"George" > wrote in message
news:RrRVd.22215$Az.20133@lakeread02...
> As will be obvious shortly, I know nothing about wine. But I make a
> point of drinking 5 oz. of French Paradox red wine every day, just
> in case. Up to now I've been buying either Cabernet or Merlot in
> the 5-liter box from Almaden. (By the way, in searching the 7000
> articles in this newsgroup on my server, not a single Subject
> contains the word "Almaden". Why is that?)
>
> Anyway, I've noticed that Almaden also sells another red wine in a
> box called Mountain Burgundy. On their website, Almaden is careful
> to make clear that this is not a varietal, but they give no hint as
> to what varieties it might include in the blend. Does anybody here
> know, or have an educated guess based on the taste? I assume Pinot
> Noir would be way too much to hope for, but is it possible to say
> anything about it other than it's genuine red wine? Also, what
> might it taste like, compared to the two varietals I've been
> drinking?
>
> It occurs to me now that in this newsgroup *I* may be the foremost
> authority on Almaden box wines. But if there's anyone here who will
> admit to having drunk them, and can shed any light on the Burgundy,
> I would appreciate your opinions.
>
I was advised in early 2003 by my doctor to drink a glass of red wine daily.
When I first started, I knew nothing about wines, and the typical wines I
picked up at the grocery store did not taste good at all to me. In June of
that year, my wife and I vacationed in the wine growing reigion of Virginia,
and toured several wineries. I began to learn more about finding wines that
I liked better. Taste is a very individual thing in wines.

Because of a significant loss of income, the boxed wines began to be used.
There are some companies producing better quality wines in boxes (Black Box
and Hardy's come to mind - in 3 liter boxes). In our area, they typically
sell for about $16 per box (3 liters equals four 750 ml standard wine
bottles).

I'm not an "authority" on Almaden, but: Almaden (and Franzia) are two US
producers of low priced bulk wine, usually sold in 5 liter boxes. I think
that my wife and I tried the Burgundy once, but I can't find it in my notes
(Excel spreadsheet of all wines purchased and drunk, and our relative
satisfaction). We bought one box of the Cabernet, in October, 2003. It is
one of the only wines I have ever just poured out - even though it was low
priced, we didn't like the taste. That in no way means that you won't like
the taste. We do use three Almaden products: the "Mountain Rhine" white wine
is used for cooking; and the Red and White Sangria are used for low priced
quaffing with routine meals.

We have not tried their "Mountain Burgundy". We tend to buy the Cabernet
from Hardy's (also available in 750ml and 1.5l bottles), as it is a bit of a
step up in taste. We also buy some higher priced wines. Unless someone else
responds, your only method is to purchase one and see. I would expect that
it would be a similar wine to the Cab and Merlot which you have tried. One
reason that they do not publish information on percentage contents is that
this will vary - they purchase some of their wine on the market based
heavily on price sensitivity, so the box you buy this week may well have a
considerably different composition than the box you bought a few months ago.

This is a worldwide international newsgroup, with contributors ranging from
those who have a very high income to those who live on much less. Most of
the reviews found will be on wines which range from (US prices) $10 to $150
per 750ml bottle, although there are exceptions in both directions. Now, the
reason that people will spend hundreds of dollars on one bottle of wine are
not just because they can afford to do so - but are related to a perceived
difference in the quality of the product. More expensive wines have a higher
complexity to their taste. Also, there is a very considerable interaction
between the taste of a wine and food which is eaten at the time.

I would encourage you to visit a wine store near your home that carries some
of the better wines, try some of the better ones within whatever price range
you are willing to spend, and see if the difference in taste justifies the
difference in cost to you. Ultimately, your own taste buds are the judge.
Many people get "into" wines, some to excess (and I am not just talking
about becoming an alcoholic, but there are those who cannot be satisfied
with another person having a different opinion). Admittedly, it is usually
easier if you live in a metropolitan area to find a good variety (we moved
from a city of over 200,000 last fall to a town within a county of 30,000).
Enjoy - for whatever reason (you mention the French Paradox, which leads me
to believ that you have begun out of a desire to maintain better health) you
have started a journey which can result in considerable enjoyment.

Jim

George wrote:
> In article <Kg_Vd.44384$7z6.930@lakeread04>,
> says...
>
> Jim,
>
> I very much appreciate your taking the time to reply to my
> post. I think I'm pretty much at the same place you started
> at - one glass of red wine per day because the doc likes
> what it does for my cholesterol. But I'm afraid that in
> my case 20 years of heavy smoking curtailed my ability to
> make the fine taste distinctions that might lead to my being
> a true wine fanatic. I've tried a number of red wines over
> the years, and could hardly taste any difference among them.
> So I figured that spending the extra money for good wines
> wouldn't be useful in my case. And I too have had a very
> significant reduction in income, so I have to stick with the
> inexpensive stuff.


George,
The Mountian Burgundy is a melange of different grapes blended
from low-end vineyards etc. There is a little bit of everything in
these kinds of wines and they are blended to be a bit lighter, sweeter
and less tannic or astringent than the Cab or Merlot. Something to
consider, IMO, drinking these wines for health reasons may be counter
productive since many of the agents that may be linked to better health
are in short supply in these kinds of wines. Large bulk wines tend to
be stripped of much of their "healthy" components in order to make them
taste better to the average American consumer. Additionally, these
wines are made in factories that look more like chemical plants than
places where anything healthy could be made. The addition of chemical
additives to these wines to add the flavor components that make them
inexpensive yet palatable is also a question that I have about these
wines. You might want to check with your local wine store to find a
wine that fits your budget yet is made in a more traditional way if
you're looking for any health benefits at all.
> The Almaden boxed Merlot and Cabernet taste the same to me
> (not very good), but the Cabernet has more of an astringent
> after-effect. I was afraid the Mountain Burgundy, being
> even cheaper, might be even worse than the other two, but,
> you know, for $9 I'll just go ahead and give it a try.
>
> Thanks again for your response.
>
> George

