Anderson Valley Pinot Noir Recommendation?
BigC...@yahoo.com
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
Richard Neidich
USA. Don't really know many of the Pinot from that area.
Goldeneye is made by the same people as Duckhorn.
<BigC...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156885963.6...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Kendallj...@gmail.com
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 here:
http://wine.appellationamerica.com/catalog/breggo-2005-pinot-noir-anderson-valley.htm
Enjoy!
BigC...@yahoo.com
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
KJ_Wine
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!
Jim Oakley
I just returned from Napa/Sonoma/Mendoncino and I had some of the
Pinot from Husch Vineyards - very tasty
Mark Lipton
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
st.helier
If it smells like a stealth marketing campaign.....
Consider this!
OP was BigC...@yahoo.com - 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 Kendallj...@gmail.com - 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 bastard, 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 bastard!!!!!
--
st.helier
miles
> Call me a suspicious old bugger - but.....
Nah, you just have way too much time on your hands!
Richard Neidich
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" <nos...@thisaddress.4me> wrote in message
news:ed35q4$so3$1...@news.datemas.de...
Jose
> correct. So let it alone. What is the big deal!
The big deal is that if it =is= stealth marketing, then that undermines
AFW (and the newsgroups) more than "underparticipation". And this does
hurt us.
Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
Professor
newsgroup. This kind of deception insults all of us. I suppose you welcome
spam?
"Richard Neidich" <rnei...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nFfJg.473$v%4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Mark Lipton
> Call me a suspicious old bugger - but.....
>
> If it smells like a stealth marketing campaign.....
>
> Consider this!
>
> OP was BigC...@yahoo.com - 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 Kendallj...@gmail.com - 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 bastard, 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
Richard Neidich
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" <teac...@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:ENgJg.12754$%j7.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
BigC...@yahoo.com
alt.food.wine board for a little while and just decided to post. There
are so few decent chat boards out there discussing wine-- esp. CA wine.
Mark-- thanks for the Navarro & Lazy Creek recs. I've had some stuff
from Navarro before, I don't believe it was the Ancienne (sp?) and it
was nicely balanced, decent.
-BigCAWine
Jose
> Sorry, but I don't get it.
Did liquorama do =stealth= marketing ("Hi, I'm new here, and I just
found this great site..." which turns out to be his own), or did he step
up honestly from the start ("I'm a wine store, and I see we have some
Cab Franc fans here...")
There's a difference.
Richard Neidich
That said others here chased them away.
So stealth or honest is not the factor here.
"Jose" <teac...@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:deiJg.18603$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
Mark Lipton
> 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
> 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.
Richard Neidich
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" <not...@eudrup.ude> wrote in message
news:ed4dda$59o$1...@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu...
Richard Neidich
Respectfully I don't understand who gets to make the rules on this type of
stuff. These are not moderated groups and the posters theefore create order
or chaos.
But I have never been offended to have someone tell me something about wine
in a newsgroup. Stealth or not.
I stand by my statements I made that M. Lipton objects to. Objection noted.
Below is one example of a posting that was made when Dave at Liquorama.net
states he cannot answer a question about wine.com because and I quote:
"Sorry I can't answer that question, or the group will berate me again"
I think if you ask some that have been here and left its because a group
thinks that this is their group and only welcome others if they bow to them.
If that is an agenda as Mark calls it fine....I would simply call it an
observation.
My personal feeling is if they post about wine tasting, wine, wine dinners,
vintages they sell it or sell accessories fine...let them post....read what
you want, don't read what you don't want.
I really don't know the usenet purpose but I assume a non commercial posting
means no DIRECT advertising. Stating that the product is available at a
shop I run, work at etc is no big deal.
And NO, I am not in the wine business at all.
From: LIQUORAMA.NET - view profile
Date: Sat, Apr 28 2001 1:18 am
Email: LIQUORAMA....@verizon.net
Groups: alt.food.wine
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message |
Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author
Sorry I can't answer that question, or the group will berate me again
Dave
www.Liquorama.net
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:14:03 GMT, "Alexander" <webmas...@webtory.net>
wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>What were your experiences with them?
>Alexander
Reply
"Jose" <teac...@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:SSiJg.18617$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
Jose
> 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.
enoavidh
news:5ojJg.12837$%j7.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.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/lofiversion/index.php/t930.html
Richard Neidich
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" <teac...@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:5ojJg.12837$%j7.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Richard Neidich
research that the poster in quesiton was not lying.
So guilty until proven innocent?
"enoavidh" <enoa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns982F8473BA839...@136.142.8.100...
Jose
> 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.
UC
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!
Richard Neidich
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" <teac...@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:pVjJg.12853$%j7....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Richard Neidich
I know how you fell about these critics.
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156959197.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mark Lipton
> 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?
Richard Neidich
Enjoy whatever it is.
"Mark Lipton" <not...@eudrup.ude> wrote in message
news:ed4k89$940$1...@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu...
Lawrence Leichtman
"Richard Neidich" <rnei...@earthlink.net> 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.
Mark Lipton
> 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.
Ric
<BigC...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156885963.6...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.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
>
Richard Neidich
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" <nos...@thisaddress.4me> wrote in message
news:<ed35q4$so3$1...@news.datemas.de>...
> Call me a suspicious old bugger - but.....
>
> If it smells like a stealth marketing campaign.....
>
> Consider this!
>
> OP was BigC...@yahoo.com - a Google Groups search shows this person has
> never EVER posted to *any* ng before - and just pops into AFW - OK nothing
> totally unusual in that - but...
>
> Within 26 minutes the next responder was Kendallj...@gmail.com - a
> Google Groups search shows that this person also has never, EVER posted to
> *any* ng (and certainly not AFW)
>
> OK - maybe a huge coincidence - BUT
>
> Both posters use identical posting agents (User-Agent: G2/0.2
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
> rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/1.5.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
>
> What would be the chances of that?
>
> As I said, call me a suspicious old bastard, BUT.....
>
> What do you reckon Prof. Lipton? You are a much better sleuth than I in
> these matters.
or any of these:
#2 from this link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.wine/browse_frm/thread/68fdef6141c0978c/1d38158165e9a856?lnk=gst&q=liquorama&rnum=28#1d38158165e9a856
#16 from this link:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.wine/browse_frm/thread/f1e58e4ad22813f9/ed227518d89860e8?lnk=gst&q=liquorama&rnum=8#ed227518d89860e8
After being attacked for openly announcing his business he responds with
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.wine/browse_frm/thread/5db5776be5ce9e7d/465693d33ee4055b?lnk=gst&q=liquorama&rnum=35#465693d33ee4055b
"Mark Lipton" <not...@eudrup.ude> wrote in message
news:ed4pcp$c5h$1...@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu...
James Silverton
news:larry-26CC2A....@news.east.cox.net...
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
Mark Lipton
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.food.wine/browse_frm/thread/68fdef6141c0978c/1d38158165e9a856?lnk=gst&q=liquorama&rnum=28#1d38158165e9a856
>
> #16 from this link:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.wine/browse_frm/thread/f1e58e4ad22813f9/ed227518d89860e8?lnk=gst&q=liquorama&rnum=8#ed227518d89860e8
>
> After being attacked for openly announcing his business he responds with
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.wine/browse_frm/thread/5db5776be5ce9e7d/465693d33ee4055b?lnk=gst&q=liquorama&rnum=35#465693d33ee4055b
>
> and more
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.wine/browse_frm/thread/fd6626f25b393119/1db16812c7fae513?lnk=gst&q=liquorama&rnum=36#1db16812c7fae513
And those links support what I stated today in:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.food.wine/msg/a45f02c1f95fdb28
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
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" <not...@eudrup.ude> wrote in message
news:ed4sbs$dsi$1...@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu...
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.
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
Mark Lipton
> 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
st.helier
>> Why should I patronize someone who *lies*?
>> Stealth marketers, like all other spammers, are lying.
to which "Mark Lipton" commented....
>
> Excellent point, De. Good to see you around these parts, BTW.
>
As the person who stirred up this hornets nest, this is my point.
I am not against honest, commercial posters using AFW, provided they are not
blatant advertising.
I am totally against bullshit posts, purporting to be enthusiastic comment,
but which in fact are made by persons with a vested interest, and are
designed to mislead.
If a person was fully upfront (Hi, my name is Fred and I have recently
started exporting our new label of Central Otago to the USA - keep a look
out for it - we think our SB & PN is something special etc etc) I hold this
to be an honest merchant.
OK - it is commercial, and I personally *may* gently remind the poster that
AFW was not commercial - but over the eight years I have frequented AFW, I
have seen a proliferation of posts, where, by their nature, the poster knows
implicitly that commercial posts are not tolerated, but by stealth,
advertise anyhow.
Now, I am not against any new contributor joining this ng, contrary to what
my friend Mr. Neidich says - I encourage any and all to join this society
of wine lovers.
Professor Lipton says that my initial judgment (in respect to this incident)
may not be Stealth Marketing.
I will reserve judgment - to me the proof will emerge one month from now -
when I recheck the Google Groups archive to see if either has made any
further contribution to this or any other forum. (OK I may have too much
time on my hands: sobeit - it is a shitty job but someone has to do it -
otherwise, the spammers win !!!!!
Anyone want to place a small wager??????
My bottle of NZ pinot against anything you'd like to counter (Please Note:
If your country / State does not allow the importation etc of wine, I will
consider cash in lieu!!!!!
--
st.helier
miles
>> 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.
So does long threads arguing about it like this! Probably more so that
the original post.
miles
> 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?
Just what was the trick? There was no link, no mention of any vendor,
nothing. Whats worse is the whining over nothing. Back to wine!
Richard Neidich
But we should not chase off posters from this site. Spam or contect can be
blocked for the commerial posters without playing the gotya game.
I for one am tired of it. It says more about us than them in my opinion.
"miles" <no...@nopers.com> wrote in message
news:SjqJg.2062$AP2.1022@fed1read10...
Dave
It amazes me how some people on this list have no hesitation doing free
marketing for XYZ winery (through their recommendations, sharing of
knowledge, tasting notes, etc.), and yet should a member of XYZ winery
join on and share a few views, it is met with fierce resistance or
branded as "stealth marketing".
Anyone who joins AFW thinking they can squeeze a drop of business out
of it by blatantly advertising certainly hasn't done their research
(reviewing AFW archives), as they'd be quick to realize this list falls
flat when it comes honest business discussions about wine.
