Parker feud, hope this is OK ?

[

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?
.

What he said..YES! Linda, I appreciate your insight and information. This is what makes this community unique!

JuliaB

Has the Parker/Squires board ever discussed planting of GM modified crops near vineyards? The tone and content of such might make for interesting comparison between forums...

Hi Robin,

Those were indeed strong words.

Just a little background.
I have been active on Internet mailing lists and forums since they first started and am currently a regular contributor to 3: WLDG, Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts, and Tom Cannavan's UK Wine Pages.

A couple of years ago, I had heard of the eRobertParker site and visited there for a while.
I was appalled at the sniping between participants but, most of all, by the very heavy-handed and, even worse, sneaky way in which the forum was censored (Squires is at his worst in his infamous private e-mail messages):
http://www.drvino.com/2009/04/15/the-xd ... tparkercom

I use the word fascist because if a poster should have the temerity to disagree with the world of wine as defined by the critic in Monkton, then he is "shouted down". That, you might say, is democracy at work and if that is the flavour of the forum, then people should either take it or leave it... However, I and other friends have also received really nasty e-mails from Mark Squires who operates off-board to eject those people who do not agree with his orthodoxy. I was absolutely appalled at his behavior and see it as manipulative and evil. Obviously, I am not alone! His modus operandi is contrary to the whole spirit of the Internet age.

Robin, you have never acted in this way. You've asked me to consider deleting my post(s). This is already proof of your open-mindedness! A Squires would have done so in an instant without asking as is his wont. [i]Toute la différence est là ![/i]

If, after having read the background to my comments you feel that my posts would nevertheless best be removed, I will be glad to accept your judgment and follow through as you request.

Best regards,
Alex

From Merriam Webster:

fascist
One entry found.

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

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"

And those who look behind doors have stood there themselves. The initial comments scolding Linda read a lot like Squires' stuff. Anybody who gets a hair up their butt over something somebody says harbors that idea (in form, not necessarily content) in the dark reaches of his or her mind, which s/he has not yet brought into the light, and is therefore afraid of. It is called a "shadow reaction."

I agree with Alex's statement. Sure Squires is not Hitler, but the term Alex used can be applied to behavior resembling Hitler's behavior in just his way of living, how he dealt with his own people, not just his enemies.

Alex
Indeed this touches on the point I was making - that the 2nd definition above tends to be overshadowed by the 1st (understandably considering the mark it left on the human race). Your post seemed focused solely on the latter definition, with which it's difficult to find dispute.
regards
Ian

p.s. absolutely with the comments about moderators & other personalities on a forum. Setting the tone is vital, but also the ability to recognise how to bring things back on line when there is discord. Promoting discord oneself is the biggest no-no for moderation as it undermines ones credibility to moderate others.

[Robin Garr]

Alex
Indeed this touches on the point I was making - that the 2nd definition above tends to be overshadowed by the 1st (understandably considering the mark it left on the human race). Your post seemed focused solely on the latter definition, with which it's difficult to find dispute.
regards
Ian

p.s. absolutely with the comments about moderators & other personalities on a forum. Setting the tone is vital, but also the ability to recognise how to bring things back on line when there is discord. Promoting discord oneself is the biggest no-no for moderation as it undermines ones credibility to moderate others.

In a bid to moderately moderate, can we have a consensus that its purpose has now been served, and perhaps let it die gently now, without censorship?

Sorry, Robin, but the unwritten law of wine forums is that every thread that has the word "Parker" in the title must run to at least 500 replies before dying out.

Sorry, Robin, but the unwritten law of wine forums is that every thread that has the word "Parker" in the title must run to at least 500 replies before dying out.

Good point. Is it like someone came up with a way to objectively measure the worth of one's mother, which much of the world ascribed to?

I think I'll read a novel by Robert Parker (the novelist) and post stuff about it, just to desensitize folks to the name.

Sorry, Robin, but the unwritten law of wine forums is that every thread that has the word "Parker" in the title must run to at least 500 replies before dying out.

Good point. Is it like someone came up with a way to objectively measure the worth of one's mother, which much of the world ascribed to?

