Comments for liquor is quicker http://drinksnob.wordpress.com ogden nash was right Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:05:58 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on MxMo XLIV: Money Drinks and The Widow’s Kiss by The-Chemist http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/mxmo-xliv-money-drinks-and-the-widows-kiss/#comment-184 The-Chemist Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:05:58 +0000 http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/?p=389#comment-184 Don't take strange angled pictures. It is what hipsters and fat people do for their myspace page. In this household we do everything straight, including the gay sex. Don’t take strange angled pictures. It is what hipsters and fat people do for their myspace page. In this household we do everything straight, including the gay sex.

]]> Comment on the vile consequences of dishonesty by Jackie Short http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/the-vile-consequences-of-dishonesty/#comment-182 Jackie Short Tue, 08 Dec 2009 03:37:18 +0000 http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/?p=376#comment-182 Sorry, I have to agree with the posters above. I don't get your seemingly out-of-nowhere attack on this guy. Is there some history there? He reviewed some booze. On a booze blog. If you search his posts for the last few years you will see a lot of reviews. Are they all the same brand? I'm confused. It was ONE POST. I found your website after reading your comment on his blog (which I read periodically). Although you claim you "politely" asked a question, it read to me as being very accusatory. Yes, I know, we shouldn't infer tone from emails and such-but there you go. If he gets sent some booze, and doesn't like it-he won't write about it. He could trash it, but chooses not to. I commend him for that. Your "about" section says you're angry. Clearly. Happy Holidays! Sorry, I have to agree with the posters above. I don’t get your seemingly out-of-nowhere attack on this guy. Is there some history there?

He reviewed some booze. On a booze blog. If you search his posts for the last few years you will see a lot of reviews. Are they all the same brand? I’m confused. It was ONE POST.

I found your website after reading your comment on his blog (which I read periodically). Although you claim you “politely” asked a question, it read to me as being very accusatory. Yes, I know, we shouldn’t infer tone from emails and such-but there you go.

If he gets sent some booze, and doesn’t like it-he won’t write about it. He could trash it, but chooses not to. I commend him for that.

Your “about” section says you’re angry. Clearly.

Happy Holidays!

]]> Comment on the vile consequences of dishonesty by Dietsch http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/the-vile-consequences-of-dishonesty/#comment-181 Dietsch Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:43:08 +0000 http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/?p=376#comment-181 I'm going to chime in on Jamie's behalf, too. I have two different messages in my inbox right now, plugging the Classic Malts Selections. Yes, Jamie used the marketing language in his post, and he's not the only blogger who's crossed my RSS reader with that content republished verbatim. Should he have disclosed that? Maybe; I can see you making a case for that, but it doesn't concern me that he didn't. There's nothing in either email that says the Classic Malts are from Diageo, so I believe that he didn't know it. Neither email offers me samples of the products. Sometimes, when a PR message hits my inbox, it offers me a sample of the product being touted; sometimes not. Sometimes I take them up on it, and sometimes I don't. I have to be pretty interested in either the product or the category before I'll ask for a sample. I've only asked once for a sample of something when the PR firm wasn't offering samples. I was ignored. I know people who've asked and been declined. I don't know anyone who's asked (when the firm wasn't freely offering) and been sent one. In this case, it's your word against Jamie's. You claim he got free product; he says he didn't. I know for certain that the PR firm wasn't offering. I also know that it's rare for me to get whiskey samples at all. It's too expensive to hand out freely. When I do, it's usually nips. What I get offered most frequently are unaged spirits and liqueurs. So again, I believe Jamie on this. The PR firm wasn't offering samples and very likely wouldn't have sent samples had anyone asked. Honestly, I'm not certain why you jumped to the conclusion that he was given free product. I've seen press releases time and again hit my inbox and within hours start showing up on blogs. I assume it's fodder for the blogger to drive more eyes to ads (not that Jamie had that motivation, since he doesn't even run ads); I don't assume they got product samples for their time. As for his response to Erik, I took that in the light-hearted manner in which he intended it. I know Erik (as a disclaimer, I know Jamie, too), and I doubt he was offended. Have you asked him whether he was? I’m going to chime in on Jamie’s behalf, too. I have two different messages in my inbox right now, plugging the Classic Malts Selections. Yes, Jamie used the marketing language in his post, and he’s not the only blogger who’s crossed my RSS reader with that content republished verbatim. Should he have disclosed that? Maybe; I can see you making a case for that, but it doesn’t concern me that he didn’t.

There’s nothing in either email that says the Classic Malts are from Diageo, so I believe that he didn’t know it.