Even well-intentioned posts (not advertising, but discussions about the
industry, trends, events, etc) are met with suspicion. All I have to do
is look into the archives from a few recent threads I started up to see
the thruth of this.
For the record, I have no official affiliation with anyone in the wine
industry. A number of years ago, I was smart enough to register what is
now a very popular domain. And for that - certain people on AFW assume
I *must* be spamming, stealth marketing, etc., when I happen to post
something about the local industry. To that, I say, of *course* I'm
going to post things about things happening close to home. Local wines.
Local events. Just like the rest of you. Why? Because it's what I
happen to know about. Yes, I have a profound love for the wines of
France, Spain, Italy, etc. - but that is not my forte, so I tend not to
write about them.
St. Helier has his precious Central Otago. Ian writes about France. UC
loves his Italian wines (must admit UC, you really *do* have a ton of
knowledge and it's excellent that you take the time to share it with us
all!). The point is - we all discuss what we know about on AFW.
That AFW is a community-policed list is fine. However, what is not okay
is when members gang up and don't even grant a new member the chance to
make their case. They'd rather shut the person down and move on,
leaving behind a nice, archived trail in Google Groups (or Usenet, or
whatever you're using to read this) that documents a lengthy legacy of
pissy rhetoric -- all of which, I might add, gives very few users, if
any, the desire to join AFW in the first place.
So it really is paradoxical, how certain AFW members continue
advertising their own local wineries to no end, but can't stand it when
someone actually in the business stops by to put in their own $.02.
It's almost as though these AFW members are fearful of someone "in the
trade" knowing more than they do?? -- so they must instead act from a
defensive corner of AFW and protect what little intellectual space they
have in which to flourish.
In any case, AFW would be well-served that, while (appropriate in)
reacting suspiciously towards obvious marketing campaigns, AFW should
also take a deep breath and a look in the mirror, realize it is
essentially already one big free marketing campaign (if not for
members, then for the wines AFW members are writing about), and
consider becoming more open to industry folk who are in the know, who
could actually bring some added depth to the list. You never know... we
might all learn something in the process. Just my own $.02. Certainly
not looking to start up another piss-storm here.
Thanks,
David
Joseph Coulter
74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:
> Hi Dick,
>
> It amazes me how some people on this list have no hesitation doing
free
> marketing for XYZ winery (through their recommendations, sharing of
> knowledge, tasting notes, etc.), and yet should a member of XYZ winery
> join on and share a few views, it is met with fierce resistance or
> branded as "stealth marketing".
> >
It really isn't about being anti business, it is about being anti
stealth marketing. It has been an increasing technique in the past
months not just on this newsgroup but on several travel related ones
where I hang out to come in ask a question and then pop back in a
different guise and answer with a commercial. "Anyone know of a good
place? ..." or even better, "I just got a XYZ. Does anyone know of this
it really seems great!" The responded then extolls the product, both
posters often share the same computer. This is the behavior that is
being dissed here and rightfully.
Yes, we can and some do enjoy the anonymous nature of the net but a
little integrity goes a long way.
Do we allow professionals to roam our group? You mean other than Michael
Pronay, Emily (?) Joe R should count he plied the trade for a while, the
elsewhere mentioned Gan Eden and Ch. Burbank owners, we have had others
who worked in the hospitality and wine industries. It is not the
connection that rankles so much as the way one works the connection.
--
Joseph Coulter
Cruises and Vacations
http://www.josephcoulter.com/
Max Hauser
without posting often. And are welcome, it's public after all. The Central
Committee's preliminary vetting here would likely deepen of course, should
circumstance warrant.]
Anyway back to wine: Mark Lipton in
news:Je6dnb3jLqbnZGnZ...@insightbb.com :
>
> Two of my favorites from there are Navarro's Ancienne PN (available only
> directly from winery) and Lazy Creek's PN.
I second the suggestions of those wineries. Both do also other bottlings
including Lazy Creek's casual Pinot "red table wine" in what has been called
a European style. (More in past postings on this newsgroup.)
> Of course, Roederer Estate's sparkling wine is also made (in part) from PN
> ;-)
(That's not the half of it, but this may not be the place ...) Anyone
passing nearby should visit Roederer Estate anyway (it sort of surrounds
Lazy Creek geographically, BTW). RE has large facilities and a staffed
tasting room with a range of bottlings including pink sparklers of high or
complete Pinot content, apropos above. It's historically important to
California wine because although not, by far, the first premium
sparkling-wine producer, the firm's work since 1980 raised the standards of
California sparkling wines by example. (Again, in a European direction.)
--
"Elegance, Balance, Finesse." -- M. Salgues
Richard Neidich
to skeptical and myopic in their approach.
They killfile or threaten to killfile people when they cannot agree even to
disagree.
This group has changed greatly over the many years I have been here.
"Dave" <goo...@oregonwines.com> wrote in message
news:1157058897.4...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Dave
Thank you for sharing these sentiments. Agreed. In the case of your
examples, 'stealth marketing' is the same as spam, and should be dealt
with as such. The danger in fighting against it too much, however, is
that it can add a sour taste to the receptiveness of AFW members, such
that they treat many (valid) business-oriented posts with similar
skepticism.
re: BigCAWine, the individual who started this thread, he posted two
additional times with follow-ups, and seems pretty legit to me -- in
any case, it seems there would be far easier ways to try and drive a
branding campaign than if this was truly a stealth approach.
Some people immediately concluded he was spamming - but then, that just
goes hand in hand with the "guilty until proven innocent" nature with
which the same people approach many members of this list. In the end,
it's 50 or so posts about a seemingly innocent topic. Quite a lot of
noise, arguing over if it's spam or not, if you ask me.
(I can already guess the retort from some people here: 'Well! If he's
not a stealth marketer, then he obviously must be a troll for making us
all argue amongst ourselves over whether he's a spammer or not!')
If everyone just chilled out a bit, enjoyed a glass of their favorite
{fill in the blank} wine, and realized what wealth we all have being
able to collectively enjoy this subject across oceans and continents
with fellow friends, we'd probably all be a lot happier here, and would
probably turn AFW into such a friendly place that no spammer would ever
dare step foot inside. :)
Cheers,
David
Jose
> marketing for XYZ winery (through their recommendations, sharing of
> knowledge, tasting notes, etc.), and yet should a member of XYZ winery
> join on and share a few views, it is met with fierce resistance or
> branded as "stealth marketing".
The difference is in who gains, primarily.
When we (of no affiliation) share knowledge and tasting notes about XYZ
winery, we do not stand to make money off of the altered behavior that
our posts may cause. Thus, the motivation for doing so is more likely
to be altruistic, and what we say is more likely to be unbiased. For
that reason, we place more trust in such posts. But those affiliated
with a winery would benefit financially, so what they say is not likely
to be unbiased. While their posts about (say) =how= to make wine would
be of great interest (after all, they are the experts), their posts
about (say) which wine to buy are more suspect. This is universally
true, and has nothing to do with wine. It is business.
Stealth posts attempt to use the trust we have placed in each other to
the advantage of the poster, for pecuniary gain. I resent that. We
should all stand up against that.
It is too bad that sometimes innocent posts end up looking like stealth
spam. That is the nature of things. But with stealth spam being such a
big problem (I've abandoned several newsgroups because they are
essentially destroyed by it, and I've also had to abandon several
mailboxes to spam too), it's important to ensure that what is shared
here is shared because we want to share, not because we want to make
money off of each other.
Mark Lipton
> Hi Dick,
>
> It amazes me how some people on this list have no hesitation doing free
> marketing for XYZ winery (through their recommendations, sharing of
> knowledge, tasting notes, etc.), and yet should a member of XYZ winery
> join on and share a few views, it is met with fierce resistance or
> branded as "stealth marketing".
Dave, can you really be that naïve? What about conflict of interest? I
see this as no different from a film critic who is an employee of
Paramount Pictures -- would you consider their recommendations to be
ubiased? How can you be sure? Or, to use a more trenchant example, I
feel the same about this issue as I do about former oil company
executives formulating US energy policy. ;-)
>
> Anyone who joins AFW thinking they can squeeze a drop of business out
> of it by blatantly advertising certainly hasn't done their research
> (reviewing AFW archives), as they'd be quick to realize this list falls
> flat when it comes honest business discussions about wine.
Spammers are notorious for their lack of concern about such issues.
Typically, they try a "shotgun" approach to marketing: send the same (or
similar) message to 10,000 different newsgroups and see what takes. And
your phrase "honest business discussions" is a bit disingenuous: this is
a non-commercial newsgroup, so *no* business disucssions should be
conducted here.
>
> Even well-intentioned posts (not advertising, but discussions about the
> industry, trends, events, etc) are met with suspicion. All I have to do
> is look into the archives from a few recent threads I started up to see
> the thruth of this.
Sad but true. These are suspicious times, it seems. How to regain our
innocence? It's important to keep in mind, though, that in any open
forum like this, especially where we rely exclusively on the written
word, there are going to be arguments where tempers rise. It's
important to keep perspective and not overreact, even if you're at the
receiving end of an attack. Either that, or just walk away from that
thread.
>
> For the record, I have no official affiliation with anyone in the wine
> industry. A number of years ago, I was smart enough to register what is
> now a very popular domain. And for that - certain people on AFW assume
> I *must* be spamming, stealth marketing, etc., when I happen to post
> something about the local industry. To that, I say, of *course* I'm
> going to post things about things happening close to home. Local wines.
> Local events. Just like the rest of you. Why? Because it's what I
> happen to know about. Yes, I have a profound love for the wines of
> France, Spain, Italy, etc. - but that is not my forte, so I tend not to
> write about them.
And that's just fine. Hopefully, as people get to know you, there will
be less misunderstanding about your intentions. As I stated to you
earlier, I welcome any and all information about the wines of the
Pacific NW, even though I won't be back there for another 15 months or
so. And, if you happen to chime in on other topics, so much the better!
>
> St. Helier has his precious Central Otago. Ian writes about France. UC
> loves his Italian wines (must admit UC, you really *do* have a ton of
> knowledge and it's excellent that you take the time to share it with us
> all!). The point is - we all discuss what we know about on AFW.
Except for those who discuss what they don't know ;-)
>
> That AFW is a community-policed list is fine. However, what is not okay
> is when members gang up and don't even grant a new member the chance to
> make their case. They'd rather shut the person down and move on,
> leaving behind a nice, archived trail in Google Groups (or Usenet, or
> whatever you're using to read this) that documents a lengthy legacy of
> pissy rhetoric -- all of which, I might add, gives very few users, if
> any, the desire to join AFW in the first place.
