On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:06:35 -0000, UC >
wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> > Those magazines are for people with more money than sense (you know,
>> > young urban professionals who want to make an impression in
>> > society).Makes me want to puke.
>>>
>WS is a joke. What value it has is mostly to wine shops who can use it
>to sell lesser-known wines that may have some merit. The ads, though,
>of course, are all from the big distributors. What good information WS
>may contain is available in many books. Ratings are utterly worthless.
>I have no reason to trust them whatsoever. Insofar as WS presents
>itself as a source of ratings, therein I despise it. I despise the
>very concept of ratings.

Okay, I think we get it. You think the magazine sucks.

The fact is, lame as it may be, the WS promotes wine both as an
industry and as a consumable. There's nothing wrong with that. I
didn't know squat about wine when I started reading it ten years ago,
so I bought it. I stopped doing that several years ago, just like I
stopped watching Fox News Channel. But that still doesn't mean the mag
(or Fox, for that matter) is entirely useless, even if it's useless to
you.

Further, if you're the type of person who only gets information from
one source, your knowledge isn't going to be very well-rounded. Anyone
who relies exclusively on the Spectator is going to be the wine
equivalent of a functional illiterate. Ditto for anyone who relies
exclusively on Parker or Rovani. You might come away with some good
basic information, but you won't be able to place it in a broader
context.

And btw, I guarantee you I'm about as far away from Yuppiedom as they
come, and my income level is nowhere close to your assertion. So, you
know...while it's generally a good thing to be passionate about one's
preferences, there are as many wine publications out there as there
are TV channels. Feel free to use the remote.

JJ