I can throw in my 2 cents comment, FWIW. But keep in mind that it
will be biased, as I don't share much of the cola-raised American
public's tastes in cheap wine.
My experience with cheap wines in the US is, that mostly all
American ones (both North and South) are too sweet for my tastes. The
boxed invariably so, and most of the bottled ones too. The only passable
bulk wine (which is at the lower limit of my acceptance level) is the
Carlo Rossi Paisano (4 liter jug). It is still too sweet, but has a nice
sour component, which makes it drinkable together with food. (The boxed
Hardee that was mentioned earlier, is too sweet too, even though
Australian).
What works best for me is cheap European wine, if you can find it.
Right now I have a batch of French Shiraz, "Les Etoiles", Vin de pays de
L'Aude, bought for $10/3 bottles, or $3.33 each. It has no abominable
sweetness, exhibits a nice tartness and astringency that cuts through
the food, and is ultimately quaffable. For the same price, the "Avia"
brand (Merlot, Cab and Pinot Noir) works well, with a caveat. The
vintages up to and including 2002 were made in Slovenia, and have all
the proper qualities, while the 2003 vintage is made in Chile, and while
still passable, exhibits the dread sweet aftertaste.
Other cheap wines worth trying to see if they work for you, are the
Chilean "Walnut Crest" and "Concha y Toro". To get the best bang for the
buck, buy the magnum (double, 1.5 liter) bottles.
The Australian Yellowtails are OK for quaffing, but too expensive
to be called cheap.
Finally, I personally would not recommend any cheap non-bulk
California wines, as they are generally too sweet, and worse than the
similarly priced Chileans.
Hope that helps. Cheers,
Elko


Bi!! wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>>In article <Kg_Vd.44384$7z6.930@lakeread04>,
>>says...
>>
>>Jim,
>>
>>I very much appreciate your taking the time to reply to my
>>post. I think I'm pretty much at the same place you started
>>at - one glass of red wine per day because the doc likes
>>what it does for my cholesterol. But I'm afraid that in
>>my case 20 years of heavy smoking curtailed my ability to
>>make the fine taste distinctions that might lead to my being
>>a true wine fanatic. I've tried a number of red wines over
>>the years, and could hardly taste any difference among them.
>>So I figured that spending the extra money for good wines
>>wouldn't be useful in my case. And I too have had a very
>>significant reduction in income, so I have to stick with the
>>inexpensive stuff.
>
>
>
> George,
> The Mountian Burgundy is a melange of different grapes blended
> from low-end vineyards etc. There is a little bit of everything in
> these kinds of wines and they are blended to be a bit lighter, sweeter
> and less tannic or astringent than the Cab or Merlot. Something to
> consider, IMO, drinking these wines for health reasons may be counter
> productive since many of the agents that may be linked to better health
> are in short supply in these kinds of wines. Large bulk wines tend to
> be stripped of much of their "healthy" components in order to make them
> taste better to the average American consumer. Additionally, these
> wines are made in factories that look more like chemical plants than
> places where anything healthy could be made. The addition of chemical
> additives to these wines to add the flavor components that make them
> inexpensive yet palatable is also a question that I have about these
> wines. You might want to check with your local wine store to find a
> wine that fits your budget yet is made in a more traditional way if
> you're looking for any health benefits at all.
>
>>The Almaden boxed Merlot and Cabernet taste the same to me
>>(not very good), but the Cabernet has more of an astringent
>>after-effect. I was afraid the Mountain Burgundy, being
>>even cheaper, might be even worse than the other two, but,
>>you know, for $9 I'll just go ahead and give it a try.
>>
>>Thanks again for your response.
>>
>>George
>
>

Elko Tchernev wrote:
> I can throw in my 2 cents comment, FWIW. But keep in mind that it
> will be biased, as I don't share much of the cola-raised American
> public's tastes in cheap wine.

Great way to start a post. You just ****ed off this cola-raised American.
Go somewhere elese to show your politics please.
Bill

Bill Loftin wrote:
> Elko Tchernev wrote:
>
>> I can throw in my 2 cents comment, FWIW. But keep in mind that it
>> will be biased, as I don't share much of the cola-raised American
>> public's tastes in cheap wine.
>
>
> Great way to start a post. You just ****ed off this cola-raised American.
> Go somewhere elese to show your politics please.
>

And why were you ****ed off, may I ask? And where did you see
politics? I don't think there is anything untrue or insulting in my
statement. Isn't it true that Americans were cola-raised? Isn't that the
reason for the obvious American preference for sweet drinks? And
finally, what's wrong with that? It is a preference shared by various
people around the world.
Maybe my phrasing above was clumsy. I should have said "But keep in
mind that it will be biased, because that section of the cola-raised
American public that buys cheap wine, has preferences I don't share."

Salut/Hi Elko Tchernev,

le/on Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:30:36 -0500, tu disais/you said:-


>> Great way to start a post. You just ****ed off this cola-raised American.
>> Go somewhere elese to show your politics please.

>
> And why were you ****ed off, may I ask?

Don't worry about Bill, he's very sensitive to what he sees as criticism of
America.

(Aintcha Bill ;-)))

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

"Elko Tchernev" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Loftin wrote:
> > Elko Tchernev wrote:
> >
> >> I can throw in my 2 cents comment, FWIW. But keep in mind that it
> >> will be biased, as I don't share much of the cola-raised American
> >> public's tastes in cheap wine.
> >
> >
> > Great way to start a post. You just ****ed off this cola-raised
American.
> > Go somewhere elese to show your politics please.
> >
>
> And why were you ****ed off, may I ask? And where did you see
> politics? I don't think there is anything untrue or insulting in my
> statement. Isn't it true that Americans were cola-raised?

Not at all true, and you are stereotyping to a very insulting degree.
I do not know your ethnicity; if you are Russian, did you suckle
Vodka from your mother's breast? Do you see the parallel?
Try treating all of the people here as being as intelligent as you wish you
might be, and as articulate as you imagine you are. And assume
they are all as unbiased and cultured as you picture yourself. And
then assume they are far less culturally biased than you are. Then
address the audience as, if not equals, as superiors. Your comments
as they stand are insulting and obnoxious. Make amends now.

pavane

Elko Tchernev wrote:
<SNIP>

Elko,
I read your comments and didn't find them offensive, but like any
cultural stereotype they are at best crude generalizations. As an
example, I offer myself. I am an American, born and raised, and a
member of the much-derided "baby boom" generation:

I have never drunk a Cola (Coke or Pepsi or RC, etc.)
I have never eaten any food from McDonalds or Burger King
I went 10 years of my adult life without owning a television
I haven't eaten a hot dog since I was 4-5 years old
I don't have a sweet tooth

It is important to recognize that in any society there will be a fair
number of outliers who defy any stereotype we can devise.