Oh, come now, Dave: "gang up on" people? Huh? In your case, you
started a thread in which 3 posters to this group go into arguments with
you. This month, 64 non-first-time posters have posted to this group. 3
out of 64 hardly seems to qualify as ganging up to me. And that doesn't
take into account the two posters (Dick and Emery) who stuck up for you
in that thread. I agree that it was hardly a nice welcome for you, and
I do wish that the whole tone of the discussion had been more civil, but
alas I can't control the actions of others, and we are (supposedly) all
adults here.
> So it really is paradoxical, how certain AFW members continue
> advertising their own local wineries to no end, but can't stand it when
> someone actually in the business stops by to put in their own $.02.
What in the world are you talking about? Has anyone criticized you for
talking about Oregon wineries? And no one here is advertising using any
normal definition of the word.
> It's almost as though these AFW members are fearful of someone "in the
> trade" knowing more than they do?? -- so they must instead act from a
> defensive corner of AFW and protect what little intellectual space they
> have in which to flourish.
Oh, for crying out loud. As already mentioned, we have a couple of
winemakers, a wine critic and an importer who post regularly here. None
of them have complained of being ganged up on or hounded out of the
group. Why the persecution complex?
>
> In any case, AFW would be well-served that, while (appropriate in)
> reacting suspiciously towards obvious marketing campaigns, AFW should
> also take a deep breath and a look in the mirror, realize it is
> essentially already one big free marketing campaign (if not for
> members, then for the wines AFW members are writing about), and
> consider becoming more open to industry folk who are in the know, who
> could actually bring some added depth to the list. You never know... we
> might all learn something in the process. Just my own $.02. Certainly
> not looking to start up another piss-storm here.
I agree that it's always advisable to keep the discussions here as civil
as possible. That also means avoiding whenever possible using purposely
inflammatory rhetoric. If we can all agree that we're all here to talk
about wine, and do just that, we should be able to keep this place
relatively harmonious.
Mark Lipton
Dave
Points taken - and thanks for the input.
Cheers,
David
st.helier
>
> St. Helier has his precious Central Otago.
You see Dave, this shows how little you know - I live 1,000 miles away from
Central Otago - in fact I rarely even drink wines from CO.
I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in any NZ winery - 16 years ago
I was the marketing manager of a small concern and have been involved in
both retail and teaching about wine - but for you to suggest that I have
some over-riding interest is bunkum.
But, I do know the NZ industry better than most - but, hey, I have also
visited wineries in Australia and France and Italy and Germany and Spain and
South Africa - not in any commercial sense - just as an enthusiast.
Nowadays, my consumption is probably around 35% Australian; 35% NZ and 30%
from elsewhere.
And apart from comment about wines of note (from anywhere in the winemaking
world) you are 100% wrong if you insinuate that I have ever promoted any
wine or winery.
> Ian writes about France.
Oh bullshit - Ian is vastly travelled - his last trip of note was to the
US - again, when we was contributing (and that was some time ago) his
knowledge is much much broader that just France. Ian (not to forget his
beautiful wife Jacquie) has visited NZ and Australia and many other
countries. If you had any idea about Ian's writing you would know that he
is probably more "vocal" about Tokajii than any other particular wine.
I have never, in the eight years I have contributed here, seen Ian make any
sort of commercial comment.
So, when are you going to get off your backside and get down here and see
what us antipodeans call "Godzone" - huh?
--
st.helier
Richard Neidich
Nowadays, my consumption is probably around 35% Australian; 35% NZ and 30%
from elsewhere.
"st.helier" <nos...@thisaddress.4me> wrote in message
news:ed8rjt$fde$1...@news.datemas.de...
Mark Lipton
You're most welcome, Dave. I really do want to help return this group to
more civil discourse, if I can. BTW, thanks for the informed reply to
Audrey and for not accusing her of stealth marketing for Bergstrom ;-)
Mark Lipton
Audrey
Mark Lipton says:
>BTW, thanks for the informed reply to Audrey and for not accusing her of stealth >marketing for Bergstrom ;-)
Mark:
To be fair and honest I did not feel welcome in advance of posting here
based on what I have observed reading here for the past few months and
most recently the post on Mendicino wines.
Someone pointed out that this group is not real welcoming to newcomers
and from what I have observed its not the newcomers that are the
issue....its the newcomers like me that will not really post because of
the current atmosphere.
Goodbye.
Audrey
Mike Tommasi wrote:
snip-
> While your comment is valid and understandable, you must also realize
> that AFW being one of the most successful newsgroups,snip
First, is there some formal rating on newgroups? Almost all newgroups
think they are one of the most successful. Where is it rated such that
you can make such a statement. Other newsgroups such as alt.coffee
that I post on regularly from my outlook newsreader(different user
name) never seems to have the problems you have here with the degree of
pettyness.
It is far more active of a newsgroup with less issues.
With respect I offer the following after spending a couple hours
reading the tone here. Apparently there are really only 5-10 primary
contributors of late. Others seem far more occasional. I will not use
names of those that I have observed or single anyone poster out by
name. This is meant to set a tone for my suggestion.
1) Posting he is a troll, spammer, opportunist, stealth marketer
accomplished nothing.
2) When a poster reveals that they are one of the above others can
silently not respond and not give attention to the situation.
3) As evidenced in this thread how many are about Mendicino wine vs
the very aspect of treatment.
4) Is this a wine group? If so treat it as such. If it is a petty
group...you are doing a fine job here.
> We welcome newcomers, but not when they come here only to plug their
> products. We also expect that a newcomer will introduce himslef, so that
> we know that when he posts next we have to treat him as... a newcomer,
> IE welcome him and be a bit more patient with him, give him a break so
> to speak.
With all due respect the internet is a place of wild debate.
Introductions are nice but not really essential. It will become
obvious if someones post as you said indicate newcomer vs. spammer,
commercial. No comment is the best approach when that takes place.
When you spend all your time discussing the posts to protest the spam,
or potential spam...isn't that contrary to the group itself.
This defense of the best newsgroup only makes you not the best
newsgroup.
> It is therefore understandable and even reasonable to be suspicious of
> anyone who has never posted before jumping in with a reply or worse, a
> new thread, as if he had always been part of AFW. This suspicion gets
> confirmed most of the time, and the person turns out to be some
> oppportunist.
Surely you just. You cannot possibly think that you can be welcoming
if you are suspicious of all newcomers. Does this group have a
leadership that is paying the bill for AFW. Afterall, be realistic
here. Tenure does not grant anyone additional rights on the internet
usenet newsgroups. Perhaps that is there the issue really lies. The
longer the contributors are here the more they feel they have the
ownership to this group. That is simply failed logic in my opinion.
> AFW is not at its best right now, but us regulars, we are trying to keep
> it on track. That's all. And that requires a firm stance sometimes.
> And sdometimes we make mistakes, in which case we are always ready to
> apologize and make up for it.
Sorry, the regulars seem to be the biggest issue here. When I read the
posts at length I can see that there appears to be a ringleader of 1-2
posters that foster and enable the continued bad behaviour here.
Sadly, they appear to be the regulars. Perhaps it is time for some of
the regulars to remember that this is not their group. Anyone can and
will post here. That the posting should remain on wine. If not, the
posters that are OT should not get any form of response.
Keep priding yourself on this (AFW) is one of the best
newsgroups...pride and saying that does not really make it so. I post
in many other newgroups that are about food, coffee, kitchens
etc...non have the issues I have witnessed in this newsgroup.
Years back when I lurked here for suggestions it appeared far more
civil in its tone and there were less authoritative posters. Posters
shared and helped others. Not attacked, accused, and convicted
posters.
Sorry for my intrusion to what you feel is your fine and most welcoming
group. I did not feel comfortable posting here in the first place for
the fear of being called a spammer, advertiser.
I hope my suggestions are not offensive to anyone as I have tried not
to be.
Audrey
Dave
>
> Nowadays, my consumption is probably around 35% Australian; 35% NZ and 30%
> from elsewhere.
I think most people call such a mix "swill". ;)
I see St. Helier still hasn't figured out how to use his kill-file. No
surprise there.
Best,
David
Dave
> To be fair and honest I did not feel welcome in advance of posting here
> based on what I have observed reading here for the past few months and
> most recently the post on Mendicino wines.
>
> Someone pointed out that this group is not real welcoming to newcomers
> and from what I have observed its not the newcomers that are the
> issue....its the newcomers like me that will not really post because of
> the current atmosphere.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Some of us are working to make this an
open/friendly list.
As for those who flat-out accuse you of something without giving you
the benefit of the doubt, think of them as trolls (and treat them as
such by ignoring them - as responding fuels their fire and only worsens
things).
Many of us here do want to keep this place open, and friendly. I hope
you will continue posting and sharing sentiments with the group.
Best regards,
David
Dave
> I hope my suggestions are not offensive to anyone as I have tried not
> to be.
I personally think you're the type of member that AFW needs MORE of.
Someone who sends the offront right back where it came from.
It's sad that in your third post to the group, you should have to
defend your "right" to be here! It is certainly telling why so few new
members seem to pop up, or at least wait seeming months in lurking
before responding.
For what it's worth, I hope we can carry on discussions about wine -
and not trolls, as this is alt.food.wine, not alt.mythology.trolls.
Best regards,
David
Dave
> Central Otago - in fact I rarely even drink wines from CO.
Actually, more and more it sounds as though you're drink piss and
vinegar these days.
David
p.s. end of thread - NOT feeding the "HelierTroll" any more.
KJ_Wine
I have been observing the posts here since my initial post- my WINE
recommendation. It seems as if that was the last relevant wine
comment...? I chose to start posting in this community because it was
supposed to be about wine. I now know better. There are obviously some
past issues that newcomers do not know about- otherwise I can't
understand why my recommendation of a fantastic wine, would provoke
such a discussion- and such a background check! I am happy not to post
here any more, I really just wanted to talk about Anderson Valley
Pinots. Any wine that provokes you to join an online wine forum to talk
about it, must be pretty amazing!
Happy Tasting.
Richard Neidich
Sorry your post was ignored here. I am not familiar with this wine you
mention but will have to check it out.
Sorry for the background check others performed. They belong in the Bush
white house.
Regards,
Dick
"KJ_Wine" <Kendallj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157134180....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Joseph Coulter
news:1157133236.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
I am confused David, you ask for civility and then make this post?
