I just received a catalog that listed Riedel "O" glassware, and the
glasses were somewhat of a shock to me. They have no stems! They are 6
types, about the size and shape of Vinums, except the bottom of the
glass is flat with no stem - in other words a tumbler. The price is
fairly low, and they are made from non-lead crystal. Upon reading about
them, it turns out that they are made in Germany by Maximilian Riedel, a
grandson of Claus Riedel. I do not like this design much for red wine
and know I do not want a white wine glass without a stem for chilled
wines. At least they did not include a champagne glass in this design,
at least in the catalog.

My mailbox is always full to avoid spam. To contact me, erase
from my email address. Then add . I do not
check this box every day, so post if you need a quick response.

"Cwdjrx _" > wrote in message
...
> I just received a catalog that listed Riedel "O" glassware, and the
> glasses were somewhat of a shock to me. They have no stems! They are 6
> types, about the size and shape of Vinums, except the bottom of the
> glass is flat with no stem - in other words a tumbler. The price is
> fairly low, and they are made from non-lead crystal. Upon reading about
> them, it turns out that they are made in Germany by Maximilian Riedel, a
> grandson of Claus Riedel. I do not like this design much for red wine
> and know I do not want a white wine glass without a stem for chilled
> wines. At least they did not include a champagne glass in this design,
> at least in the catalog.
>
> My mailbox is always full to avoid spam. To contact me, erase
> from my email address. Then add . I do not
> check this box every day, so post if you need a quick response.
>

I'd read about these stemless tumblers about a month ago but forgot to post
the link where I first learned of them. There appears to be some demand for
them from those who are concerned about breakage. Amazon carries them.
I've thought about buying a set to replace some of the Spiegelau Authentis
stems I've bought on sale at Amazon (thanks to the sharp eyes of some
regulars in this newsgroup).
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...IG7U6JPND1.DTL

in article , Cwdjrx _ at
wrote on 6/9/04 8:37 PM:

> I just received a catalog that listed Riedel "O" glassware, and the
> glasses were somewhat of a shock to me. They have no stems! They are 6
> types, about the size and shape of Vinums, except the bottom of the
> glass is flat with no stem - in other words a tumbler. The price is
> fairly low, and they are made from non-lead crystal. Upon reading about
> them, it turns out that they are made in Germany by Maximilian Riedel, a
> grandson of Claus Riedel. I do not like this design much for red wine
> and know I do not want a white wine glass without a stem for chilled
> wines. At least they did not include a champagne glass in this design,
> at least in the catalog.
>

I've seen these glasses in catalogs for a couple of months myself. I don't
know if it's directly related but I recall seeing a TV show about Robert
Parker in which they made a point of showing the stemless glasses he uses
for tasting. The Riedel "O" series looks like a very similar style.

Midlife > wrote in :

> in article , Cwdjrx _ at
> wrote on 6/9/04 8:37 PM:
>
>> I just received a catalog that listed Riedel "O" glassware, and the
>> glasses were somewhat of a shock to me. They have no stems! They are
>> 6 types, about the size and shape of Vinums, except the bottom of the
>> glass is flat with no stem - in other words a tumbler. The price is
>> fairly low, and they are made from non-lead crystal. Upon reading
>> about them, it turns out that they are made in Germany by Maximilian
>> Riedel, a grandson of Claus Riedel. I do not like this design much
>> for red wine and know I do not want a white wine glass without a stem
>> for chilled wines. At least they did not include a champagne glass in
>> this design, at least in the catalog.
>>
>
> I've seen these glasses in catalogs for a couple of months myself. I
> don't know if it's directly related but I recall seeing a TV show
> about Robert Parker in which they made a point of showing the stemless
> glasses he uses for tasting. The Riedel "O" series looks like a very
> similar style.
>
>

I picked these up in Spain about 10 years ago while at the running of the
bulls. Easier to handle and less spilling when I drink too much.LOL


--
StocksRus®

"StocksRus®" > wrote:

> I picked these up in Spain about 10 years ago while at the
> running of the bulls.

Bullshit. The have been around for less than a year only, designed
by Georg Riedel's son Maximilan.

M.

Michael Pronay wrote:
> "StocksRus®" > wrote:
>
>
>>I picked these up in Spain about 10 years ago while at the
>>running of the bulls.
>
>
> Bullshit. The have been around for less than a year only, designed
> by Georg Riedel's son Maximilan.

Hey, hey. I've certainly seen O-like tumblers, though not
from Riedel, before. It's not like someone, even Maximilan
Riedel, thought of something new in glassware.