Regarding your original point, I am a bit bemused by the "sweetness" you
note in the wines of the US, Oz and Chile. I think that you are
probably reacting to the lower acids and greater fruitiness of these
wines, a result of the hotter climates in which the grapes are grown.
Few of them are truly sweet, if we judge sweetness by sugar content.
What I found most perplexing is your approval of the Yellowtail wines,
which _do_ have residual sugar and are most definitely sweet to my
taste. De gustibus non disputandum est...

Mark Lipton

"pavane" > wrote
>> And why were you ****ed off, may I ask? And where did you see
>> politics? I don't think there is anything untrue or insulting in my
>> statement. Isn't it true that Americans were cola-raised?
>
> Not at all true, and you are stereotyping to a very insulting degree.
> I do not know your ethnicity; if you are Russian, did you suckle
> Vodka from your mother's breast? Do you see the parallel?
> Try treating all of the people here as being as intelligent as you wish
> you
> might be, and as articulate as you imagine you are. And assume
> they are all as unbiased and cultured as you picture yourself. And
> then assume they are far less culturally biased than you are. Then
> address the audience as, if not equals, as superiors. Your comments
> as they stand are insulting and obnoxious. Make amends now.
>
> pavane

For what it's worth, speaking as a cola-raised American, I'm not offended by
the original post. But I'm not very thin-skinned either.

Getting back to the subject, wine for health, I would recommend visiting
Trader Joe's if you have one locally. The Charles Shaw "2-buck Chuck" is
something of a joke among serious wine drinkers but there's really nothing
wrong with it. Certainly it's much better than the over-sweet grocery boxed
wines. I share Bill's apprehension about its dubious health qualities. For
$2/bottle ($3 outside California) you really can't go wrong with the Shaw.
I would purchase a bottle of each red they sell, try them and then come back
for a case of whichever you prefer, if any. They carry many other
lower-priced quality wines as well.

GS.

Mark Lipton wrote:
> Elko Tchernev wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> Elko,
> I read your comments and didn't find them offensive,

Thanks. I never intended to be offensive, you know.

<Remarkable accomplishment snipped>

> It is important to recognize that in any society there will be a fair
> number of outliers who defy any stereotype we can devise.
>
Oh yes, you are absolutely right. But stereotypes (if they are not
wrong or biased) have their value too, in portraying averages.


> Regarding your original point, I am a bit bemused by the "sweetness" you
> note in the wines of the US, Oz and Chile. I think that you are
> probably reacting to the lower acids and greater fruitiness of these
> wines, a result of the hotter climates in which the grapes are grown.
> Few of them are truly sweet, if we judge sweetness by sugar content.
> What I found most perplexing is your approval of the Yellowtail wines,
> which _do_ have residual sugar and are most definitely sweet to my
> taste. De gustibus non disputandum est...
>
You are right, I don't think any of these wines are truly sweet
(with residual sugar). You might have a point about the lower acidity,
which I interpret as sweetness.
About the Yellowtail - I had not had any for a long time, maybe
about a year. After reading your message, I popped a Shiraz this
evening, and by Jove, you are right! It is sweet (as in has sugar), but
does not feel that way in aftertaste. I personally experience a very
refreshing bitter note, which eliminates the sweetness. (I should start
keeping notes about these things). Now I remember why I liked Yellowtail
Shiraz to begin with - because it resembles Kadarka, which can be bitter
and sweet at the same time, too.

pavane wrote:

> "Elko Tchernev" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Bill Loftin wrote:
>>
>>>Elko Tchernev wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I can throw in my 2 cents comment, FWIW. But keep in mind that it
>>>>will be biased, as I don't share much of the cola-raised American
>>>>public's tastes in cheap wine.
>>>
>>>
>>>Great way to start a post. You just ****ed off this cola-raised
>
> American.
>
>>>Go somewhere elese to show your politics please.
>>>
>>
>> And why were you ****ed off, may I ask? And where did you see
>>politics? I don't think there is anything untrue or insulting in my
>>statement. Isn't it true that Americans were cola-raised?
>
>
> Not at all true, and you are stereotyping to a very insulting degree.

Stereotyping, yes. Guilty as charged. However, what's wrong with
this particular stereotype? It is not something to be ashamed of. I
really can't understand you guys - this cola thing seems to be a chip on
your shoulder. Even if the "cola-raised" bit were wrong (which it isn't,
here I disagree with you), the Americans' sweet tooth is undeniable. And
that's the only point I was making.


> I do not know your ethnicity; if you are Russian, did you suckle
> Vodka from your mother's breast? Do you see the parallel?

I can see that you don't see the parallel. Saying that Americans
are cola-raised is not much different from saying that French are raised
on baguettes and camembert, or saying that Italians are raised on pasta,
or saying that Swiss are raised on cheese and chocolate. Neither might
be true for particular individuals from these nationalities, but these
are valid, non-insulting generalizations nonetheless. Plus, cola is one
of the most important American contributions to the world at large;
nothing to be offended about.


> Try treating all of the people here as being as intelligent as you wish you
> might be, and as articulate as you imagine you are. And assume
> they are all as unbiased and cultured as you picture yourself. And
> then assume they are far less culturally biased than you are. Then
> address the audience as, if not equals, as superiors. Your comments
> as they stand are insulting and obnoxious. Make amends now.
>
There is nothing broken for me to amend. It is unfortunate that
you feel offended by what I wrote, as I did not intend it to be
offending; accept my apologies for your hurt feelings. However, I still
insist that you should not have been offended to begin with, as there
was nothing untrue or insulting in what I wrote.

