Disqus - Latest Comments for jpower

Re: American Decency: Not Too Big to Fail

Houstonwino — Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:07:35 -0000

Another highly misinformed person with an opinion and and internet connection. Let's just start with your opening gambit to show how wrong you are, and how useless bothering with your type is.

24% isn't even half of a half. You're welcome.

Re: American Decency: Not Too Big to Fail

Houstonwino — Mon, 14 Nov 2016 15:56:03 -0000

That's about as clueless of a recitation of recent history as I've ever heard, but congratulations, you managed to get everything backwards. Quite a feat, really.

Re: Eulogizing the Toledo Rockets’ Playoff Hopes

Houstonwino — Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:13:04 -0000

Perhaps a mention of the phantom leveraging call and the many non-calls, especially the one right in front of the official where our corner was knocked to the ground, might have been in order. The fact that just two of those incidents led to more points than the Rockets lost by makes this a theft and not a loss.

MAC + Corruption = MACtion

Re: Classic Horror Movie Wine Pairings – My Top 13 List

Houstonwino — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 20:56:42 -0000

Maybe even Petite Sirah!

Re: Old Man Yells at Cloud. Again.

Houstonwino — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 07:49:44 -0000

Great quotes they are too.

Re: Old Man Yells at Cloud. Again.

Houstonwino — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 07:49:08 -0000

Kevin, I can't tell if your comment is tongue-in-cheek or not. I'm praying that it is.

Re: Wine Tasting, How Not To Do It

Houstonwino — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 02:52:53 -0000

Glad that you enjoyed it, Joanne. Without the magic it's just rotten grapes.

Re: Of Maggots and Moshers: Wendy O. Williams hosts the ‘Headbangers Ball’ in 1987 | Dangerous Minds

Houstonwino — Sat, 04 Oct 2014 19:54:45 -0000

Drop namer

Re: WBC 2014 and the Wine Blog Awards – Part 2

Houstonwino — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 11:52:52 -0000

Funny how those who have benefitted most by the process currently in place defend it most vociferously. Was that a veiled threat at the end there? If so, awesome!

Did anyone say that you personally got a speaking gig or a book deal? I don't recall that, if so..

When the results are the same year after year year, despite an alleged change, has a change occurred?

Re: Just the Facts (and a Mea Culpa)

Houstonwino — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:19:26 -0000

You're welcome, and thanks again.

Re: WBC 2014 and the Wine Blog Awards – Part 2

Houstonwino — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 07:35:03 -0000

Joe, I very much appreciate you being a good enough friend to tell me when I'm wrong. I was already preparing my mea culpa prior to this comment, but the fact that what you think we were trying to say with the numbers vs what I know they actually show means that my commentary failed miserably. I disagree that I should have contacted the organizers, their position is well known. Other than that, you're right.

Re: WBC 2014 and the Wine Blog Awards – Part 2

Houstonwino — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 06:34:27 -0000

All commentary aside, the numbers do speak for themselves, Lisa.

Re: WBC 2014 and the Wine Blog Awards – Part 2

Houstonwino — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 22:37:42 -0000

Why am I not surprised that Pamela is the first one to have the balls to address the actual issue?

Re: WBC 2014 and the Wine Blog Awards – Part 2

Houstonwino — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 18:47:02 -0000

No, she is not. The data is the raw numbers and they are, as far as I can tell, unimpeachable. Data only becomes useful when it is turned into information. In this case when someone manipulates or processes it into a form that can then be used. You are processing it one way to try and show one thing and she is processing it another because she is showing another. You want a single right or wrong answer to two different questions. Or it could be looked at it as two answers to the same question. But it really doesn't matter as the data, no matter how it is interpreted, still points to the same thing.

Re: WBC 2014 and the Wine Blog Awards – Part 2

Houstonwino — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 18:35:59 -0000

Your numbers don't represent a refutation of the numbers presented, only a different way of looking at it. Not realizing that would be another form of intellectual laziness on top of the ones that I previously listed.

Re: WBC 2014 and the Wine Blog Awards – Part 2

Houstonwino — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 18:12:03 -0000

I don't believe that Amy is being disingenuous with her numbers nor do I think that you are. But you hit the nail on the head, too few citizen bloggers have won either way that you look at the numbers.

Pie is good.

Re: WBC 2014 and the Wine Blog Awards – Part 2

Houstonwino — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 18:05:13 -0000

My pointing out your intellectual laziness is a tantrum? So much for clearly articulated argument. Seriously, trying to put emotions that just don't exist onto my words is not a very good tactic. I get it, a lot of folks do not care for my tone. It doesn't matter much to me. But if you don't like the facts let's discuss those. Otherwise stick to calling me an asshole or a prick. I won't argue, and we can both spend our time doing other things. My logic is clear and so is my meaning. Trying to impugn it with grammar remarks or using words like "tantrum" and. "hissy" merely highlight the fact that you don't really have a counter-argument.