Dana

Michael Pronay > wrote in
:

> "StocksRus®" > wrote:
>
>> I picked these up in Spain about 10 years ago while at the
>> running of the bulls.
>
> Bullshit. The have been around for less than a year only, designed
> by Georg Riedel's son Maximilan.
>
> M.

Really? Why would I lie about something as trivial as a tumbler? You
obviously know squat about what you talk about. You really think Riedel
designed these? You're an idiot.

--
StocksRus®

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 04:32:23 GMT, " larkin1734" >
wrote:
>"Cwdjrx _" > wrote in message
...
>> I just received a catalog that listed Riedel "O" glassware, and the
>> glasses were somewhat of a shock to me. They have no stems! They are 6
>
>I'd read about these stemless tumblers about a month ago but forgot to post
>the link where I first learned of them. There appears to be some demand for
>them from those who are concerned about breakage. Amazon carries them.


Saw them this month in an Italian food magazine, as well. Interesting,
I don't think I've ever broken a Riedel glass at the stem; it's always
been a crack in the globe.

Wouldn't these have a tendency to warm up the wine a lot? Especially if
you're in a cocktail party setting where you can't set down the wine?
Oh, and what about all those little glass-identification charm-tags?
What will we do without a stem to put those on?

K

"StocksRus®" > wrote:

> You're an idiot.

*plonk*

M.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:38:35 GMT, "StocksRus®"
> wrote:

>Michael Pronay > wrote in
:
>
>> "StocksRus®" > wrote:
>>
>>> I picked these up in Spain about 10 years ago while at the
>>> running of the bulls.
>>
>> Bullshit. The have been around for less than a year only, designed
>> by Georg Riedel's son Maximilan.
>>
>> M.
>
>Really? Why would I lie about something as trivial as a tumbler? You
>obviously know squat about what you talk about. You really think Riedel
>designed these? You're an idiot.

The thread started with a specific reference to the Riedel stemless
glasses which, as M. Pronay said, have been on the market less than a
year. You said you bought them in Spain 10 years ago. Why would you
lie about something like this? You tell me. I know you are mistaken. I
just think you have a bad memory or didn't pay attention to what you
were replying to.

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

Salut/Hi StocksRus®,

le/on Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:38:35 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>>> I picked these up in Spain about 10 years ago while at the
>>> running of the bulls.
>>
>> Bullshit. The have been around for less than a year only, designed
>> by Georg Riedel's son Maximilan.

>Really? Why would I lie about something as trivial as a tumbler? You
>obviously know squat about what you talk about. You really think Riedel
>designed these? You're an idiot.

Sigh. Max Hauser.... how would YOU (with your requests for tolerance for
newcomers) deal with this?

Whatever your name is. You might like to be a little more careful. The
thread was about Riedel stemless glasses, not any random glassware you may
have picked up in Pamplona. And excoriating Michael Proney, as an idiot when
it is you yourself who is in error, is not going to make you many friends.
You ought to apoligise quickly, and without reservation.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Ian Hoare > wrote in
:

> Salut/Hi StocksRus®,
>
> le/on Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:38:35 GMT, tu disais/you said:-
>
>>>> I picked these up in Spain about 10 years ago while at the
>>>> running of the bulls.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. The have been around for less than a year only, designed
>>> by Georg Riedel's son Maximilan.
>
>>Really? Why would I lie about something as trivial as a tumbler? You
>>obviously know squat about what you talk about. You really think
>>Riedel designed these? You're an idiot.
>
> Sigh. Max Hauser.... how would YOU (with your requests for tolerance
> for newcomers) deal with this?
>
> Whatever your name is. You might like to be a little more careful. The
> thread was about Riedel stemless glasses, not any random glassware you
> may have picked up in Pamplona. And excoriating Michael Proney, as an
> idiot when it is you yourself who is in error, is not going to make
> you many friends. You ought to apoligise quickly, and without
> reservation.
>

You are correct. I do apologize to the poster. I do however remain
adement about the fact that I did purchase the same design in Pamplona
many years ago. The fact that Riedel's kid is marketing them now as his
NEW design ****es me off. That design has been around for many years. For
some one to say differently is unbelievable.

--
StocksRus®

Vino > wrote in news:5vrrc0lq95i1mg2oltocqutcovqhogmc92@
4ax.com:

> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 12:38:35 GMT, "StocksRus®"
> > wrote:
>
>>Michael Pronay > wrote in
:
>>
>>> "StocksRus®" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I picked these up in Spain about 10 years ago while at the
>>>> running of the bulls.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. The have been around for less than a year only, designed
>>> by Georg Riedel's son Maximilan.
>>>
>>> M.
>>
>>Really? Why would I lie about something as trivial as a tumbler? You
>>obviously know squat about what you talk about. You really think Riedel
>>designed these? You're an idiot.
>
> The thread started with a specific reference to the Riedel stemless
> glasses which, as M. Pronay said, have been on the market less than a
> year. You said you bought them in Spain 10 years ago. Why would you
> lie about something like this? You tell me. I know you are mistaken. I
> just think you have a bad memory or didn't pay attention to what you
> were replying to.
>
> Vino
> To reply, add "x" between
> letters and numbers of
> e-mail address.


