Hello,

I heard there is a Barrique wines paring with food guide made by a Swiss author
can any one of you please tell me the exact name of the guide and the author name.

Thanks,

Mario

On 12 Dec 2003 12:30:15 -0800, (Mario) wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I heard there is a Barrique wines paring with food guide made by a Swiss author
>can any one of you please tell me the exact name of the guide and the author name.

Mario, only one question this time?

Mike

yes only 1 is it a problem for u?

it itches u too much?



Mike Tommasi > wrote in message >. ..
> On 12 Dec 2003 12:30:15 -0800, (Mario) wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >I heard there is a Barrique wines paring with food guide made by a Swiss author
> >can any one of you please tell me the exact name of the guide and the author name.
>
> Mario, only one question this time?
>
> Mike

On 16 Dec 2003 09:13:19 -0800, (Mario) wrote:

>yes only 1 is it a problem for u?
>
>it itches u too much?

There you go again, two more questions. Yes it "itches", so here I am
scratching.

Mario, if your only form of participation in both AFW and IHV is to
ask dozens of questions, you may get some people annoyed. This is what
happened a year ago, and we tried to make you understand that. We are
not here to provide free material for whateveer research you are
doing, some kind of business or whatever.

Learn how to use Google, or try to participate in the various threads
before doing the question thing.

Mike

Talk for yourselve and not the entire web !

What are you here for? to bother others? Thats what it looks to me.

You may have ur business not me, I have no other than personal
interest here, lets see what is ur business?

Yes few people only you got annoyed !

Talk for yourselve you are not the entire WEB GOD !


Mike Tommasi > wrote in message >. ..
> On 16 Dec 2003 09:13:19 -0800, (Mario) wrote:
>
> >yes only 1 is it a problem for u?
> >
> >it itches u too much?
>
> There you go again, two more questions. Yes it "itches", so here I am
> scratching.
>
> Mario, if your only form of participation in both AFW and IHV is to
> ask dozens of questions, you may get some people annoyed. This is what
> happened a year ago, and we tried to make you understand that. We are
> not here to provide free material for whateveer research you are
> doing, some kind of business or whatever.
>
> Learn how to use Google, or try to participate in the various threads
> before doing the question thing.
>
> Mike

On 17 Dec 2003 04:13:58 -0800, (Mario) wrote:

>Talk for yourselve and not the entire web !
>
>What are you here for? to bother others? Thats what it looks to me.
>
>You may have ur business not me, I have no other than personal
>interest here, lets see what is ur business?
>
>Yes few people only you got annoyed !
>
>Talk for yourselve you are not the entire WEB GOD !


My business is telecommunications and engineering.

What is yours?

Hello Mario,

On 17 Dec 2003 04:13:58 -0800, (Mario) wrote:

>Talk for yourselve and not the entire web !
He does talk for most regulars here, Mario.

Can I add my 2p worth. When you started asking your questions many
answered you, including most of the long term regulars. How many do
now? None. Why? Probably for the same reason I don't. Because your
questions seem to me to be a substitute for doing your own research.
If you'll remember, we pointed this out to you. A quick google search
on the subjects (innumerable) about which you used to ask would have
given you plenty of answers. Also, you NEVER ever came back to say
thanks, or to participate in any positive way.

>What are you here for? to bother others?

No. Mario, that's what it looks like _you're_ here for.

You have never made any positive participation here. The only reason I
can read you, is because you changed your posting name, so you have
once again emerged from my killfile.

All the best
Ian
(To reply by email PLEASE don't use "Reply to" bu
use my name at wanadoo.fr) Thanks.

Anthony Hoare wrote:
>
> Can I add my 2p worth. When you started asking your questions many
> answered you, including most of the long term regulars. How many do
> now? None. Why? Probably for the same reason I don't. Because your
> questions seem to me to be a substitute for doing your own research.
> If you'll remember, we pointed this out to you. A quick google search
> on the subjects (innumerable) about which you used to ask would have
> given you plenty of answers. Also, you NEVER ever came back to say
> thanks, or to participate in any positive way.

Not trying to take sides here, but this does raise an alarm for me. I
read this group because I learn quite a bit from you folks who know
vastly more than I do. I understand that some things (like finding a
book, for god's sake) can be done on my own. There are cases where a
simple factoid is not enough, that being a fly on the wall during a
discussion of people with informed opinions tells you more.

