Some friends have recently been raving about Anderson Valley Pinot
Noirs and I'm wondering what wineries this group might recommend?

I have travelled through Mendocino but have not had a chance to explore
this area fully.

best,
BigCAWine

GoldenEye is a nice Pinto from Mendicino. But hard to find in many areas of
USA. Don't really know many of the Pinot from that area.

Goldeneye is made by the same people as Duckhorn.



> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Some friends have recently been raving about Anderson Valley Pinot
> Noirs and I'm wondering what wineries this group might recommend?
>
> I have travelled through Mendocino but have not had a chance to explore
> this area fully.
>
> best,
> BigCAWine
>

I have spent considerable time in Anderson Valley and agree with your
friends- Anderson Valley produces some "RAVE-WORTHY" Pinots...

In particular, I would put BREGGO Pinot Noir at the very top of your
list. They have an Anderson Valley Pinot Noir that is offered as a
future right now. I highly recommend it and bought some online he

http://wine.appellationamerica.com/c...son-valley.htm

Enjoy!



wrote:
> Some friends have recently been raving about Anderson Valley Pinot
> Noirs and I'm wondering what wineries this group might recommend?
>
> I have travelled through Mendocino but have not had a chance to explore
> this area fully.
>
> best,
> BigCAWine

Thanks for the Rec's. I've been pretty pleased with most of the
Duckhorn wines I've tried, so I'll check Goldeneye. WRT/ BREGGO-- I
went to the site to check out the wine. It appears as though they have
two single-vineyard bottlings (Ferrington, Savoy) in addition to the
Anderson Valley PN. Have you tried the single-vineyards???

-BigCAWine

wrote:
> I have spent considerable time in Anderson Valley and agree with your
> friends- Anderson Valley produces some "RAVE-WORTHY" Pinots...
>
> In particular, I would put BREGGO Pinot Noir at the very top of your
> list. They have an Anderson Valley Pinot Noir that is offered as a
> future right now. I highly recommend it and bought some online he
>
> http://wine.appellationamerica.com/c...son-valley.htm
>
> Enjoy!
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > Some friends have recently been raving about Anderson Valley Pinot
> > Noirs and I'm wondering what wineries this group might recommend?
> >
> > I have travelled through Mendocino but have not had a chance to explore
> > this area fully.
> >
> > best,
> > BigCAWine

BigCAWine-

Great find!

They must have just added the Ferrington and Savoy as futures. It is
really tough to find those bottlings- but worth it if you do! I have
really high expectations for the 2005 Ferrington AND Savoy.

I might go get some right now...

Thanks!


wrote:
> Thanks for the Rec's. I've been pretty pleased with most of the
> Duckhorn wines I've tried, so I'll check Goldeneye. WRT/ BREGGO-- I
> went to the site to check out the wine. It appears as though they have
> two single-vineyard bottlings (Ferrington, Savoy) in addition to the
> Anderson Valley PN. Have you tried the single-vineyards???
>
> -BigCAWine
>
> wrote:
> > I have spent considerable time in Anderson Valley and agree with your
> > friends- Anderson Valley produces some "RAVE-WORTHY" Pinots...
> >
> > In particular, I would put BREGGO Pinot Noir at the very top of your
> > list. They have an Anderson Valley Pinot Noir that is offered as a
> > future right now. I highly recommend it and bought some online he
> >
> > http://wine.appellationamerica.com/c...son-valley.htm
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Some friends have recently been raving about Anderson Valley Pinot
> > > Noirs and I'm wondering what wineries this group might recommend?
> > >
> > > I have travelled through Mendocino but have not had a chance to explore
> > > this area fully.
> > >
> > > best,
> > > BigCAWine

On 29 Aug 2006 14:12:43 -0700, wrote:

>Some friends have recently been raving about Anderson Valley Pinot
>Noirs and I'm wondering what wineries this group might recommend?
>
>I have travelled through Mendocino but have not had a chance to explore
>this area fully.
>
>best,
>BigCAWine
I just returned from Napa/Sonoma/Mendoncino and I had some of the
Pinot from Husch Vineyards - very tasty

wrote:
> Some friends have recently been raving about Anderson Valley Pinot
> Noirs and I'm wondering what wineries this group might recommend?
>
> I have travelled through Mendocino but have not had a chance to explore
> this area fully.

Two of my favorites from there are Navarro's Ancienne PN (available only
directly from winery) and Lazy Creek's PN. Of course, Roederer Estate's
sparkling wine is also made (in part) from PN ;-)

Mark Lipton

Call me a suspicious old bugger - but.....

If it smells like a stealth marketing campaign.....

Consider this!

OP was - a Google Groups search shows this person has
never EVER posted to *any* ng before - and just pops into AFW - OK nothing
totally unusual in that - but...

Within 26 minutes the next responder was - a
Google Groups search shows that this person also has never, EVER posted to
*any* ng (and certainly not AFW)

OK - maybe a huge coincidence - BUT

Both posters use identical posting agents (User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/1.5.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)

What would be the chances of that?

As I said, call me a suspicious old *******, BUT.....

What do you reckon Prof. Lipton? You are a much better sleuth than I in
these matters.

I would not be racing out to buy any Breggo Pinot on the basis of this
jumped up, bullshit campaign.

Then again, I am just a suspicious old *******!!!!!

--

st.helier

st.helier wrote:
> Call me a suspicious old bugger - but.....

Nah, you just have way too much time on your hands!

