Parker attacks free speech
J Paschel
"DOGHEAD" <DOG...@prodigy.net> writes:
>I have done this as an attachment, only because my net skills - years down
>the line - are still so rudimentary. Read on. It's long, but it'll make
>your hair stand up.
For better or worse, here is what you <DOG...@prodigy.net> were posting
once it was uudecoded.
*Note* I offer this merely as a service and not as an endorsement one way
or the other on whatever matters may transpire as a result
Begin translation:
"DOGHEAD" <DOG...@prodigy.net> writes:
I hate to return Robert Parker's name to a subject line in this newsgroup.
I extend my apologies to all. This is a matter of some interest, in many
respects. A letter I received by hand recently at my place of employment
- a prominent NY wine retailer - bears witness to Parker's
thin-skinnedness and inability to endure criticism in a fashion that
surpasses all his previous megalomaniacal thrashings.
Some of you may have seen my somewhat inflammatory post on the new edition
of Parker's Rhone book. In it I reported on reading set of tasting notes
on Grand Tinel Chateauneuf-du-Pape - my reasons for picking that estate
being that their most recent relea se (at that point, the 1994 - 1995
should be in soon) is the product of a new cellar regimen (including the
use of new wood in the aging of the wine) and that this has been a fairly
reliable value-pick of Parker's over the years. Simply, I wanted to see
whether he had caught the change; this is the sort of spot-check I often
do with new volumes of tasting notes.
Of course, he hadn't caught the change. He goes so far as to say in his
note on the 1994 the wine is always more or less the same - very reliable,
full, blah-blah fruit, peanuts ... the stuff he usually says about Grand
Tinel. I don't have the text in f ront of me, but give it a look if you
have it handy. The question then was, in this post, how can that be?
Could it be that he did what so many salespeople do with new vintages of
reliable wines - that he extrapolated from past experience and knowledge
of the vintage conditions? Who knows? One has to ask the question.
Maybe - this came up in a follow-up post - he tasted the wine quickly in a
big syndicate tasting and just missed it? Either way, how can that
happen? How can a basic character change be missed by one of the Rhone's
great experts?
This isn't so important, in the greater scheme of things. My view,
captured by the rhetorical question with which I finished the initial
post, is that Parker sometimes seems to be on autopilot - that he tastes
too much and sometimes not attentively enoug h and that we wind up getting
Parker's general views sometimes in place of specific ones. So what? He
misses something like this now and then, but that's to be expected when a
critic takes it as his mission to publish more tasting notes than anyone
else .
Not taking this too seriously and having gone through the possibilities (I
take it to be POSSIBLE the guy didn't taste that wine, just as I take it
to be POSSIBLE that he did and still wrote a rote tasting note based on
past experience) at length with Fos ter and Squires and having purposely -
knowing Parker - framed the thing in terms of asking readers to come to
their own conclusions about the issue, imagine my surprise when a
messenger showed up at my store from Simon & Schuster. My manager was
informe d that this messenger bears a letter from Robert Parker's
attorney, Emily Remes, Senior Counsel at Simon & Schuster. It reads in
its entirety as follows:
> >
Simon & Schuster is the publisher of Robert M. Parker's books about
wines. Your recent posting on Alt.Food.Wine concerning Mr. Parker has
come to our attention. In that posting, you report on your purported
"test" of the wine ratings by Mr. Parker fo r the above work and state
that "the point is to check to see whether there is actual tasting being
reported on in the book, or whether completeness is being feigned." You
note that your "confidence was shaken..." and clearly intend the reader to
conclud e that "Mr. Parker has published tasting notes on untasted wines
in the context of giving an overview of an estate."
We have discussed your posting with Mr. Parker and share his outrage at
your false assertion that Mr. Parker offers tasting notes on wines
including the 1994 Grand Tinel/Chateauneauf-du Pape that he has in fact
not tasted. Mr. Parker's tremendous success as a wine critic derives from
his ability to offer honest, meaningful, independent and uncensored
evaluations of wines based on tasting them. Your statements to the
contrary are false and defamatory, and are damaging to Mr. Parker in his
professi on and reflect unfavorably on his books, all of which we publish.