I did NOT purchase Riedels design. Riedel copied a glass that has been
around for many years.
Geez......
--
StocksRus®

in article , Ian Hoare at
wrote on 6/14/04 1:44 PM:

>
> Sigh. Max Hauser.... how would YOU (with your requests for tolerance for
> newcomers) deal with this?
>
> Whatever your name is. You might like to be a little more careful. The
> thread was about Riedel stemless glasses, not any random glassware you may
> have picked up in Pamplona. And excoriating Michael Proney, as an idiot when
> it is you yourself who is in error, is not going to make you many friends.
> You ought to apoligise quickly, and without reservation.


FWIW......

Though an infrequent poster here, I do read the group almost every day.

When I saw the poster's comment that he had seen the stemless glasses so
long ago I knew two things for sure. One, he was almost certainly not
talking about Riedel product and two, that he was likely to pay dearly for
the transgression of not having properly stated and clarified his
observation.

I know I would post more often if I didn't feel it necessary to be
inordinately certain of my facts and just how I compose any post. Not that
one shouldn't always be as accurate as possible..... but some on this group
can sometimes be quite harsh in circumstances that wouldn't seem to warrant
such reaction. For many people, the instant response to such caustic
correction is to lash back.

"Sigh".... indeed.

"Midlife" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Ian Hoare at
> wrote on 6/14/04 1:44 PM:
>
> >
> > Sigh. Max Hauser.... how would YOU (with your requests for tolerance for
> > newcomers) deal with this?
> >
> > Whatever your name is. You might like to be a little more careful. The
> > thread was about Riedel stemless glasses, not any random glassware you
may
> > have picked up in Pamplona. And excoriating Michael Proney, as an idiot
when
> > it is you yourself who is in error, is not going to make you many
friends.
> > You ought to apoligise quickly, and without reservation.
>
>
> FWIW......
>
> Though an infrequent poster here, I do read the group almost every day.
>
> When I saw the poster's comment that he had seen the stemless glasses so
> long ago I knew two things for sure. One, he was almost certainly not
> talking about Riedel product and two, that he was likely to pay dearly for
> the transgression of not having properly stated and clarified his
> observation.
>
> I know I would post more often if I didn't feel it necessary to be
> inordinately certain of my facts and just how I compose any post. Not
that
> one shouldn't always be as accurate as possible..... but some on this
group
> can sometimes be quite harsh in circumstances that wouldn't seem to
warrant
> such reaction. For many people, the instant response to such caustic
> correction is to lash back.

FWIW, my first impulse was to jump to Ian's defense on this issue - but on
reflection, I think that's more appropriately left to him. So I will.

But that got me to pondering: Is AFW perhaps a bit too user-unfriendly
(cliquish?) to outsiders? If my first reaction was to circle the wagons,
what about the other regulars? It sounds like we may at times be perceived
a little too quick to criticism.

I've never been intimidated by the spelling and fact checkers among us, but
I can see where some might be. Such intimidation is not conducive to well
reasoned (if not articulate) dialog among us. After all, we're here to
discuss wine and food - not grammar. I'll be the first to admit that my own
experience with both is neither as deep nor as broad as I'd wish.

Anyway, after all that blathering, welcome aboard! :^)

Tom S

P.S. - IMO, the new Riedel "O" glassware is expensive crap! Just to keep it
on topic... ;^D

"Ian Hoare" wrote:
>
> Sigh. Max Hauser.... how would YOU (with your requests for
> tolerance for newcomers) deal with this?
>
> Whatever your name is. You might like to be a little more careful.
> The thread was about Riedel stemless glasses, not any random
> glassware you may have picked up in Pamplona. And excoriating
> Michael Proney, as an idiot when it is you yourself who is in error,
> is not going to make you many friends. . . .

Since you asked, Ian (just saw this thread, I am partly _hors-de-combat_
lately), it looked to me as if poster A cited a product from 10 years back,
similar to the new product; poster B interpreted this very specifically and
responded sharply; poster A then took offense and replied pettily. But it's
all old stuff on these self-service public online forums (now celebrating
their 25th year), you see all the variations within your first five years or
so, many would agree. (People take some of these small arguments a bit
seriously, I feel.)