You are right!!! You are an old bugger.

And then people wonder why the AFW group has been underparticipated in and
others think its time to fold up shop.

For crying out loud, this person was not hurting you even if you are
correct. So let it alone. What is the big deal!


"st.helier" > wrote in message
...
> Call me a suspicious old bugger - but.....
>
> If it smells like a stealth marketing campaign.....
>
> Consider this!
>
> OP was - a Google Groups search shows this person
> has never EVER posted to *any* ng before - and just pops into AFW - OK
> nothing totally unusual in that - but...
>
> Within 26 minutes the next responder was - a
> Google Groups search shows that this person also has never, EVER posted to
> *any* ng (and certainly not AFW)
>
> OK - maybe a huge coincidence - BUT
>
> Both posters use identical posting agents (User-Agent: G2/0.2
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
> rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/1.5.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>
> What would be the chances of that?
>
> As I said, call me a suspicious old *******, BUT.....
>
> What do you reckon Prof. Lipton? You are a much better sleuth than I in
> these matters.
>
> I would not be racing out to buy any Breggo Pinot on the basis of this
> jumped up, bullshit campaign.
>
> Then again, I am just a suspicious old *******!!!!!
>
> --
>
> st.helier
>

> For crying out loud, this person was not hurting you even if you are
> correct. So let it alone. What is the big deal!

The big deal is that if it =is= stealth marketing, then that undermines
AFW (and the newsgroups) more than "underparticipation". And this does
hurt us.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

The big deal is the wine seller is trying to trick the readers of this
newsgroup. This kind of deception insults all of us. I suppose you welcome
spam?

"Richard Neidich" > wrote in message
.net...
> You are right!!! You are an old bugger.
>
> And then people wonder why the AFW group has been underparticipated in and
> others think its time to fold up shop.
>
> For crying out loud, this person was not hurting you even if you are
> correct. So let it alone. What is the big deal!
>
>
> "st.helier" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Call me a suspicious old bugger - but.....
>>
>> If it smells like a stealth marketing campaign.....
>>
>> Consider this!
>>
>> OP was - a Google Groups search shows this person
>> has never EVER posted to *any* ng before - and just pops into AFW - OK
>> nothing totally unusual in that - but...
>>
>> Within 26 minutes the next responder was - a
>> Google Groups search shows that this person also has never, EVER posted
>> to *any* ng (and certainly not AFW)
>>
>> OK - maybe a huge coincidence - BUT
>>
>> Both posters use identical posting agents (User-Agent: G2/0.2
>> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
>> rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/1.5.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>>
>> What would be the chances of that?
>>
>> As I said, call me a suspicious old *******, BUT.....
>>
>> What do you reckon Prof. Lipton? You are a much better sleuth than I in
>> these matters.
>>
>> I would not be racing out to buy any Breggo Pinot on the basis of this
>> jumped up, bullshit campaign.
>>
>> Then again, I am just a suspicious old *******!!!!!
>>
>> --
>>
>> st.helier
>>
>
>

st.helier wrote:
> Call me a suspicious old bugger - but.....
>
> If it smells like a stealth marketing campaign.....
>
> Consider this!
>
> OP was - a Google Groups search shows this person has
> never EVER posted to *any* ng before - and just pops into AFW - OK nothing
> totally unusual in that - but...
>
> Within 26 minutes the next responder was - a
> Google Groups search shows that this person also has never, EVER posted to
> *any* ng (and certainly not AFW)
>
> OK - maybe a huge coincidence - BUT
>
> Both posters use identical posting agents (User-Agent: G2/0.2
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
> rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/1.5.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>
> What would be the chances of that?
>
> As I said, call me a suspicious old *******, BUT.....
>
> What do you reckon Prof. Lipton? You are a much better sleuth than I in
> these matters.

False alarm, milud, although the coincidences are striking: both
sbcglobal ADSL users, using Mozilla Firefox on WinNT 5.1 and posting
through Google Groups. However, one is in SF and the other in Plano, TX
and they have subtly different versions of their software, so I'm
willing to chalk it all up to coincidence. Moreover, there is no
correspondence to Breggo's IP or that of the website given in the link.

So, there's no reason to think that this is anything other than what it
appears to be. I think that we're all a bit leery now of first-time
posters coming through Google Groups, which seems to be the principal
spam portal on Usenet these days.

HTH
Mark Lipton

Sorry, but I don't get it.

A few years back Dave from liquorama.net made some posts here. Even offered
to ship our group at no charge on cases.

He was a good source for aquiring some of those hard to find wines that
don't appear here on east coast. I personally was happy he came to this
group.

Still am.

If its about wine and not sex, sex preference, or other stuff its find with
me!



"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>> For crying out loud, this person was not hurting you even if you are
>> correct. So let it alone. What is the big deal!
>
> The big deal is that if it =is= stealth marketing, then that undermines
> AFW (and the newsgroups) more than "underparticipation". And this does
> hurt us.
>
> Jose
> --
> The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Sorry to cause any commotion... I have actually been lurking the
alt.food.wine board for a little while and just decided to post. There
are so few decent chat boards out there discussing wine-- esp. CA wine.


Mark-- thanks for the Navarro & Lazy Creek recs. I've had some stuff
from Navarro before, I don't believe it was the Ancienne (sp?) and it
was nicely balanced, decent.

-BigCAWine

> A few years back Dave from liquorama.net made some posts here. Even offered
> to ship our group at no charge on cases....