On behalf of Simon & Schuster and Mr. Parker, we demand that you take
the following initial steps: immediately delete the posting in question
and post a retraction, and identify to us in writing any other instance
where you have made the same or simila r assertions. Please confirm your
compliance with the foregoing immediately.
Mr. Parker and Simon & Schuster will consider such further action as
they deem appropriate. This letter is not a full statement of our claims
or our rights and remedies, all of which are expressly reserved. > >
Permit me to note that I was both quoted out of context and misquoted (the
final sentence contains a fabricated "quote") in the first paragraph.
Assume any mechanical errors in the text of the letter were present in the
original. Note that Ms. Remes fee ls it would be not only be defamatory
but false to claim Parker's wine ratings and/or tasting notes are not
meaningful AND honest AND independent, etc. God help all you
Parker-bashers out there once Emily gets wind of what you've been writing
over the ye ars. If you work in the wine trade she and Parker might try
to scare your boss into letting you go, and that'll just be the BEGINNING
of the remedies extracted from your sorry butts. THEN you'll have to read
his and Emily's prose.
While this appears to be the uninspired work-product of an attorney whose
heart isn't in the work, its intent is clear. This is old-fashioned
corporate bullying, done at the behest of a million-dollar critic who
can't take the kind of fare he dishes out.
Since when is a publisher entitled to remedies for grounded criticisms
made of their products? Robert Parker is a public figure dealing in
opinion. He is as open to criticism as anyone else. Should I retract my
post and comply with these groundless d emands? What do you think?
Keep in mind what's at issue here. Parker has slipped up a bit. Not so
generously, I have pointed this out in the context of an ongoing
discussion about his retreaded new book. The law doesn't require that I
be generous in my criticism, however. It on ly requires that I don't
libel him. Facing dissonance between text and taste, to ask questions
about how that may have arisen is only reasonable. I never concluded that
Parker didn't taste the Grand Tinel '94 and I didn't manifestly intend for
anyone el se to do so. I made no assertions in this regard at all. The
closest I came to that was to offer the opinion that you can't taste the
wine and not spot a difference. For all I know, as I said, Parker did
taste the wine. The tasting note doesn't reflec t a difference, but it
remains an open question as to why that's so. All I did in the initial
post and its follow-up was to raise the questions the tasting notes and
the wine demand.
I wouldn't know how to delete a post from a newsgroup if I wanted to do
it. And I don't. In fact, I'll copy the two relevant posts below so you
can review the record. And I'll post them over on rec.food.drink and a
free-speech newsgroup or two. Then I 'll format the thing for Prodigy's
wine board and then maybe I'll post it on AOL. Feel free to put a copy
this post on CIS.
This isn't the first time Parker has viciously attacked (or, by his own
standards, libeled) critics of his work or his wines - and lashed out at
good-natured sorts like me who once long ago had the temerity to disagree
with him. But how many of you have had Emily put on your tail?
I won't tolerate this sort of bullying. Will you? Do you want to get
letters from Emily the next time you wonder on a newsgroup where Parker
had his head buried while he was trashing your favorite producer?
Actually, the next time a guy comes into my store and listens to me tell
him about a wine and then says "did you actually taste this wine?" (how
many times have you wondered silently or out loud whether a salesperson at
any level of the trade has actually
tasted what he was spewing about?) I'm going to slap him with a slander
suit. We can get a chain of insane frivolous litigation going. You can
e-mail your views to Ms. Remes at emily...@prenhall.com.
Here are the offensive texts. (But are they libelous? They were
carefully constructed NOT to be.) Doesn't it seem silly to attack me
about something like this rather than letting the issue die? Don't they
realize I'm younger than Parker and that I can
spend years making ungenerous yet always-fair commentary on his work?
> > On the subject of the new book from Robert Parker on the Rhone, I
thought I would test the book in a way I sometimes test books of this
sort.
I remembered an atypical wine for a particular estate and checked the
notes in the book to see if this atypical wine was noted as such. The
point is to check to see whether there is actual tasting being reported on
in the book, or whether completeness is being feigned. Of course, such a
test isn't conclusive, and it would need repeating many times to support a
serious claim against a given text. What I would note, however, is that
this sort of review can undermine or reinforce confidence in a book. In
this case my confidence was shaken at the first example. Mr. Parker has
published ratings of vintages before tasting wines of the vintage; why not
publish tasting notes on untasted wines in the context of giving an
overview of an estate?