Here's something that some of you have not seen. The original "Netiquette
Guidelines" that circulated from late 1982 by re-posting, codified in 1995
to the Internet archive document RFC1855, contained good advice for avoiding
such situations. But one famous advice of the Netiquette Guidelines, in the
form of an aside from their author -- so familiar to old timers that they
take it as universally known -- was omitted from RFC1855. Here, old regular
Ken Perlow (the guy with the big peace-symbol signature), having sent a
flame, regrets ignoring this particular advice. Quoted from his message
>, 4-Apr-84:

> I suppose I should have followed the netiquette
> suggestion to go to the bathroom before hitting "f"

("f" was a "send" command on a popular text-based newsreader at the time.)
The long-time maintainer of the Guidelines had said he found it prudent to
do this before actually sending a flame message that was ready to go.

Since you asked!


--
(Copyright 2004 / Alle Rechte Vorbehaltet)

I think you're all a bunch of Nazis!

Sincerely,
Godwin.
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:47:01 GMT, "Tom S" > said:

]
] "Midlife" > wrote in message
] ...
] > in article , Ian Hoare at
] > wrote on 6/14/04 1:44 PM:
] >
] > >
] > > Sigh. Max Hauser.... how would YOU (with your requests for tolerance for
] > > newcomers) deal with this?
] > >
] > > Whatever your name is. You might like to be a little more careful. The
] > > thread was about Riedel stemless glasses, not any random glassware you
] may
] > > have picked up in Pamplona. And excoriating Michael Proney, as an idiot
] when
] > > it is you yourself who is in error, is not going to make you many
] friends.
] > > You ought to apoligise quickly, and without reservation.
] >
] >
] > FWIW......
] >
] > Though an infrequent poster here, I do read the group almost every day.
] >
] > When I saw the poster's comment that he had seen the stemless glasses so
] > long ago I knew two things for sure. One, he was almost certainly not
] > talking about Riedel product and two, that he was likely to pay dearly for
] > the transgression of not having properly stated and clarified his
] > observation.
] >
] > I know I would post more often if I didn't feel it necessary to be
] > inordinately certain of my facts and just how I compose any post. Not
] that
] > one shouldn't always be as accurate as possible..... but some on this
] group
] > can sometimes be quite harsh in circumstances that wouldn't seem to
] warrant
] > such reaction. For many people, the instant response to such caustic
] > correction is to lash back.
]
] FWIW, my first impulse was to jump to Ian's defense on this issue - but on
] reflection, I think that's more appropriately left to him. So I will.
]

For what it's worth it was perfectly clear to me that the poster was refering
to _similar_ glassware, which I consider perfectly on-topic to a "new"
design from Riedel.

But what is apparent to a native english speaker (although my spelling
may often belie it) may not be so to a non-native, even one with such
excellent skills as M. Pronay. Still this is a fine example of where restraint,
and Max's old-fashioned odiferous advice, pay off.

] But that got me to pondering: Is AFW perhaps a bit too user-unfriendly
] (cliquish?) to outsiders? If my first reaction was to circle the wagons,
] what about the other regulars? It sounds like we may at times be perceived
] a little too quick to criticism.
]

I think you're right, Tom. It's natural that we do so, and I think the nature
of the medium makes regulars a little clique-ish. But it is discouraging to
new posters.

] I've never been intimidated by the spelling and fact checkers among us, but
] I can see where some might be. Such intimidation is not conducive to well
] reasoned (if not articulate) dialog among us. After all, we're here to
] discuss wine and food - not grammar. I'll be the first to admit that my own
] experience with both is neither as deep nor as broad as I'd wish.
]
] Anyway, after all that blathering, welcome aboard! :^)
]

Indeed.

-E


--
Emery Davis
You can reply to
by removing the well known companies

Salut/Hi Midlife,

le/on Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:35:29 -0700, tu disais/you said:-

>in article , Ian Hoare at
wrote on 6/14/04 1:44 PM:
>
>>
>> Sigh. Max Hauser.... how would YOU (with your requests for tolerance for
>> newcomers) deal with this?
>>
>> Whatever your name is. You might like to be a little more careful. The
>> thread was about Riedel stemless glasses, not any random glassware you may
>> have picked up in Pamplona. And excoriating Michael Proney, as an idiot when
>> it is you yourself who is in error, is not going to make you many friends.
>> You ought to apoligise quickly, and without reservation.
>

>FWIW......

(Grin!)