> Sorry, but I don't get it.

Did liquorama do =stealth= marketing ("Hi, I'm new here, and I just
found this great site..." which turns out to be his own), or did he step
up honestly from the start ("I'm a wine store, and I see we have some
Cab Franc fans here...")

There's a difference.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Honest from the start.

That said others here chased them away.

So stealth or honest is not the factor here.



"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>> A few years back Dave from liquorama.net made some posts here. Even
>> offered to ship our group at no charge on cases....
>
>> Sorry, but I don't get it.
>
> Did liquorama do =stealth= marketing ("Hi, I'm new here, and I just found
> this great site..." which turns out to be his own), or did he step up
> honestly from the start ("I'm a wine store, and I see we have some Cab
> Franc fans here...")
>
> There's a difference.
>
> Jose
> --
> The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Richard Neidich wrote:
> Honest from the start.
>
> That said others here chased them away.
>
> So stealth or honest is not the factor here.

Bullshit, Dick. Shame on you for slanting events in such a malicious
way! Care to post those messages in which Dave was "chased away"? He
posted here as recently as 2004 and received nothing but a very
courteous and thoughtful response from Dale. As far as I can tell, all
that ever happened to him was that he was warned by email about
commercial posts to this group, he publicly apologized and behaved
admirably thereafter and only once (out of 32 posts) got chided for
promoting his own site. You've really had a bee in you bonnet this week
about the hostility of this group, haven't you? Do you have some agenda
that I can't see? Or are you still fighting battles with St. H., Ian
and Michael from years past?

Mark Lipton

> Honest from the start.
> That said others here chased them away.
> So stealth or honest is not the factor here.

So then, the two are different animals. It makes sense to allow one and
not the other. That said, newsgroups should not become another
advertising venue, stealth or not. Posters who post solely (or
primarily) for commercial gain should be discouraged. Posters who post
primarily to share experiences and the like should be encouraged, though
they may have commercial gain.

It's a fuzzy line, I'll admit. But stealth marketing is definately on
the far side of that line, and it's all too common. Perhaps it's just a
coincidence (they happen), but one should be on the lookout.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

No Mark. My post was honest and I stand by it.

Why do we have to tell people they don't belong if they are talking about
wine and their post is about wine.

Hell, if Robert Parker posted here you would probably call it spam?

I do take issue and if you look back I took issue when other were upset with
a person named Richard that posted for Laquiole Cork openers and Ian had a
fit. When Dave posted it were perceived as a spam.

I do not consider a posting in a wine group that is about wine to be spam.
If someone posted Quilting here I think that would be spam.

No agenda here. But I really am surprised that you are responding to me
cause I thought I will kill filed by you a long time ago. Perhaps you
should do if my posts so bother you.


"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Neidich wrote:
>> Honest from the start.
>>
>> That said others here chased them away.
>>
>> So stealth or honest is not the factor here.
>
> Bullshit, Dick. Shame on you for slanting events in such a malicious
> way! Care to post those messages in which Dave was "chased away"? He
> posted here as recently as 2004 and received nothing but a very
> courteous and thoughtful response from Dale. As far as I can tell, all
> that ever happened to him was that he was warned by email about
> commercial posts to this group, he publicly apologized and behaved
> admirably thereafter and only once (out of 32 posts) got chided for
> promoting his own site. You've really had a bee in you bonnet this week
> about the hostility of this group, haven't you? Do you have some agenda
> that I can't see? Or are you still fighting battles with St. H., Ian
> and Michael from years past?
>
> Mark Lipton

Jose,
Respectfully I don't understand who gets to make the rules on this type of
stuff. These are not moderated groups and the posters theefore create order
or chaos.

But I have never been offended to have someone tell me something about wine
in a newsgroup. Stealth or not.

I stand by my statements I made that M. Lipton objects to. Objection noted.
Below is one example of a posting that was made when Dave at Liquorama.net
states he cannot answer a question about wine.com because and I quote:
"Sorry I can't answer that question, or the group will berate me again"

I think if you ask some that have been here and left its because a group
thinks that this is their group and only welcome others if they bow to them.
If that is an agenda as Mark calls it fine....I would simply call it an
observation.

My personal feeling is if they post about wine tasting, wine, wine dinners,
vintages they sell it or sell accessories fine...let them post....read what
you want, don't read what you don't want.

I really don't know the usenet purpose but I assume a non commercial posting
means no DIRECT advertising. Stating that the product is available at a
shop I run, work at etc is no big deal.

And NO, I am not in the wine business at all.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...1 58165e9a856


From: LIQUORAMA.NET - view profile
Date: Sat, Apr 28 2001 1:18 am
Email:
Groups: alt.food.wine
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message |
Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


Sorry I can't answer that question, or the group will berate me again

Dave
www.Liquorama.net


On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:14:03 GMT, "Alexander" >
wrote:



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

>What were your experiences with them?

>Alexander



Reply













"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> Honest from the start.
>> That said others here chased them away.
>> So stealth or honest is not the factor here.
>
> So then, the two are different animals. It makes sense to allow one and
> not the other. That said, newsgroups should not become another
> advertising venue, stealth or not. Posters who post solely (or
> primarily) for commercial gain should be discouraged. Posters who post
> primarily to share experiences and the like should be encouraged, though
> they may have commercial gain.
>
> It's a fuzzy line, I'll admit. But stealth marketing is definately on
> the far side of that line, and it's all too common. Perhaps it's just a
> coincidence (they happen), but one should be on the lookout.
>
> Jose
> --
> The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> Respectfully I don't understand who gets to make the rules on this type of
> stuff. These are not moderated groups and the posters theefore create order
> or chaos.