I submit this in-store test for people who have tasted the inexpensive
1994 Grand Tinel Chateauneuf-du-Pape. I'm not going to submit a tasting
note. It's for you to decide whether the wine tastes like the description
and to note differences from previous examples. It seems to me that this
wine is markedly different in style from previous vintages of Grand Tinel.
While it is a perfectly good wine and it merits recommendation for people
who like the style, I have to wonder how someone could publish a tasting
note that sounds exactly like all Parker's other tasting notes for
good-vintage Grand Tinels. It has the standard score, and even likens the
wine to previous vintages.
Do you ever get the feeling that sometimes reviewers are just going on
autopilot and that what they say reflects their previous views more than a
new experience of a wine? > > The quotes that begins the follow-up comes
from Foster, who for all his abrasiveness has been absolutely right
through the years about Parker's inhumanly thin skin (and his inability to
brook disagreement).
>
>
"Oh sure, Parker sits at the computer and makes it all up. Please come
down to earth and post something that might have an ounce of credibility.
You want to argue he missed a description on a wine? Fine- but this kind
of stuff just destroys your credibility and gives Parker ammunition when
talking about the absurdity his critics. What a load of hogwash!"
I hesitate to reply to Bob Foster, but this is just bad reading.
I don't suggest Parker tastes NOTHING - merely that he may leaven his
endless work with what he takes to be innocent stretchings of the truth.
That is, for estates and wines he isn't excited about but that are similar
from year to year, he MAY, in the context of giving a summary of what the
estate does, write a note without tasting - or remembering tasting - a
wine. That is, he's faced with his section on, say, Grand Tinel. He
knows Grand Tinel tastes more or less the same every decent year. He
takes into account the vintage and does a little tasting note saying what
it should taste like. Salespeople do this all the time. Maybe he DID
taste the wine and doesn't remember what he tasted when he sits down to
write the section.
But behold - Grand Tinel tastes quite DIFFERENT in '94 than it did any
year previously and there is no mention of this in the note. This isn't
just missing a quality judgment - the whole CHARACTER of the wine has
changed and he has missed it. You can't taste this wine and not spot a
difference.
Many people have said Parker wrote about estates in his Burgundy book with
which he had no personal experience. Everyone knows he grades vintages
for his charts before he tastes the wines. Is this bit so exciting or
surprising?
Does it matter if Parker actually tastes or remembers every single
Muscadet he gives 84-87 points? They all taste like "gin and tonic" and
they're all more or less the same quality with a little more or less fat
depending on the weather - so long as we're talking about his favorite
names. If he fudges a little who's to care?
I care. It seems to me completeness isn't everything and that it
shouldn't be pretended to when it's not supportable. I don't contest that
Parker does a tremendous amount of tasting - too much in fact. But maybe
he doesn't taste as much as we are led to believe - or he doesn't remember
as much of what he whips by as one might suppose.
This does indeed make me uncomfortable, especially given that this was the
FIRST wine I checked on - off the top of my head - when I opened the book.
I know I'm making no completely solid claims here. I'm just putting the
subject up for discussion. > > Maybe discussion is just too painful for
Bob Parker to endure.
Stuart Yaniger
Don't you think that Parker would have learned something from the
Bouchard incident? Since that time (when Bouchard sued Parker for
speculating on why he had a different impression of the wines here than
in France- speculating, mind you), I have refused to buy any Bouchard
wines. Honest criticism, which is what Parker did, ought not to be
subject to civil action as long as defamatory statements aren't
presented as fact. Bouchard was wrong to sue (and IMO, Parker was wrong
to cave in).
Mr. Parker is a public figure, and a damned rich and powerful one. His
attempt to stifle honest criticism is no better than what Bouchard did.
And the fact that Parker is a rich, powerful dude with lots of attorneys
and that Callahan is a semi-impoverished wine salesman makes this a case
of bullying and intimidation. No more and no less.
I've always had a deep respect for Parker. I have always liked the guy.
