"Andrew L Drumm" > wrote:

> The advice given by Presque Isle is highly dangerous, and people listening
> to it run the risk of ruining their wine, therefore I will stand by my
> statement that their advice is absolute BS (and where I come from, that's
> being polite). The point that ascorbic acid needs SO2 was made repeatedly
> when I was studying oenology, and standard industry texts also support
this
> view. You will also have noticed that I was not the only one stating that
> this advice was incorrect.

Since "the advice given by Presque Isle" is to NOT use ascorbic acid, their
advice is hardly dangerous, and it is your heated response to what was not
stated that is (to use your "polite" phrase) bovine fecal matter. You have
misread their (admittedly poorly-worded and possibly ambiguous) next
sentence, and made a mountain out of an irrelevant molehill, or rather you
have picked a fight where none was offered. At least the other _poster_
(singular) who disagreed (as opposed to "stating the advise was incorrect")
prefaced his remarks with, "Contrary to what Presque Isle SEEMS to imply
above...", and didn't find the need to make a "polite" analogy to fecal
material. Furthermore, since your own statement says this "solution" only
works for 6-12 months before severely deteriorating, it seems that your
advice, not that of Presque Isle, is the more dangerous of the two.

Nevertheless, I shall forward your "polite" remarks to Doug Moorhead, for
his response, and also suggest he rephrase his opinion so that its
misinterpretation won't be so offensive to you.

Meanwhile, I shall stick to SO2 as an anti-oxidant in wine, and leave the
use of ascorbic acid --- with or without SO2 --- to others.