We all do, in the sum of what we post, what we allow, what we object to,
how we defend our objections...

> I really don't know the usenet purpose but I assume a non commercial posting
> means no DIRECT advertising.

It is my opinion that postings whose =primary= purpose is to increase
sales would count as a commercial posting, and should be discouraged.
Postings whose =primary= purpose is to discuss wine and help people out
in their enjoyment of wine should be encouraged, even if it involves
commercial gain.

Postings which depend on deceit to enrich the poster should be discouraged.

All IMHO, of course.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose > wrote in
. net:

>> Respectfully I don't understand who gets to make the rules on this
>> type of stuff. These are not moderated groups and the posters
>> theefore create order or chaos.
>
> We all do, in the sum of what we post, what we allow, what we object
> to, how we defend our objections...
>
>> I really don't know the usenet purpose but I assume a non commercial
>> posting means no DIRECT advertising.
>
> It is my opinion that postings whose =primary= purpose is to increase
> sales would count as a commercial posting, and should be discouraged.
> Postings whose =primary= purpose is to discuss wine and help people
> out in their enjoyment of wine should be encouraged, even if it
> involves commercial gain.
>
> Postings which depend on deceit to enrich the poster should be
> discouraged.
>
> All IMHO, of course.
>

Not just your MHO

Why should I patronize someone who *lies*? Stealth marketers, like all
other spammers, are lying.

Rule #1: Spammers lie.

Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth, see Rule #1.

http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/lofi....php/t930.html

I respect your opinion and the right to have it.

But what I don't get is how a non moderated group has a heirarchy that seems
to know what is best for the group and what should or should not be posted.

I read these about usenet.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/

It clearly states that "advertising is frowned upon" I get that.

What I don't get then is why some sign in and their signature has the place
of business. Isn't that indirect advertising.

When we mention wine names by brand that we are trying, technically isn't
that a form or indirect advertising/PR for the winery or producer.

Discussions on hotels in Napa....aren't we indirectly advertising.

I know this might appear argumentative but tell me this...if Johns Wine and
Spirits of Indianapolos were to post here that he 6 bottles of a rare hard
to find wine at a GREAT PRICE, and you were looking for it...why is it wrong
for him to inform you that he has what you are looking for.

Sorry, I don't fully understand this part. I think if its about
wine----even if a poster profits from it monetarily or simply ego
only....its OK.

Everyone posts here for a reason. I profited years ago from this group
years ago before it adapted such a mean spirited following. My profit was
knowledge. It used to be a very good group. Today a new poster comes in
and the first thing St. Hellier does is accuse them of being a commercial
(spam) posting basically. Why? Was there a reason for that? Is that kind
of reasoning justified and do we want to be so intollerant that we start
allienating others on their first posting?

Sorry. I do not understand this.





"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>> Respectfully I don't understand who gets to make the rules on this type
>> of stuff. These are not moderated groups and the posters theefore create
>> order or chaos.
>
> We all do, in the sum of what we post, what we allow, what we object to,
> how we defend our objections...
>
>> I really don't know the usenet purpose but I assume a non commercial
>> posting means no DIRECT advertising.
>
> It is my opinion that postings whose =primary= purpose is to increase
> sales would count as a commercial posting, and should be discouraged.
> Postings whose =primary= purpose is to discuss wine and help people out in
> their enjoyment of wine should be encouraged, even if it involves
> commercial gain.
>
> Postings which depend on deceit to enrich the poster should be
> discouraged.
>
> All IMHO, of course.
>
> Jose
> --
> The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

But what if no one was lying. It turns out according to M. Lipton who did
research that the poster in quesiton was not lying.

So guilty until proven innocent?



"enoavidh" > wrote in message
0...
> Jose > wrote in
> . net:
>
>>> Respectfully I don't understand who gets to make the rules on this
>>> type of stuff. These are not moderated groups and the posters
>>> theefore create order or chaos.
>>
>> We all do, in the sum of what we post, what we allow, what we object
>> to, how we defend our objections...
>>
>>> I really don't know the usenet purpose but I assume a non commercial
>>> posting means no DIRECT advertising.
>>
>> It is my opinion that postings whose =primary= purpose is to increase
>> sales would count as a commercial posting, and should be discouraged.
>> Postings whose =primary= purpose is to discuss wine and help people
>> out in their enjoyment of wine should be encouraged, even if it
>> involves commercial gain.
>>
>> Postings which depend on deceit to enrich the poster should be
>> discouraged.
>>
>> All IMHO, of course.
>>
>
> Not just your MHO
>
> Why should I patronize someone who *lies*? Stealth marketers, like all
> other spammers, are lying.
>
> Rule #1: Spammers lie.
>
> Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth, see Rule #1.
>
> http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/lofi....php/t930.html
>
>

> But what I don't get is how a non moderated group has a heirarchy that seems
> to know what is best

It doesn't. There's no heirarchy here, and I'm not posting as a member
of any heirarchy.

> What I don't get then is why some sign in and their signature has the place
> of business. Isn't that indirect advertising.

I suppose. Now "fronwed upon" doesn't mean "prohibited"; it's grey.
Best rule of thumb I've come up with is the "primary purpose" test. In
general, the primary purpose of a post isn't to put the sig in front of
people's eyeballs. (and yes, if the sig is a huge ad and the post is
teeny, it fails the primary purpose test)

> When we mention wine names by brand that we are trying...
> Discussions on hotels in Napa....
> aren't we indirectly advertising.