He's been very generous with me, and I've enjoyed discussing wine and
wine criticism with him. But this has left a very sour taste in my
mouth, to the point where I will never buy another book of his and I
will encourage anyone who will listen to boycott his magazines and
books.
This is just absolutely disgusting. I'm very, very disappointed.
DOGHEAD
I have done this as an attachment, only because my net skills - years down
the line - are still so rudimentary. Read on. It's long, but it'll make
your hair stand up.
begin 600 libelrep.txt
<uuencoded_portion_removed>
<=6P@9F]R($)O8B!087)K97(@=&\@96YD=7)E+FES
`
end
BFSON
RC-I still think your original post charged that Parker
wrote reviews on wines he hadn't tasted. That is the same reading
Simon and Schuster seem to have taken.
You now claim that what you really meant was that
he tasted the wine but mentally was on autopilot and
was influenced by what he expected based on previous
vinatges. That's a very different claim. Perhaps you're
about to learn a lesson about not making fact based charges
that you can't
prove. For example, it's a fact that in the Rhone book Parker
continually gets the spelling of brettanomyces wrong. Your note
claimed as fact something you can't prove. What
you did is to go too far-and they just called you on your gambit.
Parker is a public figure and they would have to show
actual malice on your part. But from your perspecitive
they can cost you thousands of bucks in legal fees
just to prove you didn't libel him. On the other hand you'd
have the chance to depose Parker under oath. Gee you could ask him
under oath about the Jadot firm and Hospices de Beaune auction
he has stated he attened as their guest. That might be fun (but
not worth the money a lawsuit will cost you.)
Congratulations. In all the years I've been critical
of Parker the most I've ever gotten was some of his
flaming E mail. I've never had a letter from his
publisher or his lawyer. Wow!
Bob Foster
Jason Walter Bold
In article <19970710065...@ladder01.news.aol.com> bf...@aol.com (BFSON) writes:
>RC-I still think your original post charged that Parker
>wrote reviews on wines he hadn't tasted. That is the same reading
>Simon and Schuster seem to have taken.
I think this whole thing is ridiculous. Even if he did say that in a post,
who gives a damn? Saying something like "He was so far off in his notes
that I don't even think he tasted the damn wine" certainly doesn't
constitute libel or slander. Saying something like "I know for a fact
that Parker doesn't even taste some of the wines he reviews" is a bit
different, given that you have no proof of your allegations.
But for the purposes of this newsgroup, who gives a damn! Maybe Parker
shouldn't even read this newsgroup - there's a lot of things said about
a lot of people on the internet - check out some of the comments about
Neil Young's guitar playing on rec.music.makers right now. They are
FAR more inflammatory than anything said here.
I don't think libel and slander are good things, but Parker is an asshole
to actually bring a lawsuit against someone for a post here.
--
Jason - bo...@cae.wisc.edu
Of course I always think my opinion is right! If I didn't, it wouldn't be my
opinion now would it?
=============================================================================
J Paschel
Paul Winalski <wina...@lspace.zko.dec.com> writes:
>"DOGHEAD" asks us:
>> Since when is a publisher entitled to remedies for grounded criticisms
>> made of their products?
>Their contention is that you made a false and defamatory
>insinuation in your article. Claiming falsely that Parker
>reviewed wines he hasn't tasted possibly damages S&S by
>reducing sales of the book.
>> Robert Parker is a public figure dealing in
>> opinion. He is as open to criticism as anyone else. Should I retract my
>> post and comply with these groundless d emands? What do you think?
>I think you overreacted at least as much as S&S and Parker
>did in siccing their lawyers on you.
One thing not discussed here is the nature of this forum.
On one hand, it is clearly *not* a major media outlet -- with the
accompanying responsibilities and accountable parties. I consider it
something approximating a group discusion at a watering hole or coffee
shop. I think this is, fundamentally, what Parker and Co. fail to realize.
This stuff happens on every newsgroup and the accusing party always ends
up "losing" in the sense that they demonstrate to the rest of the world a
fundamental inability to grasp the nature of what is "going on".
No doubt, S&S would respond to my quip with something like the following:
"This may be a new technology, but laws and rules are just that, and they
apply across the board..." This is what John Perry Barlow describes so
appropriately as "..the last thrashings of the dinosaurs' tails before
they topple over in the midst of chaos and extinction"
Are they headed toward extinction ? Sure. No question. But they will
put up one hell of a fight.