I think I'll read a novel by Robert Parker (the novelist) and post stuff about it, just to desensitize folks to the name.

Maybe Trouble in Paradise?

[Robin Garr]

Sorry, Robin, but the unwritten law of wine forums is that every thread that has the word "Parker" in the title must run to at least 500 replies before dying out.

Oh, crap, I forgot.

Can we at least hire a choir of Vikings to chant "ParkerParkerParkerParkerParkerParker" until our quota is up?

Robin....Without commenting on the validity ..or lack of same..re some of the comments in this thread, I agree with what I think you intended in your post above, it is time to pull the plug on this thread, enough is enough, time to move on..Please count this as post #501 and let's call it a day

There seems to be an expectation that people should be 'fair' on websites they own.

Nothing of the sort. If I created and own a website I can do whatever damned well please with it, including banning people arbitrarily, deleting posts etc.

Of course if I act unilaterally as well as rudely, it is going to affect the number of people that will want to hang around my site. I suspect that without the Parker name, Mr Squires site would be a much more thinly attended forum. But the point is, that Squires can do whatever he pleases, and you may say he is autocratic, and be right, but you can't say he shouldn't do whatever he pleases - he can, of course.

[David M. Bueker]

I was aalready ctive on Squires' site when it was just Squires' site. It was actually more fun back then because it did not have the Parker association and all the hero worship (and perceived need to protect the right of same) that it has now.

The growth from the Parker association is a blessing and a curse. That's nothing to do with Parker or how Mark administers the site, it's just what happens when something gets that big.

[James Roscoe]

Of course I'm not sure this thread is necesarrily about Parker anymore, about whom I am indiferent. Underlying this thread is the increasing number of regular posters who have seemed to disapeear. Whil I agree with Bill Spohn 100%, I wonder where this board is drifting? Alas, most of us are kept in the dark.

[David M. Bueker]

James - times change, people change. Populations on web sites change (they have changed on eBob as well by the way). I do know that JC is having computer issues, as she communicated that with me yesterday. That's all I know.

Nobody is keeping anybody in the dark.

[James Roscoe]

I think most people know what I mean.

[David M. Bueker]

No James - what do you mean or mean to insinuate?

I think most people know what I mean.

Have to admit that I'm in the dark on this as well

I think most people know what I mean.

Have to admit that I'm in the dark on this as well

Me three.

Adding to the fire, not of our thoughts here but to the "Parker question", this time dealing with the ethics of "freebies". On the same DrVino site, posted on 16 April at http://www.drvino.com/

Best
Rogov

I think most people know what I mean.

Can you give us a hint?

I find this really ridiculous and a sad example of some people trying to create space to take cheap shots at Parker and other critics to give themselves a lot more hits and views. It comes across as very low and distasteful that people will start sending around private emails or inviting private exchanges before then publishing them all on the web to gather attention (but then again it seems like it's now the trendy thing to do to take as many cheap shots at Squires and Parker as possible). I'm not a huge fan of Parker or Jay Miller's writing/scoring habits (Neal Martin and David Schildknecht are really the only reasons I pay much attention to the Wine Advocate), but I do find the constant attempts to belittle the Advocate absurd.

As far as the ethics of it go, I read the pieces Jay Miller posted re. the Berns dinners and comments from one or two others who attended, and all it came across as was him dining with a few other importers and other wine-geek friends and enjoying a crazy lineup of food and wines. Nothing about free lunches or critics getting paid/bribed.

In terms of freebies, I reckon wine writing would be an incredibly challenging and unprofitable task without that. Given that most critics do cover a lot of fairly high end wines in order to provide comprehensive coverage, I can't imagine every critic out there paying big amounts to buy a bottle of the latest vintage of Grange, Latour or ZH SGN and opening it young. If wine writers are really going to pay for every drop and bit of hospitality they receive, I can imagine some very lopsided P&L charts. From what I understand many either taste the wines with importers, trade events or at the estates themselves and at such events there's invariably some hospitality involved. I don't see how this creates the issue of ethics and conflicts of interest.

I think most people know what I mean.

James, I honestly think most people have no idea what you are referring to.

You have to be a little broader, I'm afraid.