No, because the primary purpose of these things isn't to sell stuff for
the poster's benefit.

> if Johns Wine and
> Spirits of Indianapolos were to post here that he 6 bottles of a rare hard
> to find wine at a GREAT PRICE, and you were looking for it...why is it wrong
> for him to inform you that he has what you are looking for.

Maybe, and maybe not. It depends on whether this is indeed a rare event
(and thus, the primary purpose is to benefit the members of this group),
or whether this is like the "going out of business" sales that oriental
rug makers have every week, and thus the primary purpose is to milk the
group for customers.

> Today a new poster comes in
> and the first thing St. Hellier does is
> accuse them of being a commercial
> (spam) posting basically.

I can't speak for him, but stealth marketing has become much more
prevalent in recent years. This makes people much more sensitive to "I
just found a great website - click here" posts, and "what do you think
of this website? - click here" posts. Some of us have just seen too
much of this.

Are we now overly sensitive? Maybe. But I suspect that's the reasoning.

> But what if no one was lying. It turns out according to M. Lipton who did
> research that the poster in quesiton was not lying.
>
> So guilty until proven innocent?

No, suspect if it looks suspicious, until shown innocent. Even the OP
said it might be a coincidence, and asked for further ideas.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Richard Neidich wrote:
> No Mark. My post was honest and I stand by it.
>
> Why do we have to tell people they don't belong if they are talking about
> wine and their post is about wine.
>
> Hell, if Robert Parker posted here you would probably call it spam?

Hell, yes! He's not welcome here!

>
> I do take issue and if you look back I took issue when other were upset with
> a person named Richard that posted for Laquiole Cork openers and Ian had a
> fit. When Dave posted it were perceived as a spam.
>
> I do not consider a posting in a wine group that is about wine to be spam.
> If someone posted Quilting here I think that would be spam.
>
> No agenda here. But I really am surprised that you are responding to me
> cause I thought I will kill filed by you a long time ago. Perhaps you
> should do if my posts so bother you.
>
>
> "Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Richard Neidich wrote:
> >> Honest from the start.
> >>
> >> That said others here chased them away.
> >>
> >> So stealth or honest is not the factor here.
> >
> > Bullshit, Dick. Shame on you for slanting events in such a malicious
> > way! Care to post those messages in which Dave was "chased away"? He
> > posted here as recently as 2004 and received nothing but a very
> > courteous and thoughtful response from Dale. As far as I can tell, all
> > that ever happened to him was that he was warned by email about
> > commercial posts to this group, he publicly apologized and behaved
> > admirably thereafter and only once (out of 32 posts) got chided for
> > promoting his own site. You've really had a bee in you bonnet this week
> > about the hostility of this group, haven't you? Do you have some agenda
> > that I can't see? Or are you still fighting battles with St. H., Ian
> > and Michael from years past?
> >
> > Mark Lipton

Thanks for the exchange on ideas.

I have absolutely no issue with posters commercial or not. I assume that is
what killfile or block sender is for.

I think this group spends to much time trying to criticize the motive of a
poster. If the poster actually turns out to be stealth and lying...you can
get them then. I beleive you wait and don't be overly suspicious until you
have a reason to be.

Otherwise people will get turned off by posting here. I would rather see
100 spammers stay...than 1-2 prospective contributors leave out of wrongful
statements.

That my opinion. But then I am not sensitive to this issue.


"Jose" > wrote in message
news
>> But what I don't get is how a non moderated group has a heirarchy that
>> seems to know what is best
>
> It doesn't. There's no heirarchy here, and I'm not posting as a member of
> any heirarchy.
>
>> What I don't get then is why some sign in and their signature has the
>> place of business. Isn't that indirect advertising.
>
> I suppose. Now "fronwed upon" doesn't mean "prohibited"; it's grey. Best
> rule of thumb I've come up with is the "primary purpose" test. In
> general, the primary purpose of a post isn't to put the sig in front of
> people's eyeballs. (and yes, if the sig is a huge ad and the post is
> teeny, it fails the primary purpose test)
>
>> When we mention wine names by brand that we are trying...
>> Discussions on hotels in Napa....
>> aren't we indirectly advertising.
>
> No, because the primary purpose of these things isn't to sell stuff for
> the poster's benefit.
>
>> if Johns Wine and Spirits of Indianapolos were to post here that he 6
>> bottles of a rare hard to find wine at a GREAT PRICE, and you were
>> looking for it...why is it wrong for him to inform you that he has what
>> you are looking for.
>
> Maybe, and maybe not. It depends on whether this is indeed a rare event
> (and thus, the primary purpose is to benefit the members of this group),
> or whether this is like the "going out of business" sales that oriental
> rug makers have every week, and thus the primary purpose is to milk the
> group for customers.
>
>> Today a new poster comes in and the first thing St. Hellier does is
>> accuse them of being a commercial (spam) posting basically.
>
> I can't speak for him, but stealth marketing has become much more
> prevalent in recent years. This makes people much more sensitive to "I
> just found a great website - click here" posts, and "what do you think of
> this website? - click here" posts. Some of us have just seen too much of
> this.
>
> Are we now overly sensitive? Maybe. But I suspect that's the reasoning.
>
>> But what if no one was lying. It turns out according to M. Lipton who
>> did research that the poster in quesiton was not lying.
>>
>> So guilty until proven innocent?
>
> No, suspect if it looks suspicious, until shown innocent. Even the OP
> said it might be a coincidence, and asked for further ideas.
>
> Jose
> --
> The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Thanks for your clarification. :-)

I know how you fell about these critics.