Paul Winalski
Jason Walter Bold wrote:
>
> I think this whole thing is ridiculous. Even if he did say that in a post,
> who gives a damn? Saying something like "He was so far off in his notes
> that I don't even think he tasted the damn wine" certainly doesn't
> constitute libel or slander. Saying something like "I know for a fact
> that Parker doesn't even taste some of the wines he reviews" is a bit
> different, given that you have no proof of your allegations.
Well, Parker and S&S seem to have taken the article to
say something like, "I was wondering whether Parker ever
tasted some of those wines in his book, so I decided to
run a little test. And guess what? He was so far off
on that wine that it looks like he probably didn't taste
it." I'm not saying that this is what the original
post said. But that spin certainly can be put on it.
I do see an irony in Parker going after someone about
hints such as those in the article in question. Parker's
complaint about this article is very similar to
Faively's lawsuit over a Parker review in The
Wine Advocate that Faively interpreted as implying
that he shipped different wines from what he let Parker
taste. Now that shoe is on Parker's foot and he's
finding it pinches a bit. Although I must say that
the alt.food.wine article that Parker's complaining
about makes stronger insinuations than the text that
Faiveley sued over.
But it's a tempest in a teapot nonetheless.
--PSW
R.L. "Bucko" Buckner
Stuart Yaniger wrote:
.......I've always had a deep respect for Parker. I have always liked
the guy. He's been very generous with me, and I've enjoyed discussing
wine and wine criticism with him. But this has left a very sour taste in
my mouth, to the point where I will never buy another book of his and I
will encourage anyone who will listen to boycott his magazines and
books. This is just absolutely disgusting. I'm very, very disappointed.
***************************
Ditto Stuart. Parker stepped on his own d--- in this manner and he has
hurt himself significantly IMHO. He has lost me as a customer.
Bucko
R.L. "Bucko" Buckner
BFSON wrote:
Why the heck are you dragging me into this??
I'm the only regular on the board who told this
guy when he first posted the attack that he
had gone too far.
Bob Foster
************************
Got cold feet Bob? This is not slander - come on! It is personalities
plain and simple. I question Parker on a lot of reviews myself. His
ratings are 180 degrees out with many of my comparisons which often has
caused me to wonder if he really tasted the wine, if the winery gave him
selected barrel samples, or what. This is often commented on by various
people on the wine boards. Why did he select the one person who we all
know that he dislikes?? To try to sue someone for questioning a call is
absurd, just as wondering if someone really did what they said. Parker
better review torts again. He needs to read Civil Rule Number 11. I
expected more from you Bob! :-(
Bucko
Tom Troiano
In article <33C474...@ix.netcom.com>, Stuart Yaniger
<sy...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Don't you think that Parker would have learned something from the
> Bouchard incident?
I thought it was Faiveley not Bouchard?
--
not the opinion of The MITRE Corporation!
BFSON
In article <5q2kv8$v...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, bo...@cae.wisc.edu (Jason
Walter Bold) writes:
>Parker is an asshole
Too bad -you had some credibility until you had to drop into
profanity.
BFSON
In article <5q31ih$8...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, big...@u.washington.edu
(J Paschel) writes:
>fundamental inability to grasp the nature of what is "going on".
What a load of crap. You keep spouting this modern psychobabble
to justify everything from your stealing of copyrighted articles to
RC's possible libel. When radio came into being weirdos predicted it would
change the theft libel and slander laws. It didn't. When TV came
along weirdos predicted it would make those same changes. It didn't.
Now here you are making the same claims for the Internet. So far the
courts
have not agreed with a word of your diatribe. The only one that seems to
be
convinced is you. Grow up. There are rules in our society and they do
apoply here. You can't steal and RC can't libel.
tke...@bbs.mpcs.com
Friends,
As apracticing journalist for the past 15 years, allow me to point out a
few pertinent things about liibel:
1.) Libel occurs when you damage someone or their reputation by
publishing falsehoods about that person. These are the elements of libe
-- A. The statement is false or defamatory; B. It has been published (in
print, electronically or orally); C. The target is readily identifiable;
D.The target has been damaged in some way. If these grounds have been
met, then you have libeled someone.