Neither email offers me samples of the products. Sometimes, when a PR message hits my inbox, it offers me a sample of the product being touted; sometimes not. Sometimes I take them up on it, and sometimes I don’t. I have to be pretty interested in either the product or the category before I’ll ask for a sample.

I’ve only asked once for a sample of something when the PR firm wasn’t offering samples. I was ignored. I know people who’ve asked and been declined. I don’t know anyone who’s asked (when the firm wasn’t freely offering) and been sent one.

In this case, it’s your word against Jamie’s. You claim he got free product; he says he didn’t. I know for certain that the PR firm wasn’t offering. I also know that it’s rare for me to get whiskey samples at all. It’s too expensive to hand out freely. When I do, it’s usually nips. What I get offered most frequently are unaged spirits and liqueurs.

So again, I believe Jamie on this. The PR firm wasn’t offering samples and very likely wouldn’t have sent samples had anyone asked.

Honestly, I’m not certain why you jumped to the conclusion that he was given free product. I’ve seen press releases time and again hit my inbox and within hours start showing up on blogs. I assume it’s fodder for the blogger to drive more eyes to ads (not that Jamie had that motivation, since he doesn’t even run ads); I don’t assume they got product samples for their time.

As for his response to Erik, I took that in the light-hearted manner in which he intended it. I know Erik (as a disclaimer, I know Jamie, too), and I doubt he was offended. Have you asked him whether he was?

]]> Comment on the vile consequences of dishonesty by Michael Weinberg http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/the-vile-consequences-of-dishonesty/#comment-180 Michael Weinberg Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:03:12 +0000 http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/?p=376#comment-180 Gotta call for Jamie getting a pass on this one. Diageo seems to be in the market for every good single malt producer they can buy. In fact, of the 8 bottles I believe I have at home at the moment, I was surprised when I discovered that most are Diageo brands. It's not allegiance (I plain didn't know or care when I bought or was gifted any of them); it's just the state of the industry. This seems like kvetching over all the craft breweries that AB/In-Bev owns a 51% stake in. Hint, if you can get them at a baseball park, they probably are owned by AB. But you probably know that; you're a researcher. Also, the Highland 12-year is nice, but that's not really a special release scotch, which seemed to be focus on Jamie's list. On top of that, Erik's comment was dumb. Single Malt Scotch costs. I've never seen a fifth for under $45 (I'm in Oregon). It makes it sound like Erik either doesn't know the difference between single malts and blends, or never buys scotch by the bottle. Jamie disabused Erik of a misconception with a very light ribbing. That's not a dick move, that's personality, something that is generally good in writing. Gotta call for Jamie getting a pass on this one. Diageo seems to be in the market for every good single malt producer they can buy. In fact, of the 8 bottles I believe I have at home at the moment, I was surprised when I discovered that most are Diageo brands. It’s not allegiance (I plain didn’t know or care when I bought or was gifted any of them); it’s just the state of the industry. This seems like kvetching over all the craft breweries that AB/In-Bev owns a 51% stake in. Hint, if you can get them at a baseball park, they probably are owned by AB. But you probably know that; you’re a researcher.

Also, the Highland 12-year is nice, but that’s not really a special release scotch, which seemed to be focus on Jamie’s list.

On top of that, Erik’s comment was dumb. Single Malt Scotch costs. I’ve never seen a fifth for under $45 (I’m in Oregon). It makes it sound like Erik either doesn’t know the difference between single malts and blends, or never buys scotch by the bottle. Jamie disabused Erik of a misconception with a very light ribbing. That’s not a dick move, that’s personality, something that is generally good in writing.