But as far as participation goes, there's really nothing that I can
contribute beyond what the regulars contribute -- but I can occasionally
ask questions. Does that make me (and all the other mostly-lurkers like
me) unwelcome? How can we be of service without knowing a whole lot?
(An honest question, not rhetorical.)

Best wishes,

-- kov

Hi Kov,

First of all, please understand that when I wrote to Mario, I was
writing purely for me, and whatever I say has no "weight of
authority".

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:58:05 GMT, Rank Amateur
> wrote:

>> on the subjects (innumerable) about which you used to ask would have
>> given you plenty of answers. Also, you NEVER ever came back to say
>> thanks, or to participate in any positive way.
>
>Not trying to take sides here, but this does raise an alarm for me.

Oh dear, this wasn't my intent at all, kov.

>simple factoid is not enough, that being a fly on the wall during a
>discussion of people with informed opinions tells you more.

And we've all learnt in that way, no matter how expert some of us are.

>But as far as participation goes, there's really nothing that I can
>contribute beyond what the regulars contribute -- but I can occasionally
>ask questions.

And I'd hate it if what I said made you think that participation in
this way were unwelcome.

> Does that make me (and all the other mostly-lurkers like me) unwelcome?

Certainly not.

> How can we be of service without knowing a whole lot?

Well, be chiming in with a positive "thanks, that explains a lot", if
it does, or by asking follow ups. It's hard to say which is worse, a
string of questions whose answers could be found in 5 secs with
google, or a string of incorrect and incomplete answers.

Your _opinion_ on food and wine matches, and your pleasant discoveries
and your disagreeable discoveries are all part and parcel of what
makes up the life of a ng such as this. No one would want or expect
every participator to do so on every subject, or with total expertise.

I think that all I can do is to refer you to google and suggest that
you search for Mario's name (he's changed his IP). You'll see exactly
what Michael Tommasi and I (and many others) object(ed) to.

A question like this, (not a quotation from any specific question, but
typical of what he used to say)

"What are the names of tbe best bordeaux chateaux, and what proportion
of which grapes go into their wines.?"

The questions are SO open ended as to be almost impossible to answer
properly, and the answers (once he's worked out what he means) are as
available to him as to me. No matter how expert any of us are, NO one
can carry that information in their heads. Such questions would not
have been answered. But a question such as "Who makes the best
Barolo?" might be. Search as you will you will never, ever find a
follow up thanks or any kind of follow up comment. So far as I'm
aware, this is the first or second time he's ever responded. It is
THAT combination which drove me to enter the thread.

>(An honest question, not rhetorical.)
And one which merited an honest answer, to the best of my ability.

All the best
Ian
(To reply by email PLEASE don't use "Reply to" but
use my name at wanadoo.fr) Thanks.

Anthony Hoare wrote:
>
>> How can we be of service without knowing a whole lot?
>
>
> Well, be chiming in with a positive "thanks, that explains a lot", if
> it does, or by asking follow ups. It's hard to say which is worse, a
> string of questions whose answers could be found in 5 secs with
> google, or a string of incorrect and incomplete answers.
>
> Your _opinion_ on food and wine matches, and your pleasant discoveries
> and your disagreeable discoveries are all part and parcel of what
> makes up the life of a ng such as this. No one would want or expect
> every participator to do so on every subject, or with total expertise.

I think I understand why Mario is not welcomed with open arms anymore;
but your answers above and especially those un-quoted will help me to
avoid sliding down the slippery slope towards Mario-dom. So thanks for
taking the time.

You may not consider yourself to speak for the group, but I'm amazed at
the degree of concurrence amongst the more regular posters in this group
-- and I consider it (in this case at least) to be a good thing, not
bad. Part of what keeps this forum a solid read is the extent to which
people are vocal about the behaviors they like and dislike.

Cheers,

-- kov (aka Ken Overton, depending upon whether I'm posting from desktop
or laptop)

Rank Amateur > wrote:

> You may not consider yourself to speak for the group, but I'm
> amazed at the degree of concurrence amongst the more regular
> posters in this group -- and I consider it (in this case at
> least) to be a good thing, not bad. Part of what keeps this
> forum a solid read is the extent to which people are vocal about
> the behaviors they like and dislike.

Not the least through the efforts of Ian (Anthony) Hoare, Mike
(Michael) Tommasi and others, who do bother to to keep this group
enjoy- and readable.

M.