"UC" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Richard Neidich wrote:
>> No Mark. My post was honest and I stand by it.
>>
>> Why do we have to tell people they don't belong if they are talking about
>> wine and their post is about wine.
>>
>> Hell, if Robert Parker posted here you would probably call it spam?
>
> Hell, yes! He's not welcome here!
>
>>
>> I do take issue and if you look back I took issue when other were upset
>> with
>> a person named Richard that posted for Laquiole Cork openers and Ian had
>> a
>> fit. When Dave posted it were perceived as a spam.
>>
>> I do not consider a posting in a wine group that is about wine to be
>> spam.
>> If someone posted Quilting here I think that would be spam.
>>
>> No agenda here. But I really am surprised that you are responding to me
>> cause I thought I will kill filed by you a long time ago. Perhaps you
>> should do if my posts so bother you.
>>
>>
>> "Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Richard Neidich wrote:
>> >> Honest from the start.
>> >>
>> >> That said others here chased them away.
>> >>
>> >> So stealth or honest is not the factor here.
>> >
>> > Bullshit, Dick. Shame on you for slanting events in such a malicious
>> > way! Care to post those messages in which Dave was "chased away"? He
>> > posted here as recently as 2004 and received nothing but a very
>> > courteous and thoughtful response from Dale. As far as I can tell, all
>> > that ever happened to him was that he was warned by email about
>> > commercial posts to this group, he publicly apologized and behaved
>> > admirably thereafter and only once (out of 32 posts) got chided for
>> > promoting his own site. You've really had a bee in you bonnet this week
>> > about the hostility of this group, haven't you? Do you have some
>> > agenda
>> > that I can't see? Or are you still fighting battles with St. H., Ian
>> > and Michael from years past?
>> >
>> > Mark Lipton
>

Richard Neidich wrote:
> No Mark. My post was honest and I stand by it.

So do I with mine.
>
> Why do we have to tell people they don't belong if they are talking about
> wine and their post is about wine.

Post an example where that happened. Google groups has a fairly
complete archive of this group. Give me some examples or stop talking
about it.

>
> Hell, if Robert Parker posted here you would probably call it spam?

Why? The only time I've called something spam is when someone shills a
product on this newsgroup. I've never complained about anything placed
in a signature, nor did I ever take issue with Dave of Liquorama. So
why are you making accusations against me, huh?

>
> I do take issue and if you look back I took issue when other were upset with
> a person named Richard that posted for Laquiole Cork openers and Ian had a
> fit. When Dave posted it were perceived as a spam.

You mean this exchange?

------ begin cut & paste -------

Yawn, spam again!

le Sat, 16 Feb 2002 20:28:50 +0100, tu disais:-

>Special Offer with high discount for the French Laguiole Corkscrew made
with
>oak barrel :

I can see how you would stick a barrel on a corkscrew blade, I suppose that
one could understand why - in a world where excess is everything. But how
the hell do you get the corkscrew into your dining room and heft it up to
open the bottle with it?

Looks like you are drinking to much.

Enjoy whatever it is.

"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Neidich wrote:
>> No Mark. My post was honest and I stand by it.
>
> So do I with mine.
>>
>> Why do we have to tell people they don't belong if they are talking about
>> wine and their post is about wine.
>
> Post an example where that happened. Google groups has a fairly
> complete archive of this group. Give me some examples or stop talking
> about it.
>
>>
>> Hell, if Robert Parker posted here you would probably call it spam?
>
> Why? The only time I've called something spam is when someone shills a
> product on this newsgroup. I've never complained about anything placed
> in a signature, nor did I ever take issue with Dave of Liquorama. So
> why are you making accusations against me, huh?
>
>>
>> I do take issue and if you look back I took issue when other were upset
>> with
>> a person named Richard that posted for Laquiole Cork openers and Ian had
>> a
>> fit. When Dave posted it were perceived as a spam.
>
> You mean this exchange?
>
> ------ begin cut & paste -------
>
> Yawn, spam again!
>
> le Sat, 16 Feb 2002 20:28:50 +0100, tu disais:-
>
>>Special Offer with high discount for the French Laguiole Corkscrew made
> with
>>oak barrel :
>
> I can see how you would stick a barrel on a corkscrew blade, I suppose
> that
> one could understand why - in a world where excess is everything. But how
> the hell do you get the corkscrew into your dining room and heft it up to
> open the bottle with it?