Salut/Hi pavane,

le/on Sat, 05 Mar 2005 03:11:30 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>> >> I can throw in my 2 cents comment, FWIW. But keep in mind that it
>> >> will be biased, as I don't share much of the cola-raised American
>> >> public's tastes in cheap wine.

>> And why were you ****ed off, may I ask? And where did you see
>> politics? I don't think there is anything untrue or insulting in my
>> statement. Isn't it true that Americans were cola-raised?
>
>Not at all true, and you are stereotyping to a very insulting degree.

Calm down. If someone with a name like John Frankenheimer III had said that,
you'd probably not have twitched.

Look at the quantities of cola (and other sweet carbonated drinks) drunk in
the States. Look at the quantities of sweet iced tea drunk. Cola raised is a
pretty good definition of the drinking habits of the typical American.

Now consider the sales of dreadful wine. I don't know if the two are
related, on the other hand, as I'd guess the same proportion of muck is
drunk here in France. If there WERE something to be jibbed at, it might be
the assumption of a link.

No, Pavane, looking at it from my perspective, you and Bill indulged in a
knee-jerk reaction to a Russian sounding name that would have been more
appropriate to 1985 than 2005. Though I doubt either of you will admit it.

>Try treating all of the people here as being as intelligent as you wish you
>might be, and as articulate as you imagine you are. And assume
>they are all as unbiased and cultured as you picture yourself. And
>then assume they are far less culturally biased than you are. Then
>address the audience as, if not equals, as superiors. Your comments
>as they stand are insulting and obnoxious. Make amends now.

Knee jerk assumptions. How do you know he hasn't been over here since the
1914?

Tsk. and I thought we were a little more adult than that.


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

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:30:36 -0500, Elko Tchernev
> wrote:

>Bill Loftin wrote:
>> Elko Tchernev wrote:
>>
>>> I can throw in my 2 cents comment, FWIW. But keep in mind that it
>>> will be biased, as I don't share much of the cola-raised American
>>> public's tastes in cheap wine.
>>
>>
>> Great way to start a post. You just ****ed off this cola-raised American.
>> Go somewhere elese to show your politics please.
>>
>
> And why were you ****ed off, may I ask? And where did you see
>politics? I don't think there is anything untrue or insulting in my
>statement. Isn't it true that Americans were cola-raised?

No. American children get raised on the same range of food and
beverages that most children in developed nations experience.

> Isn't that the
>reason for the obvious American preference for sweet drinks?

Americans have no more preference for sweet drinks than any other
nationality or ethnicity.

> And
>finally, what's wrong with that? It is a preference shared by various
>people around the world.

So, if "various people around the world" share the preference, why do
you stereotype Americans and imply some sort of immaturity or
unsophistication?

> Maybe my phrasing above was clumsy. I should have said "But keep in
>mind that it will be biased, because that section of the cola-raised
>American public that buys cheap wine, has preferences I don't share."

So, at the bottom line, we find you guilty of unsubstantiated
hyperbole, national stereotyping and incredible arrogance. Not bad for
just one short posting.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:19:16 -0800, Mark Lipton >
wrote:

>Regarding your original point, I am a bit bemused by the "sweetness" you
>note in the wines of the US, Oz and Chile. I think that you are
>probably reacting to the lower acids and greater fruitiness of these
>wines, a result of the hotter climates in which the grapes are grown.
>Few of them are truly sweet, if we judge sweetness by sugar content.
>What I found most perplexing is your approval of the Yellowtail wines,
>which _do_ have residual sugar and are most definitely sweet to my
>taste. De gustibus non disputandum est...
>
>Mark Lipton

Amazingly, I've found the wines of Germany to be the most obvious
example of sweetness. Spatlese, auslese, beerenauslese and TBA are
certainly off the charts in sweetness as a characteristic. Canada's
excursion into "ice wine" and Portugal's fortified offerings are
certainly other examples of sweetness as a predominant.

If we look at US wines, the majority of quality seems to come from CA,
OR and WA where the cabs, merlots, PNs, zins, chards, SBs, and other
varietals and blends run a full range for fruit forward to austere.

But, maybe that simply illustrates the fundamental error of
stereotyping.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

George wrote:
> Moreover, my experience with wine in a bottle is that with
> one person drinking one 5-oz glass a day, those last few
> glasses don't taste very good. That's why I was interested
> in bag/box wine, which doesn't have that problem.
>
> Someone needs to invent a "bagging" system for transferring
> wine from a bottle into a bag.

There is the vacuum pump, which works somewhat depending on whom you ask.
Myself, I find it helps keep wine for a few days but not much longer. In
any case, I find that I don't mind pouring out half a bottle of Charles Shaw
and just opening another if I need to. At $38 per case it's not a big deal.

If you have Costco, they now carry a "premium" boxed wine. I picked up a
Chardonnay to give it a try. It was about $18 for the 3-litre box. I found
it to be equivalent to any $10 bottle. They carry a Shiraz too. I can't
recall the name, but it was Aussie.

GS.

George wrote:

> I'm in Oklahoma, and don't recall seeing a Trader Joe's or
> anything like 2-buck Chuck.
>
> Moreover, my experience with wine in a bottle is that with
> one person drinking one 5-oz glass a day, those last few
> glasses don't taste very good. That's why I was interested
> in bag/box wine, which doesn't have that problem.
>
> Someone needs to invent a "bagging" system for transferring
> wine from a bottle into a bag.
>
There was a time past when a lot of country homes would have an
earthenware jug of two or three gallon capacity with a spout at
the bottom. It was filled with wine and a light layer of olive oil
floated on top. The oil kept the air out and the wine stayed fresh.