>When I saw the poster's comment that he had seen the stemless glasses so
>long ago I knew two things for sure. One, he was almost certainly not
>talking about Riedel product and two, that he was likely to pay dearly for
>the transgression of not having properly stated and clarified his
>observation.

With great respect, the OP of the thread _did_ talk about Riedel glasses,
and StocksRus did NOT specify that he had seen glasses of this _type_. You
said:-

>The Riedel "O" series looks like a very similar style.

and he said

>I picked these up in Spain about 10 years ago while at the running of the bulls.

I have to say that I found this comment acerbic (you're a lot of ignorant
pillocks because you don't know they've existed for years) and pretentious
Aren't I the clever one, I went bull running). And of course entirely wrong,
since the Riedel version IS recent. But then I felt that perhaps I was
reading too much into it and decided to shut up.

Michael's response was typically blunt and spiky (if that isn't a
contradiction in terms). It is also worth remembering that he comes from
Austria (as does Riedel) and so perhaps feels more sensitive about an
implicit attack on Riedel's integrity than you might. But StocksRus in
saying..

>You obviously know squat about what you talk about. You really think Riedel
>designed these? You're an idiot.

didn't exactly pour oil on troubled waters!!

And it was at this point that I intervened.

>I know I would post more often if I didn't feel it necessary to be
>inordinately certain of my facts and just how I compose any post.

I'm truly sorry if you feel that. I also think that it's a great shame if
anyone else has that perception of the reactions here. I don't think anyone
needs to be _inordinately_ careful, but perhaps to remember that we can only
reply to what is written as we don't have any non-verbal clues to help. It
therefore behoves us really to say what we think. It also seems to me that
if we do get it wrong, (errare humanum est) we should be quick to accept it,
and not react aggressively.

> but some on this group can sometimes be quite harsh in circumstances that wouldn't seem to warrant
>such reaction.

Agreed. Though I am bound in truth to say that my immediate mental reponse
to StocksRus's post was almost exactly the same as Michael's - as I've
outlined above.

> For many people, the instant response to such caustic correction is to lash back.

Agreed.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Hi Max,

le/on Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:54:09 -0700, tu disais/you said:-

>"Ian Hoare" wrote:
>>
>> Sigh. Max Hauser.... how would YOU (with your requests for
>> tolerance for newcomers) deal with this?

>Since you asked, Ian (just saw this thread, I am partly _hors-de-combat_
>lately),

Sorry to hear that, hope it's nothing too serious. And thanks VERY much for
reponding. Although it may possibly appear otherwise, I DO want to encourage
lurkers to post, and truly welcome constructive criticism.

> it looked to me as

[succintly accurate resumé of the facts snipped]

> you see all the variations within your first five years or so, many would agree.

Smile!! Many, many times. And StocksRus certainly had the grace to
apologise.

> (People take some of these small arguments a bit seriously, I feel.)

Agreed.

>The long-time maintainer of the Guidelines had said he found it prudent to
>do this before actually sending a flame message that was ready to go.

Chuckle....
>
>Since you asked!

I did indeed, and meant it sincerely.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

Ian Hoare > wrote:

> Michael's response was typically blunt and spiky (if that isn't
> a contradiction in terms). It is also worth remembering that he
> comes from Austria (as does Riedel) and so perhaps feels more
> sensitive about an implicit attack on Riedel's integrity than
> you might.

In fact, my wording "bullshit" (a term I do not normally use) was
a futile attempt to allude to the poster's mention of the "running
of the bulls" in Pamplona (something I attended back in 1973, when
we drank red from this sack- or hose-type soft bottles, the name of
which escaped me long ago).

M.

"Michael Pronay" > wrote in message
...
> we drank red from this sack- or hose-type soft bottles, the name of
> which escaped me long ago).

That would be a bota bag. Made of some sort of leather I believe.

Tom S

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:41:25 GMT, "Tom S" >
wrote:

>
>"Michael Pronay" > wrote in message
...
>> we drank red from this sack- or hose-type soft bottles, the name of
>> which escaped me long ago).
>
>That would be a bota bag. Made of some sort of leather I believe.


Napa ? ;-))))))))))))

Mike

Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail

Salut/Hi Michael Pronay,

le/on 17 Jun 2004 08:06:54 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>Ian Hoare > wrote:
>
>> Michael's response was typically blunt and spiky (if that isn't
>> a contradiction in terms).
>
>In fact, my wording "bullshit" (a term I do not normally use) was
>a futile attempt to allude to the poster's mention of the "running
>of the bulls"

I HAVE to admit that one completely eluded me, dumbo that I am.

As you may have seen, StocksRus has in fact apologised to you. So perhaps
not too much harm has been done.