]]> Comment on the vile consequences of dishonesty by Jamie http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/the-vile-consequences-of-dishonesty/#comment-179 Jamie Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:23:31 +0000 http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/?p=376#comment-179 FYI: I did not receive a dime or drop of liquor from the bottles listed. All the products are good names, regardless of what company/s own them and AGAIN, I don't know or care what companies own them. AGAIN, this will be but one of many gift suggestions/reviews over the next month. I don't receive money or even place ads on my site. My deal with PR firms (I almost never deal with the liquor companies themselves), is if you give me a product I'll write about it if I like it and if I don't I won't mention it. As for me closing the comments, I have nothing more to comment on regarding that the list (which will be one of many over the next month) may or may not be owned by one company--which AGAIN I cannot be more clear in stating that I don't follow or care who owns what, as long as they are good spirits. As for Erik, I know him, and he would surely admit that he missed the $50 scotch which is why I teased him, because really, how many good unusual single malts is one getting for under $50? (not many in WA I can assure you). As to your suggestions, they are rather common place (being in every bar that I have worked, and being spirits thatI can assure you Erik is familiar with) which defeated the purpose of the suggestions provided by the post. If I was to do a piece on Murray McDavid bottles, would you have such animosity? (Perhaps, now that I think of it, for they may be under the umbrella of Diageo, a fact that, again, is irrelevant and unknown to me.) I feel that the real issue here is that some people have an issue with Diageo (a rumour that I have heard in the past), which fortunately for me has never been an issue, as I was never one who cared who owned a particular product, provided that the product was good. As for you accusing me of accepting money or bribes for that post: dick move man. FYI:
I did not receive a dime or drop of liquor from the bottles listed. All the products are good names, regardless of what company/s own them and AGAIN, I don’t know or care what companies own them. AGAIN, this will be but one of many gift suggestions/reviews over the next month. I don’t receive money or even place ads on my site. My deal with PR firms (I almost never deal with the liquor companies themselves), is if you give me a product I’ll write about it if I like it and if I don’t I won’t mention it.
As for me closing the comments, I have nothing more to comment on regarding that the list (which will be one of many over the next month) may or may not be owned by one company–which AGAIN I cannot be more clear in stating that I don’t follow or care who owns what, as long as they are good spirits.
As for Erik, I know him, and he would surely admit that he missed the $50 scotch which is why I teased him, because really, how many good unusual single malts is one getting for under $50? (not many in WA I can assure you). As to your suggestions, they are rather common place (being in every bar that I have worked, and being spirits thatI can assure you Erik is familiar with) which defeated the purpose of the suggestions provided by the post. If I was to do a piece on Murray McDavid bottles, would you have such animosity? (Perhaps, now that I think of it, for they may be under the umbrella of Diageo, a fact that, again, is irrelevant and unknown to me.)
I feel that the real issue here is that some people have an issue with Diageo (a rumour that I have heard in the past), which fortunately for me has never been an issue, as I was never one who cared who owned a particular product, provided that the product was good.
As for you accusing me of accepting money or bribes for that post: dick move man.

]]> Comment on selling out and the carlos slim by the vile consequences of dishonesty « liquor is quicker http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/selling-out-and-the-carlos-slim/#comment-178 the vile consequences of dishonesty « liquor is quicker Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:58:32 +0000 http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/?p=352#comment-178 [...] companies, asking us to exchange our ethics for a free bottle of the good stuff – an exchange we’re all pretty glad to make.  Plus, assuming we’re upfront about where we got the liquor, and honest about our opinions, [...] [...] companies, asking us to exchange our ethics for a free bottle of the good stuff – an exchange we’re all pretty glad to make.  Plus, assuming we’re upfront about where we got the liquor, and honest about our opinions, [...]

]]> Comment on The Real McCoy by The Girlfriend http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/the-real-mccoy/#comment-177 The Girlfriend Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:52:03 +0000 http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/?p=370#comment-177 "Pants-less" does not necessarily mean "in your skivvies". It could mean "in a skirt," in which case it's become obvious that we've been watching too much Little Britain. But this drink is really quite good. “Pants-less” does not necessarily mean “in your skivvies”. It could mean “in a skirt,” in which case it’s become obvious that we’ve been watching too much Little Britain.

But this drink is really quite good.

]]> Comment on The Real McCoy by The Roommate http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/the-real-mccoy/#comment-175 The Roommate Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:39:05 +0000 http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/?p=370#comment-175 Oh, so when YOU do it, it's cool, but when I go pantsless, it's all "PUT ON SOME DAMN PANTS". Hypocrite. Oh, so when YOU do it, it’s cool, but when I go pantsless, it’s all “PUT ON SOME DAMN PANTS”. Hypocrite.

]]> Comment on The Real McCoy by the Chemist http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/the-real-mccoy/#comment-174 the Chemist Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:15:39 +0000 http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/?p=370#comment-174 That is totally my polish Maraschino, how am i going to make my Aviation and i will totally make pants-less cocktail hour a regular thing, thank you for the permission. Pants fascist. That is totally my polish Maraschino, how am i going to make my Aviation and i will totally make pants-less cocktail hour a regular thing, thank you for the permission. Pants fascist.

]]> Comment on it’s nothing new by The Real McCoy « liquor is quicker http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/its-nothing-new/#comment-173 The Real McCoy « liquor is quicker Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:04:38 +0000 http://drinksnob.wordpress.com/?p=347#comment-173 [...] mostly done with Drink, having worked my way up to Prohibition.  Among many things, Gately mentions a rum-runner, William [...] [...] mostly done with Drink, having worked my way up to Prohibition.  Among many things, Gately mentions a rum-runner, William [...]

]]>