"Greg Sumner" > wrote in message
...
(snip)
> If you have Costco, they now carry a "premium" boxed wine. I picked up a
> Chardonnay to give it a try. It was about $18 for the 3-litre box. I
> found it to be equivalent to any $10 bottle. They carry a Shiraz too. I
> can't recall the name, but it was Aussie.
>
> GS.
One Aus. wine in 3 liter boxes is Hardy's. I don't like their Chard, but the
Shiraz and the Cab Sauv. are both good (for the price). They are
considerably better than Almaden.
Jim

BallroomDancer wrote:
> "Greg Sumner" > wrote in message
> ...
> (snip)
>
>>If you have Costco, they now carry a "premium" boxed wine. I picked up a
>>Chardonnay to give it a try. It was about $18 for the 3-litre box. I
>>found it to be equivalent to any $10 bottle. They carry a Shiraz too. I
>>can't recall the name, but it was Aussie.
>>
>>GS.
>
> One Aus. wine in 3 liter boxes is Hardy's. I don't like their Chard, but the
> Shiraz and the Cab Sauv. are both good (for the price). They are
> considerably better than Almaden.
> Jim
>
Hi Jim,
I can certainly agree on the Hardys. The Shiraz is a regular in our house.
There are also the Black Box wines from California. Haven't tried them yet
because the price ($20+) seems a little high for a box wine. Regardless,
there are several box wines that are better (IMHO) than Almaden or Franzia.
Dick R.

Salut/Hi Ed Rasimus,

le/on Sat, 05 Mar 2005 08:51:26 -0700, tu disais/you said:-

>>politics? I don't think there is anything untrue or insulting in my
>>statement. Isn't it true that Americans were cola-raised?

>No. American children get raised on the same range of food and
>beverages that most children in developed nations experience.

You're entitled to your beliefs, Ed, but I'm afraid that's not quite
accurate. Even my wife said "Rubbish" when reading your post.

>Americans have no more preference for sweet drinks than any other
>nationality or ethnicity.

Wrong again. There are plenty of figures published which show the facts.


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

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 23:02:18 +0100, Ian Hoare >
wrote:

>Salut/Hi Ed Rasimus,
>
> le/on Sat, 05 Mar 2005 08:51:26 -0700, tu disais/you said:-
>
>>>politics? I don't think there is anything untrue or insulting in my
>>>statement. Isn't it true that Americans were cola-raised?
>
>>No. American children get raised on the same range of food and
>>beverages that most children in developed nations experience.
>
>You're entitled to your beliefs, Ed, but I'm afraid that's not quite
>accurate. Even my wife said "Rubbish" when reading your post.

Saying "Rubbish" is a pretty strong and difficult argument to refute.
But, I'd have to say the range of foods available (and selling very
well) in the typical American supermarket in all sizes of towns and
cities is broader than I found during the eight years I lived in
Europe, the two years I lived in Asia and most assuredly more varied
than what I found in my several visits to the middle east.

While American children don't get exposed to wine drinking with meals
as early as western European kids, they do have access to a wide range
of other beverages, and if you'll check into sales figures of the two
major "cola" producers in the US, you might be surprised to find that
Pepsi and Coke sales are in decline and have been for the last decade
or more.

On the positive side (regarding access to a range of wine), I've found
that wines from around the world are available and displayed
prominently in almost every city in the US. I recall when living in
Spain a dearth of US wines, in Germany an absence of
US/Italian/Spanish, in France an absence of anything non-French, and
in Italy an availability of little more than domestics. If we read
back on posts from some of our regular Scandinavian contributors, we
see similar narrowness of selection regarding several prominent
national producers.

Maybe your wife would be willing to enhance her rather pithy
pronouncement regarding the raising of American children?
>
>>Americans have no more preference for sweet drinks than any other
>>nationality or ethnicity.
>
>Wrong again. There are plenty of figures published which show the facts.

Please do offer some of the "plenty." Seriously, I recall kids in
Thailand slugging on bottles of coke on the way home from school in
their country, and Japanese kids being lured by displays of
soft-drinks in billboards and window displays everywhere I went in
Tokyo. Similar experiences in Athens, Madrid, Paris, Frankfort,
Naples, Tangier, Aleppo, Venice, Florence, Copenhagen, Amsterdam,
Lisbon and most of the small towns (but not all of the villages
inbetween). But, then I haven't been everywhere.

The problem with stereotypes is that they are based on small samplings
and attempt to ascribe national stereotypes to support basic
prejudices.

There are a lot of Americans with very bad taste, but there are also
high percentages of virtually all other nationalities who also have
little sophistication, little breadth of experience, and often little
opportunity to broaden.

In your recent trip to the US, didn't you notice as many people
walking around with a bottle of water as a can of cola?



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:50:42 -0600, "Dick R." > said:

] BallroomDancer wrote:
] > "Greg Sumner" > wrote in message
] > ...
] > (snip)
] >
] >>If you have Costco, they now carry a "premium" boxed wine. I picked up a
] >>Chardonnay to give it a try. It was about $18 for the 3-litre box. I
] >>found it to be equivalent to any $10 bottle. They carry a Shiraz too. I
] >>can't recall the name, but it was Aussie.
] >>
] >>GS.
] >
] > One Aus. wine in 3 liter boxes is Hardy's. I don't like their Chard, but the
] > Shiraz and the Cab Sauv. are both good (for the price). They are
] > considerably better than Almaden.
] > Jim
] >
] Hi Jim,
] I can certainly agree on the Hardys. The Shiraz is a regular in our house.
] There are also the Black Box wines from California. Haven't tried them yet
] because the price ($20+) seems a little high for a box wine. Regardless,
] there are several box wines that are better (IMHO) than Almaden or Franzia.
] Dick R.
]

There is a common misconception that because it's in a box, it's bad. This is
just not so. Here in France BiB (Bag in Box) has been a source for many
very decent wines for some time now.

Our Ed R. recommended the Black Box, and I passed his rec on to my Dad
in NY, who enjoyed it very much.

I fail to see how US$20 is too much for a good box wine!

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2005-03-05, Elko Tchernev > wrote:
>
> Stereotyping, yes. Guilty as charged. However, what's wrong with
> this particular stereotype? It is not something to be ashamed of. I
> really can't understand you guys - this cola thing seems to be a chip on
> your shoulder. Even if the "cola-raised" bit were wrong (which it isn't,
> here I disagree with you), the Americans' sweet tooth is undeniable. And
> that's the only point I was making.
>
There is nothing wrong with that stereotype because, as you said, it is
true. I am one of the many "cola-raised" Americans except that in my
case it was more often sweet iced tea. Americans have been notoriously
fond of sugar and salt almost as long as we have been called Americans.