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

"Tom S" > wrote:

>> we drank red from this sack- or hose-type soft bottles, the
>> name of which escaped me long ago).

> That would be a bota bag.

A bota, tout court, yes, that was it.

M.

Mike Tommasi wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:41:25 GMT, "Tom S" >
> wrote:

>>"Michael Pronay" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>we drank red from this sack- or hose-type soft bottles, the name of
>>>which escaped me long ago).

>>That would be a bota bag. Made of some sort of leather I believe.
>
> Napa ? ;-))))))))))))

You know, there's a kind of leather that many people think
is pretty good and only costs one-fifth of Napa Leather...
they call it Modesto Leather...

;-)

Here as a reminder is pur rules of Netiquette, taken from our FAQ site: The
entire FAQ site is http://virtual-ink.com.au/afw-faq/

Section 2: Netiquette
2.1 What is Netiquette?

A set of generally accepted guidelines for posting (netiquette) to Usenet
newsgroups can be found in the FAQs in the news.newusers.questions and
news.answers groups. It is a good idea to read these documents before
posting to the group (or to any group, for that matter). Many of these
documents can also be found on the Web:

The news.newusers.questions Official Home Page (available in English and
German) is a good place to start.
What is Usenet?
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About Usenet
Rules for Posting to Usenet
A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community
Hints on Writing Style for Usenet
2.2 What is flaming?

Flaming is discouraged on alt.food.wine. Flaming occurs when two people have
differing views and one or both parties resort to insulting, ad hominem
attacks, instead of rational discourse. While some newsgroup participants
may end up taking sides, most users generally don't care about the conflict
and would prefer not to have the mess invading the newsgroup.

Please note that disagreeing with someone's ideas or opinions does not
constitute a flame. The group has witnessed many intense discussions (and
disagreements) on topics such as point scoring systems, wine
writers/magazines and cult wines. As long as participants remember to
discuss the issues, and don't resort to insults or personal attacks, the
argument will not deteriorate into a flame war.

The electronic medium has many limitations, one of which is that non-verbal
cues are eliminated, so it is easy to misinterpret, and overreact to, a
post. Please try to respect other participants and to give them the benefit
of the doubt when posting. And it never hurts to re-read your own posts
before hitting "send". If you feel yourself getting caught up in a flame
war, try taking a deep breath and repeating "It's only Usenet, it's only
Usenet,..."

2.3 What are some general guidelines for posting in alt.food.wine?

Respect the person who is posting, even if they are a newbie, spammer, or
just argumentative.
- Remember that everyone has to start learning about wine somewhere; if they
don't know Zinfandel is red, don't make them slink away. And remember that
there was probably a time in your life when you didn't know, either.
- Give the poster the benefit of the doubt. Make sure you read the original
post and understand it before unloading your thermonuclear barbs and
ripostes.
- Bashing someone's country, language skills, name, ethnicity or any other
trait is counterproductive and is discouraged in this newsgroup.
- Friends and regular participants are more likely to recognize (or forgive)
sarcasm or abrasive posts than new participants are.

Respect the readers of the group.
- Try using web resources before peppering the group with questions. For
example, try using a search engine (e.g. Google) or two before asking for
winery URLs, addresses or phone numbers.
- When replying to a post, try to delete most of the previous posts, leaving
just enough to make some sense of the context of your remarks.
- When you get an answer(s), reply with a thank you. Many times, group
members have gone to the trouble of looking at their wine books and notes to
find an answer.

Misspellings, bad grammar, etc. should be tolerated, and should be politely
corrected only if the mistake is important to the content of the message.
Keep in mind that the newsgroup has a diverse membership, and English is not
everyone's first language. Also, spelling and diction differ even among
English-speaking countries, so tolerance is the best policy. Of course, it
never hurts to check your spelling and grammar before posting!

Remember that the group has members from many countries.
- When asking a question about what wines are available, or places to buy or
sell wine, you will receive more useful responses if you mention your
approximate location (e.g. Wisconsin, USA or London, England).
- It is a good idea to list the units you are using whenever you post a
number. For example, when posting wine prices, it is helpful to include the
currency (e.g. US$, GBP, FRF, etc.). And when mentioning temperature, the
scale is also important (C, F or K).

Do be funny (if you like), but don't make fun of the poster -- only the
post.
Section 3: Advertising and Spam
3.1 Are commercial advertisements allowed on alt.food.wine?

As stated in Section 1, alt.food.wine is a non-commercial discussion group.
Advertising is NOT permitted.

There are legitimate ways to advertise a business on Usenet. Please see the
Advertising on Usenet FAQ for suggestions.