Mark Lipton
> Mark Lipton says:
>
>> BTW, thanks for the informed reply to Audrey and for not accusing her of stealth >marketing for Bergstrom ;-)
>
>
> Mark:
<SNIP troll bait>
OK, Dick. Did you really think that I wouldn't notice that "Audrey"
posts from the same Mindspring cable modem as you do? Sorry, old boy.
Up to now, I'd considered you a well-meaning contributor to this group,
but "sock puppetry" is the hallmark of the Usenet troll. Have fun
talking to Dave and UC.
Mark Lipton
***********
From: "Audrey" <audreyr...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.food.wine
Subject: Re: Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
Date: 1 Sep 2006 08:18:08 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
[...]
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.148.225.120 <----------
***********
From: "Richard Neidich" <rnei...@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: alt.food.wine
Subject: Re: Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
[...]
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.148.225.120 <----------
***********
Lawrence Leichtman
"Dave" <goo...@oregonwines.com> wrote:
I wish all of you would stop already with the whining. This is ng to
discuss wines and wine related issues. Travel and restaurants are part
of this discussion. If someone posts something you don't like or you
don't like them kill file them and be done with it. Now only one person
addressed the sparkler issue so please something about wine.
DaleW
really liked, although Elke is at least ok) I ignored this thread. And
all hell breaks loose.
While I think it is important that folks be cautious in accusations,
the reality is that lots of unmoderated fora have been lost to
commercial postings. I once was a regular poster on NYC.food, till it
became one thread out of twenty was actually quality discussions (and
even then, a discussion of "best dim sum" would have some jerk posting
"have you had the brunch at Bob's dinner- yum!", and the "best steak in
NYC- Lugers or Sparks" would have "I like Bob's diner's $11 ribeye!").
Once you start it, it's hard to stop. No one here to my memory objected
when Craig W. (a substantive poster, who maybe posted 1 commercial
message out of every 50) did mention his annual sale. Nor do I remember
the Dave from Liqourama incident like Audrety does. I think Emily was
politely treated here. She was open about her business and enthusiasm
for Austrian wines, and contributed knowledge. But when people start
off primarily advertising their businesses (as opposing to contributing
to general conversation), it may not seem bad to some. But once you
have 2 doing it, who's to stop the next 22? Or 222? I believe in
politely and gently (at first) pointing out this is a non-commercial
group.
As to sockpuppets and stealth marketers, I agree with enoavidh, why
listen to those who lie.
Richard Neidich
using Mindspring/earthlink that is about 1/2 the country.
Nice job Mark trying to discredit me.
I can do that by myself.
"Mark Lipton" <not...@eudrup.ude> wrote in message
news:eda44o$b2a$1...@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu...
Audrey
Mark Lipton wrote:
snip>
> OK, Dick. Did you really think that I wouldn't notice that "Audrey"
> posts from the same Mindspring cable modem as you do? Sorry, old boy.
> Up to now, I'd considered you a well-meaning contributor to this group,
> but "sock puppetry" is the hallmark of the Usenet troll. Have fun
> talking to Dave and UC.
>
snip
Mark, I am located in Atlanta, Ga and my company uses Mindpring.
Virtually everyone in Atlanta is Mindspring as this was their original
home base.
My current post is from home which is Sprint. Since you wish to tout
your cyber skills. Sprint. If your other poster uses this it would be
strange.
This group is so ultra hostile that you will never hear from me again
without an apology Did someone think this group welcomed newcommers?
st.helier
Go away and find some manners !!!!!
Dave
> posts from the same Mindspring cable modem as you do? Sorry, old boy.
> Up to now, I'd considered you a well-meaning contributor to this group,
> but "sock puppetry" is the hallmark of the Usenet troll. Have fun
> talking to Dave and UC.
This is really starting to get funny. :)
Mark -- no offense intended -- that AOL users all seem to come from the
same range of IP addresses? Um, it's quite simple really -- AOL owns a
certain block of IP addresses, and entire groups of users (25,000 or
more) can easily be routed through the same
router/firewall/switch/whatever. Point is, IP tracing is a far-cry
these days for evaluating authenticity of the sender. What's worse...
ISPs like Verizon, who offer FFTP (fiber optic to the premises - your
house) utilize dynamic IP assignments that follow absolutely no pattern
whatsoever... so similar IPs may in fact be traced to locations 3,000
miles apart from either other.
Needless to say... I don't think Dick is doing this at all... this is
the stuff that witch hunts are made of... so very 1600's-ish! Come on,
everyone, let's grow up and face this NG with a sense of trust. What's
to lose, given that 80% of the traffic these days is accusations and
kill-file threats??
David
Dave
>
> Go away and find some manners !!!!!
On the contrary, I have the utmost respect for members of this list who
understand a thing called civility. I value and their presence here,
admire their contributions, and where possible, hope I can add
something of value to the discussion. I also take time to try my best
and treat them with respect and validate their posts here.
If my presence so offends you, might I suggest you either:
1. Figure out how to kill-file me, as your endless, boring threats
imply you will do;
2. Join another newsgroup, such as alt.kiwi.complainers; or
3. Shut the HELIER up!
David
Mark Lipton
> This is really starting to get funny. :)
I'm glad someone thinks so.
>
> Mark -- no offense intended -- that AOL users all seem to come from the
> same range of IP addresses? Um, it's quite simple really -- AOL owns a
> certain block of IP addresses, and entire groups of users (25,000 or
> more) can easily be routed through the same
> router/firewall/switch/whatever. Point is, IP tracing is a far-cry
> these days for evaluating authenticity of the sender. What's worse...
> ISPs like Verizon, who offer FFTP (fiber optic to the premises - your
> house) utilize dynamic IP assignments that follow absolutely no pattern
> whatsoever... so similar IPs may in fact be traced to locations 3,000
> miles apart from either other.'
Dave,
I've been constantly networked since '76. I'm a former system
programmer. I know the difference between static and dynamic IP
addresses and I also know all about DHCP leases. Dick's cable modem has
a static IP address that hasn't changed since last year. You can easily
check that claim for yourself. When I see the same IP address appear in
another person's post, I don't have to think too hard about what's going
on. Dick quibbles with my claim that it's Mindspring since he's an
Earthlink customer and "Audrey" claims to be a Mindspring customer in
Atlanta. (Earthlink bought Mindspring 5-6 years ago and never bothered
to change the DNS records.) Whois searching on 24.148.225.120 will show
you that the IP block is owned by Earthlink and geolocation will show
that it's near Raleigh, NC which is where Dick lives.
>
> Needless to say... I don't think Dick is doing this at all... this is
> the stuff that witch hunts are made of... so very 1600's-ish! Come on,
> everyone, let's grow up and face this NG with a sense of trust. What's
> to lose, given that 80% of the traffic these days is accusations and
> kill-file threats??
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm done with childish games like sock
puppetry and ad hominem attacks. It's just wine talk for me from now on.
Mark Lipton
Richard Neidich
been with Earthlink-Time Warner for about 4 years.
What is your point. I don't know the difference with IP's but know I am not
the same person. You are simply getting whacko here.
But I am going to past my message source from my last post:. Then one of
Audreys--the one she claims is her home post not work.. You tell me which
is which...and why it is me since she is in Atlanta 240 miles from me. And
I am 150 miles from Raleigh...if you don't buy that ask J. Rosenberg who has
been to my house you beligerent ass.
I know who I am...and I don't appreciate your statements. They are not
founded and they are not true.
That said I have no idea what you are talking about with regards to IP's
because I am not a computer person but I did copy.paste the message info
from outlook here.
Message Source where I was replying:
References: <1156885963.6...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
<Je6dnb3jLqbnZGnZ...@insightbb.com>
<ed35q4$so3$1...@news.datemas.de>
<nFfJg.473$v%4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<ENgJg.12754$%j7.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
<xYhJg.12069$Qf....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<deiJg.18603$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
<HhiJg.554$v%4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<SSiJg.18617$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
<W3jJg.3629$bM....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<5ojJg.12837$%j7.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
<CGjJg.3276$xQ1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<1157058897.4...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
<o8KdnYQLkq6pNmrZ...@insightbb.com>
<1157097711....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
<ed9ibu$dm$1...@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
<1157123888....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
<eda44o$b2a$1...@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
Lines: 48
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
Message-ID: <Ru1Kg.1525$v%4.1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:20:49 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.148.225.120
X-Complaints-To: ab...@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1157145649 24.148.225.120 (Fri, 01
Sep 2006 14:20:49 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:20:49 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Xref: news.earthlink.net alt.food.wine:181877
X-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:20:49 PDT
(newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
This one is from Audrey from what she says is her home post using sprint:
Path:
newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!postnews.google.com!m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Audrey" <audreyr...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.food.wine
Subject: Re: Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
Date: 1 Sep 2006 14:50:17 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <1157147417....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
References: <ed35q4$so3$1...@news.datemas.de>
<nFfJg.473$v%4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<ENgJg.12754$%j7.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
<xYhJg.12069$Qf....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<deiJg.18603$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
<HhiJg.554$v%4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<SSiJg.18617$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
<W3jJg.3629$bM....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<5ojJg.12837$%j7.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
<CGjJg.3276$xQ1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<1157058897.4...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
<o8KdnYQLkq6pNmrZ...@insightbb.com>
<1157097711....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
<ed9ibu$dm$1...@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
<1157123888....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
<eda44o$b2a$1...@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.243.37.167
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1157147422 23689 127.0.0.1 (1 Sep 2006 21:50:22
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:50:22 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <eda44o$b2a$1...@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
.NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.243.37.167;
posting-account=kbsUNg0AAADpUXdD-xOlXkfMamqMcmw1
Xref: news.earthlink.net alt.food.wine:181880
X-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:50:22 PDT
(newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
Path:
newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!postnews.google.com!m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Audrey" <audreyr...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.food.wine
Subject: Re: Something smells! (Was: Anderson Valley Pinot Noir)
Date: 1 Sep 2006 14:50:17 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <1157147417....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
References: <ed35q4$so3$1...@news.datemas.de>
<nFfJg.473$v%4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<ENgJg.12754$%j7.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
<xYhJg.12069$Qf....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<deiJg.18603$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
<HhiJg.554$v%4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<SSiJg.18617$kO3....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
<W3jJg.3629$bM....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<5ojJg.12837$%j7.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
<CGjJg.3276$xQ1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<1157058897.4...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
<o8KdnYQLkq6pNmrZ...@insightbb.com>
<1157097711....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
<ed9ibu$dm$1...@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
<1157123888....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
<eda44o$b2a$1...@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.243.37.167
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1157147422 23689 127.0.0.1 (1 Sep 2006 21:50:22
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:50:22 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <eda44o$b2a$1...@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
.NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.243.37.167;
posting-account=kbsUNg0AAADpUXdD-xOlXkfMamqMcmw1
Xref: news.earthlink.net alt.food.wine:181880
X-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:50:22 PDT
(newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
"Mark Lipton" <not...@eudrup.ude> wrote in message
news:RrSdncnB3MIIcmXZ...@insightbb.com...