In article et>,
"Richard Neidich" > wrote:

> I respect your opinion and the right to have it.
>
> But what I don't get is how a non moderated group has a heirarchy that seems
> to know what is best for the group and what should or should not be posted.
>
> I read these about usenet.
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/
>
> It clearly states that "advertising is frowned upon" I get that.
>
> What I don't get then is why some sign in and their signature has the place
> of business. Isn't that indirect advertising.
>
> When we mention wine names by brand that we are trying, technically isn't
> that a form or indirect advertising/PR for the winery or producer.
>
> Discussions on hotels in Napa....aren't we indirectly advertising.
>
> I know this might appear argumentative but tell me this...if Johns Wine and
> Spirits of Indianapolos were to post here that he 6 bottles of a rare hard
> to find wine at a GREAT PRICE, and you were looking for it...why is it wrong
> for him to inform you that he has what you are looking for.
>
> Sorry, I don't fully understand this part. I think if its about
> wine----even if a poster profits from it monetarily or simply ego
> only....its OK.
>
> Everyone posts here for a reason. I profited years ago from this group
> years ago before it adapted such a mean spirited following. My profit was
> knowledge. It used to be a very good group. Today a new poster comes in
> and the first thing St. Hellier does is accuse them of being a commercial
> (spam) posting basically. Why? Was there a reason for that? Is that kind
> of reasoning justified and do we want to be so intollerant that we start
> allienating others on their first posting?
>
> Sorry. I do not understand this.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> . net...
> >> Respectfully I don't understand who gets to make the rules on this type
> >> of stuff. These are not moderated groups and the posters theefore create
> >> order or chaos.
> >
> > We all do, in the sum of what we post, what we allow, what we object to,
> > how we defend our objections...
> >
> >> I really don't know the usenet purpose but I assume a non commercial
> >> posting means no DIRECT advertising.
> >
> > It is my opinion that postings whose =primary= purpose is to increase
> > sales would count as a commercial posting, and should be discouraged.
> > Postings whose =primary= purpose is to discuss wine and help people out in
> > their enjoyment of wine should be encouraged, even if it involves
> > commercial gain.
> >
> > Postings which depend on deceit to enrich the poster should be
> > discouraged.
> >
> > All IMHO, of course.
> >
> > Jose
> > --
> > The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
> > for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Since we don't own the hotels or work for the wineries that is
different. I don't mind someone from a store offering suggestions or
wine tasting notes or almost anything until they start talking about
their shipping positions or what their store carries. Then that becomes
advertising. The fellow who ran Gan Eden winery used to post all of the
time and it was almost always about his fellow wineries. I really miss
seeing his posts as much as I miss his wines but he never tried to sell
Gan Eden wines to anyone on the group either up front or stealth.

Richard Neidich wrote:
> Looks like you are drinking to much.
>
> Enjoy whatever it is.

Thanks for the substantive response, Dick. When you can't argue the
facts, attack the character of your opponent.

Mark Lipton

p.s. I never killfiled you, or even threatened to do so. That was yet
another unsubstantiated claim of yours. After these unwarranted attacks
on my character and those of other posters to this group, I'll think
twice about reading any more of your messages, though.

I like some of the Husch Pinots - and it's a great winery to visit



> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Some friends have recently been raving about Anderson Valley Pinot
> Noirs and I'm wondering what wineries this group might recommend?
>
> I have travelled through Mendocino but have not had a chance to explore
> this area fully.
>
> best,
> BigCAWine
>

I can argue the facts. But your argument is not worth continuing. I have
provided examples in this thread on the subject matter. Others could do the
google search I am talking about. But below you can see the threads from
google as I have provided the links for you.

It really is not disputable that our anti-spam and anti-commecial posts
drive off people...but also contributors at times.

But if you insist on a few examples...here are some that I have concern with
starting with todays. It is posts like this, premature post, or should we
in a time of war call them preemptive strikes make people or new people feel
welcome? At bottom of this one are lnks to others. Now please feel free to
kill file me.

st.helier" > wrote in message
>...
> Call me a suspicious old bugger - but.....

>

> If it smells like a stealth marketing campaign.....

>

> Consider this!

>

> OP was - a Google Groups search shows this person has

> never EVER posted to *any* ng before - and just pops into AFW - OK nothing

> totally unusual in that - but...

>

> Within 26 minutes the next responder was - a

> Google Groups search shows that this person also has never, EVER posted to

> *any* ng (and certainly not AFW)

>

> OK - maybe a huge coincidence - BUT

>

> Both posters use identical posting agents (User-Agent: G2/0.2

> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;

> rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/1.5.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)

>

> What would be the chances of that?

>

> As I said, call me a suspicious old *******, BUT.....

>

> What do you reckon Prof. Lipton? You are a much better sleuth than I in

> these matters.



or any of these:

#2 from this link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...1 58165e9a856

#16 from this link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...75 18d89860e8

After being attacked for openly announcing his business he responds with
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...9 3d33ee4055b

and more
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...6 812c7fae513














"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Neidich wrote:
>> Looks like you are drinking to much.
>>
>> Enjoy whatever it is.
>
> Thanks for the substantive response, Dick. When you can't argue the
> facts, attack the character of your opponent.
>
> Mark Lipton
>
> p.s. I never killfiled you, or even threatened to do so. That was yet
> another unsubstantiated claim of yours. After these unwarranted attacks
> on my character and those of other posters to this group, I'll think
> twice about reading any more of your messages, though.

"Lawrence Leichtman" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> et>,
> "Richard Neidich" > wrote:
>
> Since we don't own the hotels or work for the wineries that is
> different. I don't mind someone from a store offering
> suggestions or
> wine tasting notes or almost anything until they start talking
> about
> their shipping positions or what their store carries. Then
> that becomes
> advertising. The fellow who ran Gan Eden winery used to post
> all of the
> time and it was almost always about his fellow wineries. I
> really miss
> seeing his posts as much as I miss his wines but he never
> tried to sell
> Gan Eden wines to anyone on the group either up front or
> stealth.

Yes, I found his posts very informative and civilized and I
regret that he is no longer posting. Even if I don't see any
need for me to drink Kosher wine, it was interesting to find out
what the rules were. His posting of his attribution did give an
authoritative feel that was useful because I seen more than one
definition.