There are always a few people who don't fit the stereotype but in this
case another American stereotype seems to have been demonstrated: rude
and aggressive. Laugh at the absurdity and don't let it bother you.



- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCKk+t5PkFZBZYFzoRAk2zAKCtsbuzjNLVIS/sbwDjzjD7nt1iigCcCRxM
HbXXsZ0ygAKANSXb/KhnFZ8=
=XIlE
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCKk/B5PkFZBZYFzoRApFOAJwLjuTo5nQ1u2arpvcxJDs0TmQOkwCfX 6H4
rggwGAexGcjVwucTa524T7A=
=He2N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Salut/Hi Ed Rasimus,

This is getting increasingly off topic, so I'll not continue the tread
beyond here.

le/on Sat, 05 Mar 2005 15:35:55 -0700, tu disais/you said:-

>On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 23:02:18 +0100, Ian Hoare >

You said
>>>No. American children get raised on the same range of food and
>>>beverages that most children in developed nations experience.
>>
>>You're entitled to your beliefs, Ed, but I'm afraid that's not quite
>>accurate. Even my wife said "Rubbish" when reading your post.
>
>Saying "Rubbish" is a pretty strong and difficult argument to refute.

Grin! But when you consider what a restrained person she is!!! (Ask those
here who know her!!)

>But, I'd have to say the range of foods available (and selling very
>well) in the typical American supermarket in all sizes of towns and
>cities is broader than I found during the eight years I lived in
>Europe, the two years I lived in Asia and most assuredly more varied
>than what I found in my several visits to the middle east.

That may very well be true, and I was very impressed indeed at the range and
quality of the foodstuffs available in the better supermarkets I visited in
cities like Seattle (and its surroundings) San Francisco and so on. However,
when we visited small towns, the range was vastly less. That said, I'd not
claim that the NE of the UK could point the finger at the most backward part
of the USA. But I don't shop with my eyes shut, Ed, and I SAW with my own
eyes, as did Jacquie, the mountains of soft drinks on sale in the USA as
compared with other countries we've visited. One of my great pleasures, in
fact, is to go to different types of shops to see what's around. Vino (hey,
what's happened to him?) and Tom Zierten can both confirm this, as we did it
when visiting them. I also note what people have in their trolleys.

But honestly, Ed, that's not the point. For every family eating well, I saw
many whose diets seemed to be almost entirely composed of meat and starch.
Remember we ate out practically every night for two months while we were in
the States last fall. In 1999 we spent three months on the east Coast doing
more or less the same. We went to ordinary places where ordinary folk ate.
And we saw what was available in family diners, in chains, (Red Lobster,
Country Cooking etc) where the great mass of Americans eat out. When we sat
down in some places in 1999 (less so in 2005) if we ordered a coke, as we
did sometimes, not only did we get something 4 times the size of what we
would get anywhere else in the world, but it was topped up automatically
free of charge. While I've not lived in as many countries as you, I have
lived in the UK and France, and spent many months travelling very much at
"ground level". I wonder whether your view of life in Germany, for example
wasn't coloured by life on base, or near one. I would argue that there, beer
consumption outstrips coke 10:1 for the average German. We only went to stay
with friends there about 10 times, so we can't claim to have your continuity
of knowledge, of course.

> you might be surprised to find that Pepsi and Coke sales are in decline and have been for the last decade
>or more.

http://www.reflux1.com/news/Refluxmainstory.cfm/38/1

Data on dietary practices of people in the United States from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture shows that over a period of 55 years, annual
per-capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks rose at an alarming rate,
from 10.8 gallons in 1946 to 49.2 gallons in 2000.

If that's the case, it needed to. That's one quote for you.


>On the positive side (regarding access to a range of wine), I've found
>that wines from around the world are available and displayed
>prominently in almost every city in the US. I recall when living in
>Spain a dearth of US wines, in Germany an absence of
>US/Italian/Spanish, in France an absence of anything non-French, and
>in Italy an availability of little more than domestics. If we read
>back on posts from some of our regular Scandinavian contributors, we
>see similar narrowness of selection regarding several prominent
>national producers.

Absolutely true. But you try going to the big "pile em up" supermarkets. The
ones frequented by the millions of ordinary americans. You get cola, beer,
and many American wines. You also get a wide range of foreign wines,
cetainly, in tens, rather than the hundreds the american wines are stocked
in. Again, I'm not denying that the ACCESS to wines is good, just that as
you very well know, its per capita consumption is low when compared to many
European countries.

>>>Americans have no more preference for sweet drinks than any other
>>>nationality or ethnicity.
>>
>>Wrong again. There are plenty of figures published which show the facts.
>
>Please do offer some of the "plenty."

Sure. This is taken from an article on Coke in the NY Times I think,

Servings are 8oz servings calculated per person per year.

Country market in millions servings per person/year
China 1,256 7
United States 274 395
Brazil 166 134
Germany 82 200
France 59 96
Great Britain 57 122
Korea 46 62
Australia 19 285

OK these are 1998 figures, but if we're talking about "cola raised", then
consumption figures for 7 years ago would be appropriate if a touch too
recent.

>The problem with stereotypes is that they are based on small samplings

These figures are not small samplings but are USA figures from reputable
agencies.

>and attempt to ascribe national stereotypes to support basic prejudices.

You know Ed, sometimes national stereotypes do accurately reflect reality.

>In your recent trip to the US, didn't you notice as many people
>walking around with a bottle of water as a can of cola?

Can't say, honestly. I don't think that I ever looked or noticed. But I did
notice that FAR more people in ordinary diners/steakhouses etc had a coke or
other fizzy drink with their meal than water, while in Europe the opposite
would be the case.

