anyone else.

David,
I just read your post and your opinion that "bashing" Mark Squires and/or his board is not appropriate on this forum"
Rest assured David that had it been my intent to "bash" or "discredit" someone, it would have been very clear, as I have a tendancy not to mince words.
Simply put it out there for something of interest. If you disagree fine, but don't think for a second I care what YOU think regarding our ability to have a discussion here.
If you don't like what I posted fine, but your thoughts about what is proper and what we should and should not discuss, or as you put it " it would serve this site well if we did not pursue this subject any further" is a bit controlling I'd say.
Cheers !
Linda

[David M. Bueker]

Linda,

I am a frequent reader and poster on both boards, and just find it bad form to cast aspersions from one site towards another. If you disagree that's fine, but it is my opinion, which I am just as free to post. I happen to think that your thoughts about Mark Squires' personality do not reflect well on this site.

As for your commentary, you might want to re-check some of your statements, as neither Bob nor Mark were the ones to suggest advertising. Some of the posters did. If you spent any time on the site you would know that a number of posters, who are not paying subscribers to the Wine Advocate or the electronic site will ask for extensive data from the magazine, essentially receiving paid content for free. This ticks off Bob a bit, and also ticks off those of us who are subscribers - why should non-subsribers get the info for free? It reached a crescendo a few years ago when someone posted the complete scores from an article, a clear copyright violation.

If you don't like their business model that's fine. But let's keep the facts straight & leave the personality disagreements out of it.

David, Hi.....

Although I will not get into the pros/cons and or rights/wrongs of the discussion about Squires and Parker, I do have to agree with Linda on this one, the precedence set long ago on the Parker/Squires forum with regular attacks against Jancis Robinson, Hugh Johnson, the Wine Spectator and other sources. What's good for the goose must also be good for the gander. I cannot help but think that any person performs a public act, that perhaps especially including critics, must themselves be open to criticism and commentary. The measure of course is that the criticism should be in good taste.

Best
Rogov

[David M. Bueker]

Rogov,

Fair enough, though I think it's ugly no matter where it's done, and let's at least get the facts straight rather than mingling fact and half-truth with inaccuracies.

let's at least get the facts straight rather than mingling fact and half-truth with inaccuracies.

Hear, hear! That's the job of polticians and FOX commentators.

There is a strong fascist element on the Squires board, and has been for years.
Any recent developments are merely in keeping with a long, sad tradition.

Best regards,
Alex R.

There is a strong fascist element on the Squires board, and has been for years.
Any recent developments are merely in keeping with a long, sad tradition.

Alex, Hi......

That's a pretty strong charge to bring but it does remind me of the story - almost surely apocryphal - about the woman who phoned Miriam Webster to complain that she had found too many "dirty words" in their dictionary. The editor with whom she spoke responded: "Madam, if you had not looked them up, you would not know they were there".

I am also reminded of Mark Twain's comment about reading: Them who likes a book stays with it; them who don't wander on"

Best
Rogov

[Robin Garr]

There is a strong fascist element on the Squires board, and has been for years.
Any recent developments are merely in keeping with a long, sad tradition.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Okay, I'm going to step in on this one. With respect to David's opinions, I think Linda has been well within the forum's tradition for both civility and frank wine talk. But Alex? This strong, unsupported statement contributes nothing substantial to the thread and would have been better left unposted. Consider deleting?>

Fascism is indeed a dangerous word to use, as it has a range of meanings and provokes a range of responses.

In it's most neutral form (a kind of base definition), IIRC fascism relates to a group of people feeling superior to others and who wish to exert that superiority. I very much suspect this is what Alex was alluding to.

However the instance of fascism that we tend to associate with the name, is WWII based and involved extremes far removed from postings on a wine bulletin board.

No problem if Alex wishes to delete the post, but an alternative may be to replace the word fascist with something that better clarifies the intent.

regards

Ian

Fascism is indeed a dangerous word to use, as it has a range of meanings and provokes a range of responses.

In it's most neutral form (a kind of base definition), IIRC fascism relates to a group of people feeling superior to others and who wish to exert that superiority. I very much suspect this is what Alex was alluding to.