Dave
> programmer. I know the difference between static and dynamic IP
> addresses and I also know all about DHCP leases. Dick's cable modem has
> a static IP address that hasn't changed since last year. You can easily
> check that claim for yourself. When I see the same IP address appear in
> another person's post, I don't have to think too hard about what's going
> on. Dick quibbles with my claim that it's Mindspring since he's an
> Earthlink customer and "Audrey" claims to be a Mindspring customer in
> Atlanta. (Earthlink bought Mindspring 5-6 years ago and never bothered
> to change the DNS records.) Whois searching on 24.148.225.120 will show
> you that the IP block is owned by Earthlink and geolocation will show
> that it's near Raleigh, NC which is where Dick lives.
It's no surprise the IP assignments didn't change - a simple change in
ownership doesn't necessitate that all IPs be relinquished and renewed.
It is a cost-prohibitive procedure to arbitrarily reassign blocks for
any reason -- I take this from personal experience as we just migrated
some 250 domains grouped under 50 different IPs to a new block earlier
this year (my daytime job as owner of an Oregon hosting company).
My prior note about AOL - sorry for any confusion, as I realized the
first half of the sentence was accidentally deleted before I posted -
is that AOL's IPs for years have gone through their primary core
routers in MacLean, Virginia. I know, as well as you do, that AOL has a
global audience. And yet, if you check traffic logs, for ages and ages,
*all* AOL traffic could be traced back to a few select core routers in
MacLean.
Whatever the case... any huge national ISP is going to have their own
means as to how they designate subscribers to this or that IP block, be
it permanent or statick -- or in the case of AOL and Earthlink, whether
a large group of subscribers flow through a single group of
firewalls/routers --- and hence, all members therein can be traced back
to the same core routers (so they all share the same IP) but not any
further.
It's starting to be a bit McCarthyistic here, don't you think? -- that
now suspicion is falling upon long-time members? Come on, Mark -- let's
move on and get back to the real reason we're here -- drinking great
wines -- and not hash over details that can ensue when we've all had a
bit *too* much of those same great wines, and then chosen to email. :)
Cheers,
David
DaleW
decided I would ignore Mr. Neidich for my own reasons, it does seem
there are some interesting coincidences here. I am aware of the
communal posting hosts of large ISPs, but it does seem textually there
are some startling similarites between Mr. Neidich and Audrey, beyond
posting details such as IP addresses:
Both live in the Southeast, but were just in Oregon discovering new
wines (Bergstrom and Dessert Wine threads). Admittedly minor
coincidence.
The newsgroup Audrey proffers as an example of greater civility from
horrid regulars of AFW is alt.coffee. Surprisingly, according to Google
Groups, the ONLY other newsgroup that Mr Neidich has posted to (other
than a couple of Xposts from AFW) is.......alt.coffee. Soulmates.
And, for the geeky, in her one wine related post Audrey says:
"Being a lover of fine French Burgundy I was amazed how
different these Oregon Pinot's are compared to the California style
which I found to be Cabernet built Pinot"
I've heard lots of folks compare some California Pinot Noirs to Syrah.
But Cabernet seems an odder comparison, but the statement's style was
vaguely familiar. So I just searched alt.food.wine for "complex
burgundy california pinot cabernet " The first hit (and the only one
that I can find that makes that comparison) was from Mr. Neidich on
5/28/02:
"Oregon is more similar to Burgundy if you like complex, multi-faceted
wines
that are simple, elegant and lack the Cabernet quality of many
California
style Pinot Noirs. "
They're certainly like-minded folks all around.
I realize none of these points is in anyway conclusive, but I found
them interesting. I just think we should all be flattered that Audrey,
a self-proclaimed regular poster on newsgroups, would set up a new
Google account just for AFW, and then spend 3 of her 4 posts berating
those who contribute regularly. I'm sure we all appreciate the
generosity of spirit.
In general I think most of us are reasonably welcoming to newcomers
(and Mark Lipton in particular is generally exceptionally gracious). We
could all use improvement (I know I could), but color me sceptical of
posters who decide to start off by chiding others.
Richard Neidich
27 years. To the best of my knowledge I am not that close to my feminine
side to have an alter personality that would be a women(presumably).
Next, her/his writing in response is that she writes under the other person
and snips portions. Rarely have I ever done that. I write on top as I am
doing this time. But if you use group think you would of course come to
your conclusion.
I figured how to do a trace on the IP address of Audreys last post which
she/he claimed was from home not work. It is a Spint IP which is different
than both of mine which are Time Warner/Earthlink. Hope this resolves your
issues on that part.
To be fair, my neighbor is with Bank of America and is in IT-network support
so he did it for me. Here are the results:
posting-host=68.243.37.167 which after run through the tracker is
IP address 68.243.37.167
Hostname 015-997-131.area7.spcsdns.net
ISP Sprint
Mine are all clearly listed as Earthlink. And have been for 4 years or so.
I am in Oregon quite regularly. Recently actually I have also found a few
Pinot from Nor Cal that I like quite a bit. Non impress me as much as a
good Burg. I think that California Cab and Cal Pinot are indeed lacking in
terms of finesse, and complexity. I do indeed think most of the NorCal
producers are Cab producers and build their wines for Parker Points that are
robust, huge wines. And 2 weeks ago I was at Bergstrom. I enjoyed their
wine and it was complex but not the style I normally drink. I bought 6
bottles and will decide in a few years. They also have a new wine room that
is quite fancy. Other wineries and restaraunts suggested going there. The
person at Avalon.com that owns that internet wine country suggested it in a
newsletter. So I did go. It was packed. So therefore since I met people
there from Atlanta, Cary, Charlotte, Richmond, Norfolk...they also must be
Audrey too.
That said I have found a few very complex Pinot from Napa/Sonoma that are
not that style in the past couple trips. El Molino Pinot(Rutherford) is
outstanding. Martinelli Reserve(Russian River/Sonoma North Coast) was
outstanding. Also Robert Sinsky 4 corners reserve outstanding. These are
all more to my liking and do indeed have the finesse of a good burgundy vs
boldness.
Now, after 8 years of seeking fine Pinot from the states I realize what I
did not enjoy...the Carneros Pinot Wines. Most are huge, massive, over ripe
similar to a Cal Cab or Cal Zin. Sorry, I don't identify them with Syrah at
all.
That all said, your post again is of the maligning type. Group think works
for you I see.
"DaleW" <Dwm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1157236932.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Richard Neidich
write paragraphs and not really much in snippets where I interject mine with
others parts of their posts. I have found that my eyes are not real good at
that type. I simply write full without combining the original poster and
alternating.
I am surpised at the very length that some of you will go to undermine this
group and or me.
Mark Lipton indicates that I should enjoy my conversations mostly with Dave
and UC. Honestly I probably would enjoy that more than those with some in
this group. Dave and UC are actually a bit more honest in my opinion even
if you don't care for what they say. They don't seem to undermine others.
Just a bolstering of ideas.
Since you have ignored/kill filed me in the past---and apparently don't feel
I am a credible poster...please feel free to ignore me. It is obvious that
my posting of almost 12-15 years is not worthy. And in all that time to my
knowledge I have never had an alias...but heaven forbid others notice
similar even if they are southeast and drink Pinots.
You are encouraged to killfile my worthless posts. It would be acceptable
to me. Meanwhile I will continue to read you delicious posts and pairings.
What Adells sausage flaver did you have in your recipe this week? I was
going to try..did you know they have meatballs now?
Dick
"DaleW" <Dwm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1157236932.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dave
> Next, her/his writing in response is that she writes under the other person
> and snips portions. Rarely have I ever done that.
Writing style apparently counts for little these days, at least when
some members have just enough tools to lead them on an IP witch hunt.
Same goes for years of membership, thousands of posts, and genuine
off-list conversations. Wow, Dick, if I knew you invested so much into
AFW to reap the reward of being labeled as a fake, I'd never have
walked away those years ago. ;)
One of the things that has puzzled me about those crying foul on this
list lately, is that perhaps these members are not accustomed to
dealing with uninformed wine enthusiasts who ask sincere (albeit
newbie-style) questions. Some are very basic. Some ask about specific
wines or wineries. Some make no sense at all.
To draw a comparison, in the four years we've been running our site, we
have literally received thousands of similar questions. We ask visitors
to *please* ask us questions, so we can better understand what they're
looking for, where they're coming from, if there's anything we can do
to help, etc. And I have to admit, Audrey, BigCAWine, and others AFW
members have all asked questions that, compared to the ones we
regularly get through our site, seem almost identical in structure and
style.
The point is -- this is what sincere questions about wine "look like"
when posed by people not necessarily experience or accustomed to the
topic. Think back -- way way back if you must -- to your university
days. Remember when some of your classmates asked seemingly questions
during a lecture, but you happened to already know the answer because
you'd done your homework? Now think about the same way some of the
questions on AFW are framed. Really...
I understand that stealth marketing is a problem for online forums and
NG's these days, yet some of the 'suspicious' posts haven't even
mentioned a URL. Some have simply mentioned a winery or wine by name.
How, might I ask, is that *any* different from what the "indoctrinated"
AFW members do in their day-to-day posting here? I fall back to a prior
notion that each and every one of us is already providing free
marketing for our favorite wineries, wines, varietals, growing regions,
etc., whenever we post tasting notes or share news about such.
That new members turn to AFW for information, seeking advice, is a good
thing. That they don't understand there is now apparently some secret,
illuminati communication code one must use when posting questions to
AFW, lest it be met with reproach and suspicion, is a bad thing. AFW
has a definite opportunity here. If members want to avoid it becoming
an old boy's club (OBC), this entire game of crying foul should end
immediately. And *certainly*, members should NOT accuse the good
Richard Neidich of being a woman -- that definitely is OBC rhetoric,
and probably the reason why so few female members ever speak up, let
alone actively engage in a conversation.