Anyway, I'll not continue to argue. If you want to look for figures that
support your contention that food diet is more varied in the USA than in
other developed nations (I'd except the UK, because the situation there is
lamentable, generally) or figures that support your theory that sweetened
carbonated drinks are drunk more or less as much elsewhere, do please do so.
And please do publish them here. In the meantime, I think I've proved my
point over fizzy drinks. The ball's firmly in your court. I'll leave the
last word to you to prove me wrong.
--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:21:35 +0100, Ian Hoare >
wrote:

>Salut/Hi Ed Rasimus,
>
>This is getting increasingly off topic, so I'll not continue the tread
>beyond here.
>
> le/on Sat, 05 Mar 2005 15:35:55 -0700, tu disais/you said:-
>
>>On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 23:02:18 +0100, Ian Hoare >
>
>You said
>>>>No. American children get raised on the same range of food and
>>>>beverages that most children in developed nations experience.
>>>
>>>You're entitled to your beliefs, Ed, but I'm afraid that's not quite
>>>accurate. Even my wife said "Rubbish" when reading your post.
>>
>>Saying "Rubbish" is a pretty strong and difficult argument to refute.
>
>Grin! But when you consider what a restrained person she is!!! (Ask those
>here who know her!!)
>
>>But, I'd have to say the range of foods available (and selling very
>>well) in the typical American supermarket in all sizes of towns and
>>cities is broader than I found during the eight years I lived in
>>Europe, the two years I lived in Asia and most assuredly more varied
>>than what I found in my several visits to the middle east.
>
>That may very well be true, and I was very impressed indeed at the range and
>quality of the foodstuffs available in the better supermarkets I visited in
>cities like Seattle (and its surroundings) San Francisco and so on. However,
>when we visited small towns, the range was vastly less. That said, I'd not
>claim that the NE of the UK could point the finger at the most backward part
>of the USA. But I don't shop with my eyes shut, Ed, and I SAW with my own
>eyes, as did Jacquie, the mountains of soft drinks on sale in the USA as
>compared with other countries we've visited. One of my great pleasures, in
>fact, is to go to different types of shops to see what's around. Vino (hey,
>what's happened to him?) and Tom Zierten can both confirm this, as we did it
>when visiting them. I also note what people have in their trolleys.

Yes, we've got a saying in the US, "nothing exceeds like excess" and
we do tend to pile mountains of soft drinks in displays. But we also
pile mountains of nearly everything else in displays as well.
>
>But honestly, Ed, that's not the point. For every family eating well, I saw
>many whose diets seemed to be almost entirely composed of meat and starch.
>Remember we ate out practically every night for two months while we were in
>the States last fall. In 1999 we spent three months on the east Coast doing
>more or less the same. We went to ordinary places where ordinary folk ate.
>And we saw what was available in family diners, in chains, (Red Lobster,
>Country Cooking etc) where the great mass of Americans eat out.

You ate in places like that? I'm disappointed. You are correct,
however, that chain and franchise dining in the USA can be decidedly
unhealthy, unappetizing, and unfortunately representative of the
tendency for many people to make bad choices.

But, I make it a point when traveling to avoid chains and eat locally.
That applies on the Champs d'Elise where I wouldn't grab lunch at the
McDonald's despite the familiarity with home.

> When we sat
>down in some places in 1999 (less so in 2005) if we ordered a coke, as we
>did sometimes, not only did we get something 4 times the size of what we
>would get anywhere else in the world, but it was topped up automatically
>free of charge.

Good rule of thumb when traveling is never eat a meal other than
breakfast at a place that doesn't serve beer and wine. Then you won't
be faced with the coke grande option.

>While I've not lived in as many countries as you, I have
>lived in the UK and France, and spent many months travelling very much at
>"ground level". I wonder whether your view of life in Germany, for example
>wasn't coloured by life on base, or near one. I would argue that there, beer
>consumption outstrips coke 10:1 for the average German. We only went to stay
>with friends there about 10 times, so we can't claim to have your continuity
>of knowledge, of course.

In 23 years in the military, I only lived on base during my initial
pilot training and during my Southeast Asia combat tours (and,
actually spent more nights off-base during the second tour than I did
on base.)

I lived in downtown Madrid during my posting in Spain and I lived in a
small village (Sandorf) outside of Homburg-Saar nearly 20 miles away
from Ramstein during my Germany tour.

Working with NATO air forces, I more often stayed on the economy when
traveling than at host nation bases throughout Europe.
>
>>On the positive side (regarding access to a range of wine), I've found
>>that wines from around the world are available and displayed
>>prominently in almost every city in the US. I recall when living in
>>Spain a dearth of US wines, in Germany an absence of
>>US/Italian/Spanish, in France an absence of anything non-French, and
>>in Italy an availability of little more than domestics. If we read
>>back on posts from some of our regular Scandinavian contributors, we
>>see similar narrowness of selection regarding several prominent
>>national producers.
>
>Absolutely true. But you try going to the big "pile em up" supermarkets. The
>ones frequented by the millions of ordinary americans. You get cola, beer,
>and many American wines. You also get a wide range of foreign wines,
>cetainly, in tens, rather than the hundreds the american wines are stocked
>in. Again, I'm not denying that the ACCESS to wines is good, just that as
>you very well know, its per capita consumption is low when compared to many
>European countries.

A major cultural difference between US and Europe is the parochial
attitudes regarding alcohol. The states each set their sales and
availability laws, so you will find differing levels of access. Many
states, such as Colorado where I live, don't generally sell anything
other than 3.2% beer. All spirits, wine and regular beer sales occur
in dedicated liquor stores.
>
>
>>The problem with stereotypes is that they are based on small samplings
>
>These figures are not small samplings but are USA figures from reputable
>agencies.
>
>>and attempt to ascribe national stereotypes to support basic prejudices.
>
>You know Ed, sometimes national stereotypes do accurately reflect reality.

My gosh! Do you mean the French really are arrogant, the English
really are snooty, the Italians really are lazy, the Spanish really
are procrastinators, etc. etc.

Honestly, I've found that national stereotypes very seldom reflect any
level of reality. Although, I will admit to having very poor
basketball skills (I can't jump) and I don't have much rhythm either.
>
>>In your recent trip to the US, didn't you notice as many people
>>walking around with a bottle of water as a can of cola?
>
>Can't say, honestly. I don't think that I ever looked or noticed. But I did
>notice that FAR more people in ordinary diners/steakhouses etc had a coke or
>other fizzy drink with their meal than water, while in Europe the opposite
>would be the case.