However the instance of fascism that we tend to associate with the name, is WWII based and involved extremes far removed from postings on a wine bulletin board.

No problem if Alex wishes to delete the post, but an alternative may be to replace the word fascist with something that better clarifies the intent.

regards

Ian

Would Robin then have to delete or edit his quote of Alex in the subsequent admonishing and explanatory post?

And would you then edit your explanatory codicil to eliminate the word from your post?

And would anyone understand anything at that point?


Besides, Alex will tell you that his passion and depth of feeling on any given matter supersedes being either civil or within polite bounds. So he has permission. From himself. He's already absolved, you see, and thereby not constrained from using whatever terms he wishes.

As to the original post, the charging (or not) basis for e-bob is their concern and not mine.

It does seem a little odd though, as I'd be very surprised if Parker corp was struggling for pennies. Link that into moderation that has been known to actively defend 'Brand Parker', then running the BB for free doesn't seem like a bad investment.
I do suspect they're fuming about the references to 'vapour-ware' in respect of MIWINE.

regards

Ian

Thanks, Linda. That's the first time I ever read anything from any wine forum besides this one. This one's better.

let's at least get the facts straight rather than mingling fact and half-truth with inaccuracies.

Hear, hear! That's the job of polticians and FOX commentators.

Rabble rousing commie! We should have thrown you overboard with the tea bags yesterday.

At various times every moderated wine discussion group that I know of has been accused of censorship. That includes this one. Avocations of no practical consequence, such as wine appreciation, always seem to evoke more emotion and heat than things that really matter to real life. In the end, wine aficionados choose to participate or not in the board(s) that they wish. I don't see any point in discussions or arguments here concerning what does or doesn't go on in other boards.

Let's talk about wine instead.

-Paul W.

Ah!, just read the DrVino exchange.

I thought this just related to Parker drumming up funds, but the email exchanges (and Squires' posting on Dr Vino) paint a very unfortunate (albeit unsurprising) picture of Miller and Squires.

It is weird that Parker can pull out some well-regarded appointments to Parker-corp (Galloni, Schildnecht, Martin), but then allow his friendships to colour his judgement on appointments of Squires and Miller (and tolerating their behaviour).

However, to return to matters closer to home, it is refreshing to see active, positive and considered moderation here (on both branches of the forum and indeed on other forums I post on). It really is a pre-requisite for long-term success.

regards

Ian

Ah!, just read the DrVino exchange.
However, to return to matters closer to home, it is refreshing to see active, positive and considered moderation here (on both branches of the forum and indeed on other forums I post on). It really is a pre-requisite for long-term success.

regards

Ian

And unlike other denizens of this board, that is exactly how I took Linda's original post. I thought her point was complimentary to this forum while serving up an example of how badly others have failed to use the same tools to create a community. And she buttressed her assertion with a current example of perceived malfeasance by the other board's principal(s) and a story of first-hand experience with the same board, albeit unnamed persona. I have no problem with her original post. As far as whether Linda brought personal feelings into her original post, don't we all when we type out a post here?

Going a bit further, isn't the perception of personalities exceedingly germane when discussing online fora/communities? Seems to me that just as color, nose. mouthfeel, and flavor are important when judging a wine, the personalities of the various forum participants and the empowered moderators are important when evaluating a forum as an appropriate place for one to spend time and energy. A winemaker's professional tactics are important to our evaluation and expectations of his product but his personality is irrelevant because it has little direct impact on the wine. But a forum is the product of many personalities with emphasis on the personality of the moderators and principal participants. Just as with wine, we can all review the notes, investigate the source, and come to our own conclusions. Linda does not deserve to be upbraided for pointing out that other online sites are not as friendly and forgiving and open as this one. At least this forum isn't in their class as long as this thread continues to be open for discussion. Agreeing or disagreeing with her assertions are our own personal prerogatives and we should be allowed to exercise those choices without someone deciding we shouldn't read her assertions on this board or discuss them further. Contrary to other expressed opinion, I also believe that Linda's post does a LOT of good for this community....to make us realize that despite the occasional blowup, ours is a fairly civilized yet open place to converse on a wide variety of topics, not just wine.