One good way to advertise your business on alt.food.wine is to contribute to
the discussion of the group (e.g. ask or answer a question, post a tasting
note). At the bottom of every on-topic post, you may include a 4-line
signature with business information. People will appreciate your
contribution to the group and will be more likely to view your business
favorably.

3.2 If I work in the wine business, am I welcome to post on alt.food.wine?

Absolutely! Alt.food.wine welcomes all people who are interested in wine.
Although alt.food.wine is a noncommercial group, we have many contributors
who are in the trade, and we value their knowledge and opinions. However,
you should be careful to keep your contributions from becoming "stealth ads"
for your business (group members are generally smart enough to notice). If
you are commenting on a subject in which you have some financial interest
(e.g. you are describing a wine which you import or distribute), it is a
good idea to disclose your connection in your post.

3.3 Can I post a list of wines that I want to sell?

As noted above, advertising is usually not permitted. However, in the past,
the group has made exceptions for individuals (not businesses!) who are
regular contributors to the group. If you are a contributor to the group and
you keep your announcements to a minimum, you are not likely to receive many
objections. Also, keep in mind that there are many other places that welcome
such listings. Some examples include:

Wine Lovers Page Sales and Trading Forum
Wine Commune
Winebid.com
Yahoo! Auctions
3.4 Can I advertise my wine website?

As mentioned in the Advertising on Usenet FAQ, on-topic business (including
website) announcements are allowed. You may announce any wine-related
website on the group. Non-wine-related website announcements are off-topic,
and thus should not be posted to the group. Wine-related announcements
should be limited to the launching of a website or a major addition
to/subtraction from/redesign of the site, and they should ideally be
informational, rather than promotional, in nature. A handy rule of thumb is
that if you are posting an announcement more than once a month, you're
probably posting too often, and you're likely to get on someone's nerves,
even if your site is the best thing since the invention of bottled wine.

If someone asks a question that is answered on your website, it is
appropriate to post a URL pointing to the information. However, in the
spirit of contributing to discussion on the group, your post should also
provide at least a brief answer to the question, while referring readers to
your site for additional details.

3.5 What about spam?

Excessive Cross-Posting (ECP) and Excessive Multiple Posting (EMP) --
otherwise known as "Spam" -- are not appropriate on alt.food.wine. Most
Internet Service Providers (ISP's) do not tolerate commercial spamming of
non-commercial newsgroups and will terminate the abuser's accounts and/or
impose financial penalties.

3.6 What should I do if I see inappropriate ads or spam?

Users of alt.food.wine are encouraged to complain about spam and repeated
advertising, but not on the group itself. Few advertisers actually stick
around to read responses, so posting complaints just inconveniences other
group members. In addition, many ISP's filter out spam, so people who never
saw the original message, and would never have been bothered at all, will
see your complaint. In addition, you shouldn't repost the ad to the group,
since the result is just more free advertising.

If you think that an ad is an honest mistake, you can send a polite letter
to the advertiser. However, some advertisers can become abusive when
confronted, and some will just add your email address to a mailing list,
which they can use (or sell) in the future. As a result, this course of
action is not generally recommended.

Usually, the best course of action is to email to the postmaster at the
originating ISP, the ISP used for responses (if different), and, if the ad
promotes a website, at the webhosting company or ISP that gives the site its
connection. Generally the appropriate address will be abuse@<domain> or
postmaster@<domain> where "domain" is the name of the ISP. For example, if
the sender is ", you should try complaining to
", and if the post advertises a site at "www.xyz.com/wineads",
or hosted by "xyz.com", you should also complain to ".
However, if the site is advertising, for example, "wine gizmos" and the web
address is "www.winegizmos.com", you should probably try to find out who
hosts the site or gives it access, since a complaint sent to
" will likely just go back to the advertiser. There are
many websites, such as Network Tools, that allow you to trace message
origins and find hosting providers.

In your email to the postmaster, you should include the entire offending
post, with full headers (check your newsreader settings). Also include a
short, polite message, specifying where you saw the post, and pointing out
the existence of this FAQ.

For more information on how to respond to ads and spam, please see one of
the many anti-spam websites, such as:

SpamCop
Elsop's Anti-Spam Page
If an ISP is unresponsive, and the advertising continues, you can post a
complaint in the news.admin.net-abuse.usenet group.