It does make you think, to what degree has GroupThink taken over AFW,
when independent voices on AFW are insulted, accused of impersonating
the other gender, labeled disingenuous, and even kill-filed (that is,
if one particular dolt threatening to kill-file can ever figure out how
to do it right). Last I looked, the "W" in AFW stood for 'wine', not a
fascist administration. Then again, I could be wrong.
Cheers,
David
Joe "Beppe"Rosenberg
I've supped with Mark & Richard both and don't understand how things have
evolved.
Richard aka beanguy has nothing to do wineries/retailers etc & Mark does not
either.
6 weeks ago I came an airbag away from joining a celestial tasting panel so
I think all this huffing & puffing over AWS is in a minor key.
There are people who try to sell their wares to this group. Some are more
clever than others.
We really should trim our posts to only the most recent posting. One gets
lost figuring out who said what. Without a scorecard who knows who is the
spammer and who is the spamee.
I think disagreements like this should be settled away from AWS' site.
So fellas touch glasses and come out imbibing a delicious nectar.
Don't let me send my persuaders, Manny, Vito and Claude to anyone's
residence soon, so they cease & desist. They haven't roughed anyone up
since doing security for Michael Jackson's visit to the Boy Scout
Headquarters.
"Mark Lipton" <not...@eudrup.ude> wrote in message
news:ed49nq$2ob$1...@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu...
> st.helier wrote:
> > Call me a suspicious old bugger - but.....
> >
> > If it smells like a stealth marketing campaign.....
> >
> > Consider this!
> >
>
DaleW
I'm not sure that I appreciate your continued referrals to those who
disbelieve in Audrey as McCarthyists, fascists, "1600", or
witchhunters. To me, sock puppetry is probably the epitome of low
behavior in newsgroups. If one can't defend one's position without
resorting to fictional backup, then retreat.
I understood your point (as I'm sure Mark Lipton did) of some modem
addresses not reflecting geographic location, as typified by AOL. The
difference is those blocks of AOL addresses are dynamic addresses they
assign as needed. Yet Mr. Neidich has had the same IP address for quite
a while. Mark was wrong about one thing, Mr. Neidich is in Charlotte
not Raleigh- just like the IP address
24.148.225.120
Record Type: IP Address
Earthlink, Inc. ERLK-CBL-TW-MIDSOUTH (NET-24-148-128-0-1)
24.148.128.0 - 24.148.255.255
EARTHLINK, INC ERLK-TW-CHARLOTTE36 (NET-24-148-224-0-1)
24.148.224.0 - 24.148.235.255
Suddenly Audrey posts from the same address. It's true any AOL IP
search will show a Virginia address, is that how Earthlink works? I
checked a few local sites, looked at listing of top posters for
Earthlink/Mindspring addresses. Don't know the Charlottle group. But I
did try another NC newsgroup, and for an Earthlink poster on
triangle.dining (for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area) found this:
24.225.65.114
Record Type: IP Address
Earthlink, Inc. ERLK-CBL-TW-MIDSOUTH (NET-24-225-32-0-1)
24.225.32.0 - 24.225.95.255
EARTHLINK, INC. ERLK-TW-RALEIGH11 (NET-24-225-64-0-1)
24.225.64.0 - 24.225.95.255
OK, so Raleigh group, Raleigh modem.
Then tried Atlanta, home of Audrey. A pair of Earthspring posters from
atl.general, the Altlanta newsgroup:
66.32.216.246
Record Type: IP Address
OrgName: EarthLink Network, Inc.
OrgID: ERAD
Address: 1375 PECHTREE ST, LEVEL A
City: ATLANTA
StateProv: GA
PostalCode: 30309
Country: US
66.32.196.227
Record Type: IP Address
OrgName: EarthLink Network, Inc.
OrgID: ERAD
Address: 1375 PECHTREE ST, LEVEL A
City: ATLANTA
StateProv: GA
PostalCode: 30309
Country: US
For fun, I tried a couple other groups across the country:
>From Austin.general
63.246.166.202
Record Type: IP Address
EarthLink, Inc. ERLK-CABLE-TWSOUTHWEST-4 (NET-63-246-160-0-1)
63.246.160.0 - 63.246.191.255
EARTHLINK, INC. ERLK-TW-AUSTIN12 (NET-63-246-160-0-2)
63.246.160.0 - 63.246.191.255
from nyc.transit
69.86.10.63
Record Type: IP Address
EarthLink, Inc. ERLK-CBL-TW-NYC (NET-69-86-0-0-1)
69.86.0.0 - 69.86.255.255
EARTHLINK, INC. ERLK-TW-STATENISLAND5 (NET-69-86-0-0-2)
69.86.0.0 - 69.86.15.255
Wow. It kind of looks to me like the whois results of where Earthlink
modems are indicates.....where the modems are. So I'm very confused as
to how Atlanta Audrey posted from the same IP as Mr. Neidich.
I'm about to make an offer to "resign" from AFW (and richly reward both
Audrey and Mr. Neidich if I unfairly maligned them) in response to Mr.
Neidich. Want in on the action?
DaleW
Google groups I lost the ability to killfile)
I somehow missed the posts from you and Dave (I had some house issues
Sat night/Sunday). While I appreciate Midlife's point about getting
along, I think it is crucial to the health of the group that no one is
unclear that sock puppetry is unacceptable. You say that :
"post again is of the maligning type. Group think works
for you I see. "
Actually, I generally try to (a) think for myself , (b) be reasonably
polite and welcoming, and (c) be courteous. I don't always succeed,
but I try. In your case over the years I tried to be polite online (and
was polite when you called me at my office, when you emailed me, and
when I delivered a package for you when Ian Hoare was visiting US).
When your posts once again crossed the line last winter, I chose to
ignore you rather than encourage you (I killfilled you once before for
your xenophobic rants, then restored after your public apology - which
you proceeded to undermine with your "jokes").
So now you say I have maligned you. I'm so sorry. Tell you what. Since
I maligned BOTH you and Audrey, both lovers of fine complex French
Burgundy, I'd like to offer you each a Grand Cru Burgundy. I'll send
you both a list, some Potels, Trapets, Drouhins, Rousseaus, etc (I'll
offer some top 1ers like a Dujac Combottes or a Comte Armand Epeneaux
for variety). You can each choose one. As soon as there's some evidence
Audrey is real, I'll get them to you (my brother lives in Atlanta, and
Betsy plays in NC a lot, so no worries re violating shipping laws). In
addition, I'll agree to stop posting on AFW forever. I'm a man of my
word, and have always donated any wine for a bet or a charity that I've
offered (you can check with folks at Wine Lovers Discussion Group or
Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts if you have doubts). What a win-win for you
and Audrey- a bottle of good Burgundy and ridding AFW of one of those
pesky fascist regulars. All we need is for Audrey to step forward and
show:
1) she exists in Atlanta
2) she works for a company that uses Earthlink
3) she visited Oregon last week (copy of itinerary, maybe?)
4) she can post from Charlotte modems from Atlanta.
If she's reluctant to reveal her identity to a fascist like myself, I'm
sure we can find a neutral AFWer we both trust -no, Dave doesn't count.
There's zero downside here for you or Audrey, right?
Let's be clear. I think those that use sock puppets are vile. They
undermine everything that makes a community.
Richard Neidich
wine. Send anytime. That is my way of saying I really am the bigger man
and can accept your gift of apology. Your behavior really is McCarthy like.
In my case, not being a computer geek I cannot fully understand your IP
issues. Your issues, not mine. I have explained who I am and where I
reside. That is all I plan to do on that matter. Earthlink today did
advise me when their service is Time Warner there are certain (loops) that
pull identical IP's. I explained as much as I could being a non computer
person and they indicated that those with a little knowledge have made a big
leap.
If your killfile does not work...I am sorry for that. We are apparently
never going to get along you and I. I have not ever asked you to leave this
group...so don't. I am not going anywhere either. However for a case of
DRC..I could be paid off :-)
As for Audrey, I hope she/he takes you up on your offer as well.
Unfortunatly in the last posting Audrey indicated she was not returning so
you will need to contact that person direct for your offer. Since I really
am not Audrey, I cannot assist any more on that. I am still willing to let
you send me the wine however.
Sorry you had water-electric problems in your place. Hope you are not
trying to get rid of moldy labeled wine with me.
Re,dick
"DaleW" <Dwm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1157505355.4...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Joe "Beppe"Rosenberg
Brooklyn he's not in anyway a fascist and works with the homeless, his day
job. The beanguy is more to the right than Dale but he's more an Eisenhower
Republican then a zealot.
I can not understand the beef but its sounds jejune. To paraphrase Quincy
Jones guys leave your ego's at the door.
And as my pal Salvatore da Bounca sez "Take it outside" pleeeeeeze.
"Richard Neidich" <rnei...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:HVpLg.6724$xQ1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
DaleW
my offer. She's psychologically unlike real person I ever met if she's
unwilling to come back to both rub my nose in the ground and get free
GC Burgundy. Weird that someone assertive enough to complain about
regulars on her second post would be so traumatized that she couldn't
face return, even for vindification.
But leaving aside Audrey, please send me the name and contact info of
the Earthlink tech guy who says that they have "loops" where they
assign identical IPs. Must be rough on the customers, with random
webpages loading because the other guy requested them. After I confirm
his/her opinion that it's possible than an Earthlink customer in GA can
post from the same static IP that you have been using from months,
I'll send you a serious bottle by way of apology and "resign" from AFW.
Until then I'll go back to ignoring you, as I've noted I find the
deception of sock puppet use the most heinous of breaches of newsgroup
etiquette.
Lawrence Leichtman
"DaleW" <Dwm...@aol.com> wrote:
As for me I don't care whether Audrey is or is not a real person. I
don't want Dale to leave the list. His posts have been informative for
food and wine as well as entertaining. I think it would be a tremendous
loss.
Richard Neidich
temper tantrum here. I enjoy his postings as well. Usually mouth watering.
In my earlier posting I stated following: But don't worry Dale is not going
anywhere...its just a tantrum that will fade.
"Richard Neidich" <rnei...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<HVpLg.6724$xQ1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
Snip
"I have not ever asked you to leave this group...so don't. I am not going
anywhere either."
snip
"Lawrence Leichtman" <la...@mail-block.com> wrote in message
news:larry-31EBB5....@news.east.cox.net...
Dave
Thanks for the detailed post and response.
Now, I think Audrey -- or any woman for that matter -- would be foolish
to provide *anyone* with their contact information online, especially
given the rather vitriolic direction this conversation has headed, not
to mention some of the insinuations as to whether Audrey exists or not.