--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Richard Neidich wrote:

OK, Dick, now we're getting somewhere. I agree with you about today's
exchange: it was premature to sling that accusation and I did my best to
set the record straight, as you noted.

> #2 from this link:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...1 58165e9a856
>
> #16 from this link:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...75 18d89860e8
>
> After being attacked for openly announcing his business he responds with
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...9 3d33ee4055b
>
> and more
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...6 812c7fae513

And those links support what I stated today in:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...5f02c1f95fdb28

He was apparently warned by email about commercial posts, publicly
apologized here and basically posted unmolested thereafter. Dimitri G
did once fling the spam accusation, but Dave continued posting here for
another 2 years. Does that sound like someone chased away? In your
first link, he says that he won't for fear of being berated, but that
could be ironic humor or hyperbole -- I can't tell from what's written.
What I can tell is that he wasn't ever berated in alt.food.wine aside
from the sniping by Dimitri that one time and that bizarre post about porn.

Mark Lipton

There were indeed more posts than appeared in google. Some must have been
removed or never posted. I had some defending Daves right to post that I
could not locate back in 2001.

I actually suggested aside to Dave that he continue posting in a private
email. Also, I ordered from him some items not available in NC.

He gave outstanding service at outstanding prices. I still order from him
for holiday gifts every year.

Next, my memory tells me there were many other negative posts from others I
will leave unnamed so it does not appear to have a motive. Your other
allegation.

Mark, I have been on this group almost from the beginning and only in the
past 5-6 years has it become as negative and unwelcoming as it has become in
recent months. While I had my outburst in 2002 that I take full credit for
this group had already turned for the worse from some major contributors
other than me.

But I stand by my comments...we can wait and let someone expose themselves
fully and ignore anything that appears to be preemptive. It is rediculous
to play the gotya game here.


"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Neidich wrote:
>
> OK, Dick, now we're getting somewhere. I agree with you about today's
> exchange: it was premature to sling that accusation and I did my best to
> set the record straight, as you noted.
>
>> #2 from this link:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...1 58165e9a856
>>
>> #16 from this link:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...75 18d89860e8
>>
>> After being attacked for openly announcing his business he responds with
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...9 3d33ee4055b
>>
>> and more
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...6 812c7fae513
>
> And those links support what I stated today in:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...5f02c1f95fdb28
>
> He was apparently warned by email about commercial posts, publicly
> apologized here and basically posted unmolested thereafter. Dimitri G
> did once fling the spam accusation, but Dave continued posting here for
> another 2 years. Does that sound like someone chased away? In your
> first link, he says that he won't for fear of being berated, but that
> could be ironic humor or hyperbole -- I can't tell from what's written.
> What I can tell is that he wasn't ever berated in alt.food.wine aside
> from the sniping by Dimitri that one time and that bizarre post about
> porn.
>
> Mark Lipton

Richard Neidich wrote:
> There were indeed more posts than appeared in google. Some must have been
> removed or never posted. I had some defending Daves right to post that I
> could not locate back in 2001.

Dick,
It's entirely possible that someone removed their posts, or even
posted with X-No-Archive. One way of checking that is to use
Microsoft's Usenet archive: http://netscan.research.microsoft.com who
AFAIK don't remove anything. If you're motivated enough, check there.

>
> I actually suggested aside to Dave that he continue posting in a private
> email. Also, I ordered from him some items not available in NC.

I remember that you had good service from them. As I said earlier, he
was posting here as late at 2004, so he must have taken your advice ;-)

> Mark, I have been on this group almost from the beginning and only in the
> past 5-6 years has it become as negative and unwelcoming as it has become in
> recent months. While I had my outburst in 2002 that I take full credit for
> this group had already turned for the worse from some major contributors
> other than me.

I've heard a similar complaint from Bill Loftin (who I also urged to
continue posting here). Yes, there are some "spirited" arguments that
may deter some from posting here, but you know as well as I do, Dick,
that it takes a fairly thick skin to survive on Usenet. You've got one,
and so do I. From my 7 years here, I'd say that a lot of the people who
actively depart this group do so because they've taken offense at
someone else's post. In some cases, it's pretty clear that the person
is oversensitive; in other cases, it's more a matter of an abrasive post
and a sensitive person. AFAIC, that'll happen in any medium where we
have to infuse the written word with emotional nuance. YMMV, of course.
As for the changing spirit of the group, I can't argue with your
perception. I've met quite a few of the regular posters in person, and
I can attest to the fact that they are, without exception, genial and
generous in person and good company.

>
> But I stand by my comments...we can wait and let someone expose themselves
> fully and ignore anything that appears to be preemptive. It is rediculous
> to play the gotya game here.

Well, I feel pretty strongly that spam and stealth marketing have to be
actively combatted. There are so many Usenet newsgroups that are
veritable wastelands of spam. I don't want to see this group go that
direction. For my part, I try never to fling an accusation that I can't
back up with fact, but I will be somewhat aggressive once I identify a
spammer. As I stated earlier, I don't see anything wrong with a URL in
a signature and even mentioning one's business as long as it doesn't
descend to blatant promotion of one's business.

Mark Lipton

enoavidh wrote:

> Why should I patronize someone who *lies*? Stealth marketers, like all
> other spammers, are lying.

Excellent point, De. Good to see you around these parts, BTW.

Mark Lipton