Re: WBC 2014 and the Wine Blog Awards – Part 2

Houstonwino — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 17:33:11 -0000

I will let Amy defend the math, it's never been my strong suit, which is why I didn't do it. But these difference between the two numbers, if she made an error, mean about as much to me as your ridiculous dismissal of the facts based upon my lack of perfect textbook grammar.

"Oh look, he used passive tense, obviously he doesn't know what he's talking about!" That's brilliant! I'm surprised that you didn't pull out the old canard about people who swear being less intelligent.

As for the hissy fit and dismissal of the facts based on us not winning, both are about as ignorant a thing as I've ever heard. Seriously? All of the facts presented above, even if a minor math error was committed, and your best argument against the facts is your perception of sour grapes? Wow!

Re: WBC 2014 and the Wine Blog Awards – Part 2

Houstonwino — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:30:48 -0000

I'm not angry with you at all. I'm being blunt and speaking plainly. This is what I was referring to:

"I know you will energetically disagree with my analysis and would expect nothing else in the blogging world!"

Being a blogger explains away my disagreement? The takeaway is that either you consider me stupid or a liar. I went with liar. Maybe that's just ego on my part.

Either way, you are not being truthful. If the data posted above shows nothing else, it shows that it's time to stop repeating the same old story. It doesn't wash anymore, and it never quite did. There just wasn't anything that showed otherwise.

Re: WBC 2014 and the Wine Blog Awards – Part 2

Houstonwino — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:11:34 -0000

You're right about that last part, Allen. Instead of insinuating that you are lying the way that you did to me, I came out and said it. That does say a lot about both of us.

Re: WBC 2014 and the Wine Blog Awards – Part 2

Houstonwino — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:03:41 -0000

Allen, take a look at the numbers presented in the above charts and give it another shot. You forget, Amy was a part of the judging a couple of years ago, and many of us talk to one another. Judges don't even know how results are arrived at, so apparently your explanations have failed. We all know what you claim is the process, problem is, we all know that it isn't so. So, instead of a backhanded "it's BS because it's a blogger" comment like yours, I will flat out say that you are lying.

Re: WBC 2014 and the Wine Blog Awards – Part 2

Houstonwino — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 14:56:41 -0000

I don't exactly disagree with your point, Joe. The difference being that I don't see things changing, these are the same problems that many folks have been complaining about for years. but as long as the weasels benefit, they just don't care. And what you consider a personal attack I see as a justified kick in the balls for what he's done. That's probably the part we'll have to agree to disagree about. I find what is in the data to be heinous. My tone, harsh as it may be, reflects that.

Re: WBC 2014 and the Wine Blog Awards – Part 2

Houstonwino — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 10:23:56 -0000

You may be right, but at this point, I'm not too concerned with how my comments are perceived. The guy has done what he's done and the numbers definitely speak for themselves. This may not be how a lot of people would have written this up, and it may not be the right way, but it is my way. I agree that our readers are smart, one would assume that can separate the packaging from the content if they don't care for it. But frankly, while I understand completely where you're coming from, I am to the point where I've had entirely enough of the self-appointed leaders of our community, and if it takes both barrels blazing, I'm cool with that.

Re: WBC 2014 and the Wine Blog Awards – Part 2

Houstonwino — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 10:11:58 -0000

If the claim was solely that Wark was giving awards to his clients, then you'd be right. However, as stated, that was something that was discovered unexpectedly when looking at the data. It isn't even a critical point and the case for cronyism and self-promotion is made quite well without it. But, in the context of everything else that the numbers show, it is quite interesting.

Without reviewing the data, I believe that it was 4 clients in the list, plus Tom, plus another one that was a non-winner that Amy mentioned. Perhaps he was was part of the 4. Regardless, in the context of everything else, and if you count how many actual slots those individuals take up, it's at least something that someone who preaches about ethics as much as he does probably should have taken into consideration.

Re: WBC 2014 and the Wine Blog Awards – Part 2

Houstonwino — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 21:49:44 -0000

Glad that you enjoyed it, and yes they are some serious claims. A lot of time and effort went into getting the numbers together. I don't know those client numbers offhand, but Amy has compiled a lot of data and I'm sure that she can pull those up for you.

But considering how often Wark has tried to lecture others on ethics, how many would it take to suggest something was less than fair? Especially given that taken as a whole, it definitely looks like very little of this was above board to begin with. It was shameless self-promotion that ran amok. Even one client would be enough for me, but let's see what Amy comes up with.