2.) "Publishing" a statement can be something as simple as spreading
rumors to your friends about a third party.
3.) Truth is an absolute defense.
4.) Statements of opinion are generally protected, which is why
newspapers can mount the bully pulpit on the editorial page and talk
radio hosts can go off the deep end. If you say, "I found Joe Blow's wine
to be nauseating." this is a statement of opinion. If you say "Joe Blow
puts filth in his wine and I found it nauseating," then you've mixed a
defamatory allegation with your opinion.
5.) A public figure (and if Parker isn't a public figure, my busiess is
in big trouble) suing for libel is held to a standard of actual malice,
which means he has to prove you were trying to slander him. This is
usually proven by showing that you knew that the allegation was false and
published it anyway, or that you were so careless that the truth of the
matter was essentially irrelevant.
6.) Even if you've made a statement of opinion and you can make a strong
case that the satement is essentially true,and the target is a public
figure, he can still sue your pants off, make you squirm and spend
thousands defending a suit that will ultimately be thrown out.
regards,
Tom Kehoe
In article <01bc8cb6$ea228a80$46ccedcc@kbtajuqk>, DOG...@prodigy.net
says...
Stuart Yaniger
BFSON wrote:
>
> Sorry Stuart-this went WAY beyond honest criticism. I told RC that
> the moment he posted the note and I still say it now. He stated or implied
> that Parker was writing Tns without tasting the wine. In my humble legal
> opinion
> that is actionable.
>
> Bob Foster
Bob, do you believe that RC acted in "reckless disregard for the
truth"?
Did RC know that Parker did indeed taste the wine and carefully
transcribed his notes into his book? It wouldn't seem likely.
I notice that no-one, whether sheep or goat, has disputed the accuracy
of what RC did present as fact: that the '94 G-T was notably and
obviously different than previous vintages and that this difference is
not noted in Parker's reviews. For one reason or another, Parker seems
to have blown it.
Given the amazing number of mistakes and inaccuracies that I've found
with a cursory reading of the book, I have my own opinion on this
screw-up, but I'm now afraid to express that opinion.
J Paschel
bf...@aol.com (BFSON) writes:
>In article <5q31ih$8...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, big...@u.washington.edu
>(J Paschel) writes:
>>fundamental inability to grasp the nature of what is "going on".
>What a load of crap. You keep spouting this modern psychobabble
If by "modern psychobabble" you mean the ability to communicate in
something other than grunts and monosyllabic words, fine.
>to justify everything from your stealing of copyrighted articles to
>RC's possible libel. When radio came into being weirdos predicted it would
>change the theft libel and slander laws. It didn't. When TV came
>along weirdos predicted it would make those same changes. It didn't.
I have never, ever come across any such arguments - ideas that radio or
television would radically change the nature of legal instituions -- in my
work. Please point me to references.
>Now here you are making the same claims for the Internet. So far the
>courts have not agreed with a word of your diatribe. The only one that
>seems to be convinced is you. Grow up.
>There are rules in our society and they do
>apoply here. You can't steal and RC can't libel.
You still don't "get it". It's just not always that interesting what "the
courts" say and do. I should know, I'm the brazen thief of
prose...stealing from the literate and publishing under god knows what
names -- all in a days work for an outlaw!
Our legal institutions are one - merely, one - basis of legitimation and
authority. While they are still fairly dominant at the moment in our
society that's all subject to change. In fact, the change is going on
around us constantly.
What I was suggesting is that simple minded folks always look first to
"the law" -- it's quick, expedient, convenient, and doesn't require a lot
of savvy. Unfortunately, as McDonald's still hasn't understood from their
recent libel victory, the end results of legal action can often be
disaterous -- even for winners.
Consultants tried to explain "Even if you win the costly legal battle,
you'll look like clueless idiots ill prepared to lead a multinational
corporation into the 21st century..." but they didn't "get it"
I am suggesting that Simon and Schuester still don't "get it".