Do people here not understand privacy issues, identity theft/fraud,
etc., and that it can begin as simply as providing such information to
an unknown person online? In any case, after the character assault
placed against "Audrey", why should she -- or the person behind her
alias -- have any desire to do anything BUT leave the list, which it
appears she did?
> I'm not sure that I appreciate your continued referrals to those who
> disbelieve in Audrey as McCarthyists, fascists, "1600", or
> witchhunters.
Come now... you're combining several of my "fairness calls" from
multiple threads... however, if that be the case, then you forgot about
the 'illuminati'. I do remember stating something to that effect a
while back. :)
While I respect your right to your own views on the matter, I simply
call things as I see it, and admittedly it has the tendency to ruffle
feathers. To that degree, my apologies if my comments have resulted in
any offense to your or anyone else here.
However, if members here don't want me issuing fairness calls, then the
simple solution might be to stop posting accusations in the first
place, and just let the list be itself... it is, after all, just a
NG... and as Joe pointed out, there are far greater and important
things to do in this life than quibble over what goes on here... good
point, Joe -- I myself make that mistake far too often too, and forget
to take life less seriously than I regularly do.
However, Dale, let me give you the benefit of the doubt, and let's
assume for a moment that Audrey doesn't exist. To that degree then,
what does that tell you about this list, if actual people do not feel
comfortable posting? That they must construct an alias from which to
share their true feelings? If anything... I should think that such a
realization would have far-greater implications, than any offense
caused by the individual creating the alias in the first place...
> I'm about to make an offer to "resign" from AFW (and richly reward both
> Audrey and Mr. Neidich if I unfairly maligned them) in response to Mr.
> Neidich. Want in on the action?
No one wants you to leave, I certainly don't, and so I am going to
generously decline your offer of wine. I'd like to think the list can
exist and go on with members 'agreeing to disagree' -- that is, after
all, how we can make the list diverse and preserve the richness of
opinions, etc. It would be a very dull place if we all agreed about the
same things all the time...
In any case, while I'd certainly love to accept a bottle of good wine
from you, God knows, I have too much here already (not all of it good)
-- and besides, the vendange (and subsequently, home vinting) is just
around the corner, meaning very soon, there will be even more wine
clogging up the cellar... :)
Thanks again for your thoughts on all this.
Cheers,
David
DaleW
think I''m a year older than he). Sigh, but I am weak.
"if actual people do not feel
comfortable posting? That they must construct an alias from which to
share their true feelings? "
The point isn't whether Audrey is a real name, but that the posts came
from the same static IP address that Mr. Neidich had used for the
previous several months and continues to use. As you mentioned your
experience as owner of a hosting company, perhaps you will comment on
how that could happen, or Mr. Neidich's claim that Earthlink assigns
identical IP addresses to multiple customers? If you do not understand
how sock puppetry from supposed regular posters undermines the
integrity of any community, then we just live on different planets. I
have actually have no problem with people with obviously false names (
I look forward to posts from cwdjrxyz, midlife, etc) ; I do have
problems with made-up people to make it look like one's point is valid.
One voice per customer, please.
I did offer that if she felt uncomfortable revealing herself to shady
character like myself, she could chose the uninvolved poster we could
mutually accept. (As to identity theft, while a very real problem, it
has become to some extent the bugaboo of the 21st century. Would
revealing one's name and place of employment put one at risk of ID
theft? Wow, I guess I'm in deep shit - tens of thousands of people who
don't even read Usenet know that about me! )
Oh, I did get a response from "Audrey" (I didn't see immediately
because spam filter tends to trap unknown senders from freebie mail
accounts). This is the first mail I've ever seen from a Yahoo account
with one of those lawyerly "privileged, confidential and/or proprietary
to Audrey Retadore" notices. I wouldn't let that alone stop me from
posting the letter, but I'll refrain as public posting of email is
frowned upon in newsgroup etiquette (obviously not as bad an offense as
sockpuppetry, but still the rules). It's too bad it wasn't a public
post, since as I was compared to Hitler I could invoke Godwin's law.
I'm a pretty sensitive guy, but I must say that emails from free Yahoo
accounts from a cellphone/PDA (like Audrey's final post, this came from
a Sprint PCS wireless IP, not Sprintlink which is their home internet
provider) by folks who don't seem to have made any impression on the
world outside of free Google Groups postings don't exactly wound me.
Especially when they use the same grammar and spelling as Mr. Neidich
(for instance it's McCarthy-like, not McCarthy like ). If you wish I'll
happily forward to anyone (even though the scary notice says I can't).
I got into this for several reasons:
1) I dislike dishonesty intensely. I'll take a regular troll over a
sockpuppet any day. Anyone who gives any credence to someone who uses
sockpuppets is a fool IMHO.
2) I don't like seeing people who had struggled to keep this group
going (while others have done their xenophobic ranting) called
belligerent asses.
3) I believe your and Dick's whole premise (that this group is
horrifically mean to newbies) is faulty. I think anyone reading Dave
from Liquorama's posts would see that Dick's description was either
mistaken or a lie. I agree the post questioning BigCAWine was badly
thought out , but he came back and said thanks for recs (to Mark).
Looking back a few weeks I don't see anyone being "mean" to Ben Snyder,
the retiring guy, zeppo, Gary, Greenpointer, ginmill01, TimTam, etc.
No one lashed out at Audrey. Of course, once she started commenting on
the regulars- and it turned out she was one in drag- that's a whole
'nother story. I'd like to see some concrete examples of what is so
scary.
Ok, I'll listen to wiser heads and just shut up now (though the
Burgundy offers still hold).
Richard Neidich
Dale, as you know I was openly copied on that email that Audrey sent to you.
That said, let me state that the writing is not mine and I will not forward
or copy. You can do what you want. Secondly, realize that you may not be
afraid of posting or forwarding, but I have seen a recent John Doe lawsuit
on copyright infringment for such matters in Texas. Good luck on your
decision.
Secondly, since she copied me openly, I don't really see any similarity to
my writing style whatsoever. If you think McCarthy like, or McCarthy-like
or a compound word like McCarthylike is your proof its me than so be it.
Not much I can do. As you said she posted from Sprint...I don't think I
have ever done that so you should apologize to me now.
You could invoke Godwins law had she compared you to the ultimate of evil.
But she had to do that publically not in an email. You do not have the
right to invoke crap on that one.
My point is as follows:
1) M. Tomassi posted "End of AFW". suggesting it has been getting real
bad in here with spam, etc.
2) I responded and simply suggested ignore the bad guys. That AFW is
worthy to continue. My post was civil!
3) The three new posters come and St. Hellier starts questioning 2 of
them as to stealth marketers, Mark Lipton questions Audrey. 3 new posters
in 2 days under immediate suspicion.
4) Then Audrey posts on Oregon Wine and later suggests in another post
that new posters don't really seem welcome.
5) Audrey as a new poster was more civil in her posts than you and Mark
Lipton were in contesting them. You are not the police.
6) Seems to me like you, Mark and St. Hellier are the same person on this
cause you are "sharing the same brain."
7) REMAIN CIVIL. DON'T MAKE ACCUSATORY STATEMENTS....
If you planned to killfile me long ago, and according to your post had done
so until Google it really does sound, as Audrey suggested, that you had an
motive here when you chose to get caught up in this rediculous thread. That
was to support St. Hellier and Mark Lipton. Therefore, you attacked for
that reason and that reason only. You know it. Otherwise you would have
decided to ignore my posts as you have done for a long time. GET A LIFE.
Dave
> from the same static IP address that Mr. Neidich had used for the
> previous several months and continues to use.
My understanding is that Dick is on a cable modem/router, which is
typically assigned an IP via DHCP - and temporary until the next time
the router is power-cycled. In any case, it is doubtful he would have a
static IP unless he was willing to pay a premium. Typically, that's
only something businesses opt for, such as if they want to host web
applications or mailservers in-house.
In any case, if Dick has a wireless router, and it's unsecured... it
would be very easy for someone to piggyback traffic onto his
connection. Who knows? Perhaps he's got a secret admirer across the
street from his house who's been listening in on conversations -- but
you see, that is going down the same paranoid track this entire
conversation has, and I simply won't go there. That Dick denies he is
using an alias is enough for me, and it should be enough for the rest
of you all.
> experience as owner of a hosting company, perhaps you will comment on
> how that could happen, or Mr. Neidich's claim that Earthlink assigns
> identical IP addresses to multiple customers? If you do not understand
> how sock puppetry from supposed regular posters undermines the
> integrity of any community, then we just live on different planets.
One thing is obvious -- if this is a charade, it's exposing the fact
that this group would rather spend more time bickering over
*qualitative content* of postings, while completely ignoring the
*quantitative content* and static generated by all of the bickering.
That goes for my post too, I must admit - but I wanted to reply since
you did pose a question or two for me.
> have actually have no problem with people with obviously false names (
> I look forward to posts from cwdjrxyz, midlife, etc) ; I do have
> problems with made-up people to make it look like one's point is valid.
> One voice per customer, please.
Agreed, but of all people, I don't think Dick needs to hide behind
anything in order to back up his point. Like me, he's fully capable of
defending himself, calling crap where he sees it, and dishing it right
back where it comes from.
Now... if he *is* playing games... I happen to find some level of
amusement in that to be honest... because I think this list could be
well-served with a little fun... No real harm has been done, except
it's compelled you to spend a bunch of time trying to dig up the truth
of the matter about who's who... however you look at it, you might
consider it time well-spent (unearthing the truth about this 'mystery
poster') or, as I'd tend to look at it, a complete waste of time, as
sadly I have little time these days for much NG activity.
> I did offer that if she felt uncomfortable revealing herself to shady
> character like myself, she could chose the uninvolved poster we could
> mutually accept.
But you see... that offer, while no doubt genuine, can accomplishe only
very little. One online stranger over another... who's to say this
"mutually acceptable" poster would even exist, given your list of
acceptable posters are probably all feel the same as you in doubting
her true identity.
> (As to identity theft, while a very real problem, it
> has become to some extent the bugaboo of the 21st century. Would
> revealing one's name and place of employment put one at risk of ID
> theft? Wow, I guess I'm in deep shit - tens of thousands of people who
> don't even read Usenet know that about me! )
No, but all I need is your phone number, and I can wreak complete
havoc. I don't even need to know your name, SSN, nothing. Just your
phone number. I can purchase calling lists from major national telcos,
just like the NSA did (yes, it is actually legal -- but ethical? An
entirely different question!), and piece together a nice framework of
your entire social crowd (who you're calling, who's calling you, etc.)