Section 4: Miscellaneous Newsgroup Questions


--
Joe "Beppe" Rosenberg
"Ian Hoare" > wrote in message
news
> Hi Max,
>
> le/on Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:54:09 -0700, tu disais/you said:-
>
> >"Ian Hoare" wrote:
> >>
> >> Sigh. Max Hauser.... how would YOU (with your requests for
> >> tolerance for newcomers) deal with this?
>
> >Since you asked, Ian (just saw this thread, I am partly _hors-de-combat_
> >lately),
>
> Sorry to hear that, hope it's nothing too serious. And thanks VERY much
for
> reponding. Although it may possibly appear otherwise, I DO want to
encourage
> lurkers to post, and truly welcome constructive criticism.
>
> > it looked to me as
>
> [succintly accurate resumé of the facts snipped]
>
> > you see all the variations within your first five years or so, many
would agree.
>
> Smile!! Many, many times. And StocksRus certainly had the grace to
> apologise.
>
> > (People take some of these small arguments a bit seriously, I feel.)
>
> Agreed.
>
> >The long-time maintainer of the Guidelines had said he found it prudent
to
> >do this before actually sending a flame message that was ready to go.
>
> Chuckle....
> >
> >Since you asked!
>
> I did indeed, and meant it sincerely.
>
> --
> All the Best
> Ian Hoare
> http://www.souvigne.com
> mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

in article , Max Hauser at
wrote on 6/15/04 8:54 PM:

> "Ian Hoare" wrote:
>>
>> Sigh. Max Hauser.... how would YOU (with your requests for
>> tolerance for newcomers) deal with this?
>>
>> Whatever your name is. You might like to be a little more careful.
>> The thread was about Riedel stemless glasses, not any random
>> glassware you may have picked up in Pamplona. And excoriating
>> Michael Proney, as an idiot when it is you yourself who is in error,
>> is not going to make you many friends. . . .
>
> Since you asked, Ian (just saw this thread, I am partly _hors-de-combat_
> lately), it looked to me as if poster A cited a product from 10 years back,
> similar to the new product; poster B interpreted this very specifically and
> responded sharply; poster A then took offense and replied pettily. But it's
> all old stuff on these self-service public online forums (now celebrating
> their 25th year), you see all the variations within your first five years or
> so, many would agree. (People take some of these small arguments a bit
> seriously, I feel.)
>



Most of my international exposure has been in Asia, so I have little basis
upon which to know whether the word "Bullshit" has the same meaning/usage in
Austria that it has in the US. The poster who used it (usually one of the
pillars of this group, I believe) said it was an allusion to the bulls of
Pamplona. Where I come from it would only allude to the red cape of the
matador and produce the same result. That, I believe, is what happened here.

International dialogue is tricky enough. Even trickier when you can't see
the other person.

Midlife > wrote in :

> in article , Max Hauser at
> wrote on 6/15/04 8:54 PM:
>
>> "Ian Hoare" wrote:
>>>
>>> Sigh. Max Hauser.... how would YOU (with your requests for
>>> tolerance for newcomers) deal with this?
>>>
>>> Whatever your name is. You might like to be a little more careful.
>>> The thread was about Riedel stemless glasses, not any random
>>> glassware you may have picked up in Pamplona. And excoriating
>>> Michael Proney, as an idiot when it is you yourself who is in error,
>>> is not going to make you many friends. . . .
>>
>> Since you asked, Ian (just saw this thread, I am partly
>> _hors-de-combat_ lately), it looked to me as if poster A cited a
>> product from 10 years back, similar to the new product; poster B
>> interpreted this very specifically and responded sharply; poster A
>> then took offense and replied pettily. But it's all old stuff on
>> these self-service public online forums (now celebrating their 25th
>> year), you see all the variations within your first five years or
>> so, many would agree. (People take some of these small arguments a
>> bit seriously, I feel.)
>>
>
>
>
> Most of my international exposure has been in Asia, so I have little
> basis upon which to know whether the word "Bullshit" has the same
> meaning/usage in Austria that it has in the US. The poster who used
> it (usually one of the pillars of this group, I believe) said it was
> an allusion to the bulls of Pamplona. Where I come from it would only
> allude to the red cape of the matador and produce the same result.
> That, I believe, is what happened here.
>
> International dialogue is tricky enough. Even trickier when you can't
> see the other person.

I did take offence at the word "bullshit", but the humour alluded me and
now that I GET it, it really is quite witty. I applaude the poster who
wrote it. Sometimes it takes a bit of explanation for my feeble mind to
comprehend a good joke.

--
StocksRus®

"StocksRus®" > wrote:

> I did take offence at the word "bullshit", but the humour
> alluded me and now that I GET it, it really is quite witty. I
> applaude the poster who wrote it. Sometimes it takes a bit of
> explanation for my feeble mind to comprehend a good joke.

It was me, and, no, the joke wasn't very good since nobody got it
until I explained it. One never should try to attemp to make jokes
in a language you're not completely familiar with.

M.