Peter Curran
On 11 Jul 1997 12:47:22 GMT in article <5q5a0q$d60$2...@news1.mpcs.com>
tke...@bbs.mpcs.com (tke...@bbs.mpcs.com) wrote:
>Friends,
>
>As apracticing journalist for the past 15 years, allow me to point out a
>few pertinent things about liibel:
<snip>
It should also be mentioned that your point are only (or least primarily)
relevant in the U.S. Laws in other countries are different, and libel laws are
one area where they tend to differ drastically.
--
Peter Curran pcu...@xacm.org
(remove x for actual address)
Zeoguy
I'm not a lawyer but it seems that you and the lawyers on *P* Wine Board
feel the same. But was it necessary?
Howard Sherry
Stuart Yaniger
You are correct; my early-onset Alzheimer's is showing. I have been
boycotting both Faiveley and Bouchard, but for different reasons.
CDwin
On July 11, 1997, Stuart Yaniger wrote:
>BFSON wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Stuart-this went WAY beyond honest criticism. I told RC that
>> the moment he posted the note and I still say it now. He stated or
implied
>> that Parker was writing Tns without tasting the wine. In my humble
legal
>> opinion
>> that is actionable.
>>
>> Bob Foster
I am with Bob all the way on this one, although he may not want me. ;-)
> Bob, do you believe that RC acted in "reckless disregard for the
>truth"?
> Did RC know that Parker did indeed taste the wine and carefully
>transcribed his notes into his book? It wouldn't seem likely.
You may know your wine Stuart but your law is a bit rusty. It would not
require Mr. Parker to show that " RC [knew] that Parker did indeed taste
the wine and carefully transcribed his notes into his book?" in order to
prevail in a libel action. One could prove reckless disregard in general,
without reference to the specific law of any particular jurisdiction, by
showing that a statement was made which was false, was made by a writer
who had no way of knowing whether his writing was true or false but wrote
anyway without attempting to determine the accuracy of his written
comment, and, thereby, disparaged the object of the comment in his trade
or profession.
[Omission]
Chuck
CDwin
On July 9, 1997, Stuart Yaniger <sy...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[Omission]
> Mr. Parker is a public figure, and a damned rich and powerful one. His
>attempt to stifle honest criticism is no better than what Bouchard did.
>And the fact that Parker is a rich, powerful dude with lots of attorneys
>and that Callahan is a semi-impoverished wine salesman makes this a case
>of bullying and intimidation. No more and no less.
>I've always had a deep respect for Parker. I have always liked the guy.
>He's been very generous with me, and I've enjoyed discussing wine and
>wine criticism with him. But this has left a very sour taste in my
>mouth, to the point where I will never buy another book of his and I
>will encourage anyone who will listen to boycott his magazines and
>books.
>This is just absolutely disgusting. I'm very, very disappointed.
Stuart,
Since when does the financial condition of a person alleged to have been
guilty of libel have anything whatsoever to do with whether or not the
alleged tort-feasor should be called to account? That is not bullying it
is protecting one's reputation against what is alleged to be a libelous
attack. Poverty does not grant one immunity from being sued for libel nor
should it since a libel action seeks not just monetary damages but also an
independent determination that the challenged comments were untrue
Frankly, I am surprised some of the comments made by certain participants
in this group haven't led to lawyers' letters in the past.
I am a lawyer but I certainly have no brief for Mr. Parker.
The most recent statement by "DOGHEAD", which was uudecoded by J. Paschel
in his post of July 9, 1997, includes the following:
"But behold - Grand Tinel tastes quite DIFFERENT in '94 than it did any
year previously and there is no mention of this in the note. This isn't
just missing a quality judgment - the whole CHARACTER of the wine has
changed and he has missed it. You can't taste this wine and not spot a
difference."
This could certainly be read as saying that Mr. Parker wrote his review
without tasting the wine in question since it is alleged that the wine
tastes quite different in 1994, that the whole character of the wine has
changed, one cannot taste this wine without spotting the difference, and
that Parker did not mention the difference in his tasting note. I would
suggest that it would not be unreasonable to view this as disparaging Mr.
Parker in his trade or profession since a wine reviewer who published
reviews without tasting the wines would clearly be brought into disrepute
when the fact was disclosed.
The put upon Ms. Remes, Senior Counsel at Simon & Schuster, would
certainly have a basis for yet another letter that could not be dismissed
as simply as some in this group would suggest.