Again we come to the question of both "class" of the diner/steakhouse
and availability of alternative beverages. There is also a lot of
regionalism at play similar to "beer in Germany, wine in France".
You'll get folks drinking sweetened iced tea in the South and southern
Atlantic Coast states. You'll find beer with southwestern meals if
available in the establishment. You'll see more wine with evening
meals in big cities and upscale restaurants. You'll get folks drinking
coffee with meals in diners in the agricultural heartland.
>
>Anyway, I'll not continue to argue. If you want to look for figures that
>support your contention that food diet is more varied in the USA than in
>other developed nations (I'd except the UK, because the situation there is
>lamentable, generally) or figures that support your theory that sweetened
>carbonated drinks are drunk more or less as much elsewhere, do please do so.
>And please do publish them here. In the meantime, I think I've proved my
>point over fizzy drinks. The ball's firmly in your court. I'll leave the
>last word to you to prove me wrong.

Nah, I'll not prove you wrong, nor even prove me right. I'll just
offer observations. And, one that I'll end with is that stereotyping
is generally erroneous.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Hello Ed,

I don't mean to pick on you, I just wanted to contribute some stuff on
the topic.


> No. American children get raised on the same range of food and
> beverages that most children in developed nations experience.
>

I disagree with that. America would not be the most obese nation in the
world [especially children] followed by Australia followed by Britain [I
think Britain is third] if it were not for the high fat high sugar fast
food crazy diets we seem to be eating these days.

Portion size and lack of excercise also has a lot to do with it, but I
think it is pretty clear the American diet and its international
offshoots are really quite unhealthy.

>
>
> Americans have no more preference for sweet drinks than any other
> nationality or ethnicity.
>

Once again I disagree. I read a statistic a little while ago that the
average American child consumes something ridiculous like 8 cans of soft
drink [soda] a day. On Oprah, that great source of American
geo-political information, I've seen some really really big kids
drinking 20 a day.

Sugar makes you thirsty. What quenches that? A sugary drink, for about 2
seconds.

Pure pure sugar water with absolutely no nutritional value. At what, 1
000 kilojoules or something quite astronomical you would be excercising
literally all day just to burn that off, let alone any actual food you ate.


> So, if "various people around the world" share the preference, why do
> you stereotype Americans and imply some sort of immaturity or
> unsophistication?
>

I'm not sure he was. And perhaps the said diet of sugar is a consequence
of maturity and sophistication? Hurry hurry hurry, work work work, build
build build. No time for a good diet as we are in such a flurry of
technocratic activity?

>
>> Maybe my phrasing above was clumsy. I should have said "But keep in
>>mind that it will be biased, because that section of the cola-raised
>>American public that buys cheap wine, has preferences I don't share."
>
>
> So, at the bottom line, we find you guilty of unsubstantiated
> hyperbole, national stereotyping and incredible arrogance. Not bad for
> just one short posting.
>
>

I think the soft drink [soda] reference has quite a lot of evidence
about it.

Compared to other nations that have not been overly influenced by
American diet Americans eat an awful lot more sugar and fat. And there
are figures to back that.

I have also seen various docos on various [mostly American] food
companies efforts to cram as much sugar, fat and salt into food as
possible. And we are now paying the price.


I'm not sure Elko was trying to be offensive, and I'm not trying to pick
on anyone, some of the facts needed to be set out.

So in an age where we all seem to be reaching for our guns at the
slightest perceived nationalist slight, perhaps we should give the poor
guy a break?


O, and I've heard that a lot of our American bound produce [including
wine] is deliberately sweetened up for the American market.


So let's play nice.

Mat.


P.S.: One more thing, I've heard it bandied about that the explosion in
oppositional defiant disorders and ADHD, ADD etc etc etc [all the
anti-social psychological phenomenon of childhood and adolescence] are
directly a consequence of high-sugar high-energy diets. These disorders
seem to have sky-rocketed, particuarly in the US, Australia and Britain
[perhaps not so coincidently]. Other countries I'm not so sure about.

There is a problem with over-diagnosis etc and its quite a contentious
contention, but just thought I'd throw that one out there. Particuarly
as diet change appears to be quite helpful in a reasonable percentage of
cases [lower sugar lower energy].


P.P.S.: I've also read figures that Australia, Britain and the US buy an
awful lot of low-end cheap wine. But then I've also heard it said around
the traps in a lot of places that Australians would poor down the sink
what the French drink everyday. So I'm not sure its a slight on the
sophistication of a nation to say ppl buy cheap wine.

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:30:36 -0500, Elko Tchernev
> > wrote:
>
>
>> And why were you ****ed off, may I ask? And where did you see
>>politics? I don't think there is anything untrue or insulting in my
>>statement. Isn't it true that Americans were cola-raised?
>
>
> No. American children get raised on the same range of food and
> beverages that most children in developed nations experience.
>
Not true. The range of food and beverages available to American
children is much wider than almost anywhere else. If only because of
that, the range of things actually consumed is different.

>
>>Isn't that the
>>reason for the obvious American preference for sweet drinks?
>
>
> Americans have no more preference for sweet drinks than any other
> nationality or ethnicity.
>
I can see that several posters already replied to this, refuting
your statement. I don't have much more to add, except that the American
versions of Coke and Pepsi seem to me sweeter than their Euro
counterparts. (I'll have to take along a bottle next time I travel, and
compare, as I'm talking from memory now, and might be wrong). This could
be explained by Americans' habit of having ice in their soft drinks, but
still - when you drink them out of a vending machine can, you get
conditioned to the taste.

>
>>And
>>finally, what's wrong with that? It is a preference shared by various
>>people around the world.
>
>
> So, if "various people around the world" share the preference, why do
> you stereotype Americans and imply some sort of immaturity or
> unsophistication?
>
The "immaturity or unsophistication" is entirely yours I didn't
say (or imply) anything like that.


>> Maybe my phrasing above was clumsy. I should have said "But keep in
>>mind that it will be biased, because that section of the cola-raised
>>American public that buys cheap wine, has preferences I don't share."
>
>
> So, at the bottom line, we find you guilty of unsubstantiated
> hyperbole, national stereotyping and incredible arrogance. Not bad for
> just one short posting.
>
You're welcome.