Thursday was black sea bass with a sesame crust and a ginger/soy sauce.
I thought this might do well with a light red, and went looking for a
Beaujolais. But sitting out on top of bin was a bottle of the 2002
Ghislaine Barthod "Les Bons B=E2tons" Bourgogne. Light and tight at
first, opened with a bit of air into a perfumed Pinot with floral
notes and strawberry & raspberry fruit. A bit much for the food, but
nice. On next day had a glass as an apertif, and it showed even
better- some forest floor over a perfumed body of red fruit and
violets, a bit like a light Chambolle. B++

Dinner on Friday was veal with lemon, tomatoes,and olives. Again I went
to the cellar to get one thing (an Italian white) and came up with
another - the 2001 Alzinger Loimer Weingarten Gr=FCner Veltliner
Smaragd. Grapefruit and river stones, a steely/minerally wine with a
lot of character, but a bit tight. We have a nice glass each, but most
of the bottle is left, and I decide to carry as a bonus pour to a
tasting group that night (separate notes). So about 4 hours later this
is rechecked. I'm shocked. No normal oxidative notes, but the fruit is
totally gone just leaving behind a bitter acidic shell. I liked this
wine, and expected it to blossom with some air. But a B+ wine became a
C+ wine on this occasion.

Grade disclaimer: I'm a very easy grader, basically A is an excellent
wine, B a good wine, C mediocre. Anything below C means I wouldn't
drink at a party where it was only choice. Furthermore, I offer no
promises of objectivity, accuracy, and certainly not of consistency.

"DaleW" > wrote:

> 2001 Alzinger Loimer Weingarten Grüner Veltliner
^^^^^^

Caution.

Fred Loimer is a winegrower in Langenlois (look out for his superb
Seeberg Riesling 2004).

Loiben, however, is the Village Alzinger lives, and Loibner (sic!)
Weingärten means "Loiben vineyards".

M.

Yikes! The danger of a slight familiarity with a country's wines- I'm
not even in right region - that would make one Kamptal and one Wachau?
Can't edit here, but hopefully everyone sees your response. Thanks!

"DaleW" > wrote:

["Loimer" vs. "Loibner"]

> Yikes! The danger of a slight familiarity with a country's
> wines- I'm not even in right region - that would make one
> Kamptal and one Wachau?

Right.

> Can't edit here,

No "supersede" function with your newsreader?

> but hopefully everyone sees your response. Thanks!

No problem!

M.

It isn't quite fair, is it? And I would say that you have a far greater
familiarity than most, Dale!

Michael Pronay wrote:

> No "supersede" function with your newsreader?
>
Michael,
Many news servers no longer honor either supercedes or cancels
because of widespread abuse. These days, you're probably better off
just replying to your own message with the correction should you need to
correct yourself.

Mark Lipton

Mark Lipton > wrote:

>> No "supersede" function with your newsreader?

> Many news servers no longer honor either supercedes

<nitpicking> super_s_edes </nitpicking>

> or cancels because of widespread abuse.

Really? Never heard of anything like that. My newsreader doesn't
offer the possibility to supersede or cancel anything else than my
own postings.

> These days, you're probably better off just replying to your own
> message with the correction should you need to correct yourself.

Hmmm. I do it quite frequently (although rarely in this group)
without any problem.

M.

Salut/Hi Michael Pronay,

le/on Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:11:19 +0200, tu disais/you said:-

>Mark Lipton > wrote:
>
>>> No "supersede" function with your newsreader?
>
>> Many news servers no longer honor either supercedes
>
><nitpicking> super_s_edes </nitpicking>

According to my spell checker both spellings are correct - to my amazement.
I was convinced the correct spelling is supercede. Given that both are
permissable, I nevertheless tend towards Mark's spelling as the root verb is
"cede" from the Latin verb cedere - to give up.

>Really? Never heard of anything like that. My newsreader doesn't
>offer the possibility to supersede or cancel anything else than my
>own postings.


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

Ian Hoare wrote:

>><nitpicking> super_s_edes </nitpicking>
>
>
> According to my spell checker both spellings are correct - to my amazement.
> I was convinced the correct spelling is supercede. Given that both are
> permissable, I nevertheless tend towards Mark's spelling as the root verb is
> "cede" from the Latin verb cedere - to give up.

Alas, Ian, your spell checker made the same mistake that I did.
Supersede is indeed the one and only correct spelling (FWIW, from the
Latin super + sedere, to "sit above", a different etymology). The
apparent resemblance to intercede [from L. cedere, meaning in this
instance to pass] is misleading in this case.

Mark Lipton

Spell check...y whatever 4
"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> Ian Hoare wrote:
>
>>><nitpicking> super_s_edes </nitpicking>
>>
>>
>> According to my spell checker both spellings are correct - to my
>> amazement.
>> I was convinced the correct spelling is supercede. Given that both are
>> permissable, I nevertheless tend towards Mark's spelling as the root verb
>> is
>> "cede" from the Latin verb cedere - to give up.
>
> Alas, Ian, your spell checker made the same mistake that I did. Supersede
> is indeed the one and only correct spelling (FWIW, from the Latin super +
> sedere, to "sit above", a different etymology). The apparent resemblance
> to intercede [from L. cedere, meaning in this instance to pass] is
> misleading in this case.
>
> Mark Lipton