Regardless of the outcome of this particular matter, I would suggest that
it might be appropriate to remember that postings in news groups are just
as subject to the laws of libel as letters and published materials such as
books and magazine articles. If we all posted with that in mind, there
would be more light and less heat in this group and more bandwidth for the
exchange of useful information as well.
Chuck
Stuart Yaniger
BFSON wrote:
>
> In article <33C647...@ix.netcom.com>, Stuart Yaniger
> <sy...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >Bob, do you believe that RC acted in "reckless disregard for the
> >truth"?
>
> which was long before the Simon and Schuster lawyers
> got involved.
Bob, you know that I'm not a lawyer, so you'll have to be a bit patient
with my questions. What "truth" did Callahan know for which he exhibited
a "reckless disregard"? Does anyone have knowledge of Parker's
methodology, or do we need to speculate and infer, based on what he
publishes? If a set of notes miss an obvious style change, what other
inferences can be made, aside from fraud, sloppiness, or incompetence?
I still haven't been able to taste the G-T to see if what RC says is
true. As someone whose palate I trust, have you? To me, the important
issue is the truth of RC's observation. If it's false, then RC blew it
big time, and owes many people an apology. If that's true, Parker needs
to explain what the truth is in order to show reckless disregard, why it
is that he missed (and I can't imagine him wanting to do THAT!). Truth
is a defense against defamation suits?
Stuart Yaniger
BFSON wrote:
>
> Stuart- I believe he clearly implied that Parker
> wrote the note without tasting the wine. Look at
> the use of the word feigned.
> It would be one thing to just say Parker got it worng
> But to speculate with no factual basis at all
> that the note was a fake, clealry, IMHLO, goes
> too far. Had he just argued Parker tasted
> on autopilot-no problem. But the idea of a
> critic not tasting a wine is a charge of fraud.
Bob: It appears to me that RC came out with two speculations, both of
which you've named here. The "autopilot" one seems more likely to me. My
reading of Parker's book indicates that there was a great deal of
sloppiness in its construction. It gives me the impression that he paid
a LOT of attention to a few estates and pretty much whizzed through
tasting everyone else. (Sorry to disagree with your review. Please don't
sue me, I KNOW you read it <g>!)
BFSON
In article <5q5o2k$6...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, big...@u.washington.edu
(J Paschel) writes:
> I'm the brazen thief of
>prose..
Finally you admit what I've said all along--you ARE a thief.
Arthur P. Johnson
Well said, Chuck. The internet may FEEL intimate, but in fact it's the most
public place in the world.
WSpohn4
I have been viewing this thread, after chipping in with my sole
contribution right at the beginning, with a mixture of interest and,
increasingly, a bit of boredom.
One thing is plain - several posters have stated what in their ideal world
should happen or should be the case. These posts just emphasize that
laymen have little clue about so-called legal logic and reasoning. I don't
disagree with several postings about what would be _nice_ to have happen,
but advise against trying to relate what you think to be correct with what
pertains in the world of law, unless you have legal training. I suppose
that this difficulty for the uninitiated just encourages the jokes about
my profession.
The other thing that struck me was admittedly a bit off the point. But has
anyone else tasted the wine in question (I even forget which Rhone it was,
now) except our complainant and Parker, and if so what did you think of
it?
I'd be quite interested to see what our Rhone fancying members (Bob?)
thought of it.
Bill Spohn
BFSON
In article <33CAEF...@infinex.com>, "S.Miller" <smi...@infinex.com>
writes:
> Public figures are open to this
>kind of criticism.
No they are not. The original post, in my legal opinion, clearly indicated
a
charge that Parker had not tasted the wine and that the
written note was fiegned. While public figures may have to endure
much, they do not have to endure false allegations of fact.
Why not put your money where your mouth is--offer to defend Callahan
pro bono.
Bob Foster
R.L. "Bucko" Buckner
Arthur P. Johnson wrote:
>
> Hey Bucko, in your case, that's just well-meant advice. <g>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > On July 15, 1997, Bucko wrote:
> >
> > >It is a genetic thing Chuck. ;-) And who says that people don't give
> > >medical opinions. Lord have mercy, I hear it 15 times a day...
<snicker>
Bucko