Furthermore, I can use your phone number in researching credit reports,
along with reports for all the people who you've called, so now I can
construct if you have anything to do (business, mortgage, phone
companies, credit cards, etc.) with some of the people you're talking
with. Not that it matters, since apparently all this is simply a
"bugaboo" of this century...
My more general point was more along the lines of: why should a woman
give out confidential information of ANY level to a complete male
stranger?
> Oh, I did get a response from "Audrey" (I didn't see immediately
> because spam filter tends to trap unknown senders from freebie mail
> accounts). This is the first mail I've ever seen from a Yahoo account
> with one of those lawyerly "privileged, confidential and/or proprietary
> to Audrey Retadore" notices. I wouldn't let that alone stop me from
> posting the letter, but I'll refrain as public posting of email is
> frowned upon in newsgroup etiquette (obviously not as bad an offense as
> sockpuppetry, but still the rules). It's too bad it wasn't a public
> post, since as I was compared to Hitler I could invoke Godwin's law.
> I'm a pretty sensitive guy, but I must say that emails from free Yahoo
> accounts from a cellphone/PDA (like Audrey's final post, this came from
> a Sprint PCS wireless IP, not Sprintlink which is their home internet
> provider)
Have you considered contacting Yahoo to inquire? They're quite good
about digging up all kinds of crap on their users and selling it. They
were one of the first companies to fold when the NSA came knocking, and
I'm sure if you leveled a valid complaint, they'd dig up some info for
you.
Now, regarding the IP tracing to Sprint.. I did the same, and confirmed
it is on Sprints IP block. However, Sprint PCS or Sprintlink - it could
all be the same. All she'd need would be a wireless PCS card that can
either plug into a wireless modem (home use) or from the
office/remote/coffee shop, via the Sprint PCS (cellular) network. Same
card. Two different uses, two different IPs, one local, one
dynamic-while-roaming.
> Especially when they use the same grammar and spelling as Mr. Neidich
> (for instance it's McCarthy-like, not McCarthy like ). If you wish I'll
> happily forward to anyone (even though the scary notice says I can't).
No, that's all right. I'd honor the request for privacy actually.. if
not for legal reasons, than at least I think you have an ethical
obligation not to forward it without Audrey's permission.
> I got into this for several reasons:
> 1) I dislike dishonesty intensely. I'll take a regular troll over a
> sockpuppet any day. Anyone who gives any credence to someone who uses
> sockpuppets is a fool IMHO.
Aren't your lengthy responses to this 'sockpuppet' giving credence??
> 2) I don't like seeing people who had struggled to keep this group
> going (while others have done their xenophobic ranting) called
> belligerent asses.
> 3) I believe your and Dick's whole premise (that this group is
> horrifically mean to newbies) is faulty. I think anyone reading Dave
> from Liquorama's posts would see that Dick's description was either
> mistaken or a lie. I agree the post questioning BigCAWine was badly
> thought out , but he came back and said thanks for recs (to Mark).
You forgot this bit BigCAWine first before his "thanks" to Mark:
"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."
Don't you think it's the least bit SAD that a person who, in complete
innocence posted a question, followed up with a final note on this
thread BY APOLOGIZING for "causing commotion"? What is this, some
stupid vice-presidential hunting trip where the victim is expected to
apologize for being shot? That is simply disgusting, and I would hope
you could have validated BigCAWine a little more than simply saying
this matter "was badly thought out". Where is the apology BACK to him
(this goes for everyone who doubted him) for all the trouble they put
him through -- as no doubt, he was reading each and every post of this
thread to see if *someone* would actually be addressing his questions?
> Looking back a few weeks I don't see anyone being "mean" to Ben Snyder,
> the retiring guy, zeppo, Gary, Greenpointer, ginmill01, TimTam, etc.
Because they didn't say or ask very much.
> No one lashed out at Audrey. Of course, once she started commenting on
> the regulars- and it turned out she was one in drag- that's a whole
> 'nother story. I'd like to see some concrete examples of what is so
> scary.
I see now. It's okay for a newcomer to ask such and such, but NOT okay
for them to comment on "the regulars"? Even if they've been lurking for
a bit?
Really, Dale, you're just validating my notion that AFW "regulars" tend
to enforce an unspoken, illuminati communication code as part of all
new subscriber's initiation ritual. Should the new sub's play it safe
and do as they're expected, no problem. However, should they dare utter
"the secret word" prior to an unknown amount of time first passing,
then all bets are off and it's open season on them.
What's scary is that your post here has done nothing to strike down my
prior paragraph, only reinforce it. Not desiring to flame or argue with
you, just hoping you can see the direction this thread is forcing my
thoughts to go... we can take it off-list if you want to continue
discussing without creating more static here than we've already done.
Cheers,
David
miles
> My understanding is that Dick is on a cable modem/router, which is
> typically assigned an IP via DHCP - and temporary until the next time
> the router is power-cycled. In any case, it is doubtful he would have a
> static IP unless he was willing to pay a premium. Typically, that's
> only something businesses opt for, such as if they want to host web
> applications or mailservers in-house.
Whether he uses a router or not makes no difference. That only changes
the IP his PC uses between it and the router and not the IP used to
connect to the internet. Take the router out and no difference as far
as the ISP is concerned. The router is an irrelevant point unless
you're trying to determine which computer inside a particular building.
Dave
> the IP his PC uses between it and the router and not the IP used to
> connect to the internet. Take the router out and no difference as far
> as the ISP is concerned. The router is an irrelevant point unless
> you're trying to determine which computer inside a particular building.
I'm not talking about the IP assigned to his PC within the subnet in
his home or building. I'm talking about the IP address assigned to the
router. By default, cable modems are assigned dynamic IPs. Comcast is a
perfect example of this. If you unplug the modem, or the modem is
reset, you may need to refresh/reset your DHCP settings, as they time
out after so many hours or days. This results in a constant "catch and
release" between the central (DHCP) server and all the cable modems
being routed through it. It's very possible someone else within the IP
block may be re-assigned your IP if your cable modem happens to go
offline for even just a few minutes. I had this happen several times
over the years (now on FIOS, which is even worse - absolutely random
IPs throughout an entire range).
David
DaleW
hasn't needed to reboot the router in months. But the idea that he has
a secret admirer in his neighborhood defending his views while
piggybacking on his network, or that his router went down for a while,
the IP was assigned to someone who just happened to want to make a post
to AFW, and then was REASSIGNED to Neidich defies belief.
>Now... if he *is* playing games... I happen to find some level of
>amusement in that to be honest..
See, this is the problem. Deception and lies are not funny. A violation
of the trust of the community is not funny.
>No, but all I need is your phone number, and I can wreak complete
>havoc. I don't even need to know your name, SSN, nothing. Just your
>phone number.
Hey, it's listed. Do your best!
>My more general point was more along the lines of: why should a woman
>give out confidential information of ANY level to a complete male
>stranger?
I don't think most people would regard proof of existence as
confidential.
>No, that's all right. I'd honor the request for privacy actually.. if
>not for legal reasons, than at least I think you have an ethical
>obligation not to forward it without Audrey's permission.
Whoa, one must ask for permission before forwarding email? Do you do
that before you forward any email? This had one of those privacy
notices, but I actually AM the person it was addressed to. Besides, how
can I violate the privacy of a person who has left no evidence "she"
even exists (can you name me one other person who would show zero hits
on Google)? One cannot violate the privacy of a pseudonym. Certainly in
this case this email contained no confidential information, unless one
thinks its a secret that I'm a combination of Hitler, Cheney, and
Milosovic. I forwarded it to a few friends, certainly none of them know
anything about "audrey" that they didn't know before!
>Aren't your lengthy responses to this 'sockpuppet' giving credence??
In retrospect, maybe I should have left it alone. But I felt that lies
are better dealt with than ignored. Possibly wrongly.
>Really, Dale, you're just validating my notion that AFW "regulars" tend
>to enforce an unspoken, illuminati communication code as part of all
>new subscriber's initiation ritual. Should the new sub's play it safe
>and do as they're expected, no problem. However, should they dare utter
>"the secret word" prior to an unknown amount of time first passing,
>then all bets are off and it's open season on them.
No, I think the correct notion is that people (I should be more exact
and not speak for other, so let's say that I) despise people who enter
a community under false pretenses. People who play with sockpuppets
are the scum of the Usenet universe. For others who I just think are a
detriment to the community (regulars or not) , I'll just go back to
ignoring.
As to newbies, as far as I am concerned they can question and criticize
regulars all they want. But as Usenet is a forum for discussion, don't
expect to post something w/o
possibility of someone debating/refuting it. I'll happily debate-
unless there's clear evidence that one is liar.
And now back to your regular programming.
Richard Neidich
"DaleW" snipit>
> No, I think the correct notion is that people (I should be more exact
> and not speak for other, so let's say that I) despise people who enter
> a community under false pretenses.
First, I did not enter community under any false pretenses. I have been
here for over 12 years.
If you really wanted to killfile me, and I have no problem with that, you
should stop talking behind my back loud enough for me he hear. See that is
RUDE.
Isn't the very idea of killfile to ignore! Not to continue BS like this.
Your actions here are RUDE! I am not Audrey. That is all I will say to
that.
miles
> I'm not talking about the IP assigned to his PC within the subnet in
> his home or building. I'm talking about the IP address assigned to the
> router. By default, cable modems are assigned dynamic IPs. Comcast is a
> perfect example of this. If you unplug the modem, or the modem is
> reset, you may need to refresh/reset your DHCP settings, as they time
> out after so many hours or days.
Its not the modem that is assigned a DHCP IP. It is the PC. The modem
is just a conduit. You control the DHCP or Static IP settings in
Windows, not the modem. If you reset the router it too may get a new
dynamic IP from the ISP. Same as if the router didn't exist. Then the
ISP would issue the IP to the PC just the same as it did with the
router. The cable modem has nothing to do with the IP, dynamic or static.
Dave
> is just a conduit. You control the DHCP or Static IP settings in
> Windows, not the modem. If you reset the router it too may get a new
> dynamic IP from the ISP. Same as if the router didn't exist. Then the
> ISP would issue the IP to the PC just the same as it did with the
> router. The cable modem has nothing to do with the IP, dynamic or static.
It sounds as though you've never set up a home network with multiple
machines. The IP address stops at your modem/firewall/router/switch
(whatever you want to call it). Behind the modem is an
internally-assigned set of IPs, but the firewall is assigned the IP
(dynamic or static) by your ISP...