STFU Dept: Not you. Moi.

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:43 am

I had a brilliant idea - oh, oh!

No one would doubt that sadly, there is so, so much to criticize particularly in the matter of spirits what with the mega-corporations deballing and cheapening everything in the name of increased distribution, sales and profit. Still, I have noted that sometime we all can hear quite enough - to the point of boredom...

Mine included.

So despite my rapidly dwindling brain cells, an actual thought came to me - like the spark that enlightened Edison and brought light to your bar - and here it is: Why not change the balance of different posts? Why not coalesce such posts into a single thread and then just add to it? And why name names, especially since most flow to the usual suspects? A series that would encourage more interactivity? And most important, one where I would mostly just STFU?

Si! I say. Si, si, SI!
Brilliant? Or just another crackpot, compleatly idiotic notion? You decide...

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:44 am

Let's start with an easy one...

A well known reviewer comparing two whiskys from the same distiller...

Quote: '"..the Small Batch seems to have a fuller, rounder, taste profile with a tad more sweetness than I remember in the Reserve. The Reserve may have been a little dryer in the mouth as well."

Is there anything wrong with this review, and if so, what? I will now STFU.

Hassouni · Post by **Hassouni** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:41 pm

Yes, I think a merging and streamlining of the various criticisms would be very welcome!

sleepy · Post by **sleepy** » Sun Dec 08, 2013 10:29 pm

Stop it. STOP IT! No more redundantly repetitious reviews!

You are mad as a hatter Jimbo - mad I tell you!

(...and yes, mounding the crap in one compost heap seems a good idea - why waste extra electrons on separate thread - conserve, conserve!)

(Sorry, my Redskins have fallen deep into the darkest trench of hopeless incompetence and the erstwhile fans pelted them with ice-balls. Ugly, very ugly. And troubling)

Uisge · Post by **Uisge** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:31 am

Well, seeing as how my 49ers beat the Seattle Seahawks at the 'Stick (1 home game left, and then in 2014 the '9ers move to Santa Clara) I am more lenient and don't mind your "Columbo-moment" postings.

Carry on, my good Captain

NCyankee · Post by **NCyankee** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:12 am

sleepy wrote:(Sorry, my Redskins have fallen deep into the darkest trench of hopeless incompetence and the erstwhile fans pelted them with ice-balls. Ugly, very ugly. And troubling)

I think the Redskins are doing a very competent job of protecting their draft pick, much better than the Bucs and Jaguars. Not as good as Houston though.

Post by **Capn Jimbo** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:14 am

Yes, Yes and Miami beat Pittsburgh - barely, but...

Thank you for all the uh, support? Yes I'm mad, but in a good way. And I do have a hatter collection - cowboy, Greek fisherman, Panama, French beret and so, so many more. But I digress...

I raised the issue:

A well known reviewer comparing two whiskys from the same distiller:

"..the Small Batch seems to have a fuller, rounder, taste profile with a tad more sweetness than I remember in the Reserve. The Reserve may have been a little dryer in the mouth as well."

Moi: Is there anything wrong with this review, and if so, what?

C'mon now guys... you're safe in a warm and cozy zone, and there is surely something silly about this quasi-reviewer's comment, and unless you drive me to it, I refuse to speak out. Who's on first? You can do eet!

*******
Say! Did you see the Steeler's last play? Quite amazing and but for a little toe, a 90 yard, last play of the game, near touchdown that might have won the game. Sue Sea was beside herself. Me - I was rooting for Miami...

NCyankee · Post by **NCyankee** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:55 pm

Uhh - I can't tell if he's sipping rum or giving a blowjob?

Yes I saw the last play, I am from Pittsburgh. The only good thing I can say is that at least Wallace did next to nothing in that game. I can't believe the Dolphins wasted 12 million on him after he dropped so many passes for the Steelers last season, did they watch any game tapes or just watch him run the 40?

At least I hope Miami gets to the playoffs instead of the Ravens, that's all I have left to root for this season - that and that New England doesn't go all the way.

bearmark · Post by **bearmark** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:52 pm

So this reviewer says that the Reserve was sweet, but the Small Batch was sweeter. Next, the Reserve is dry. Which is it... sweet or dry? I've never had a drink that was dry enough to note in the mouth feel, yet still sweet. Sounds like someone is confused.

*******
Capn's Award: A tip of the hat, actually four bowlers in this case!!! (aka bob hat, derby, billycock or bombin). An excellent observation by our preferred predator, the Bear, so very close. Sweet and dry are simply opposite ends of the same scale. To say that the first whisky is "sweeter", followed a statement that the second is "drier" is repetitive and confusing. And this from a "reviewer" readers here know well!

,,,,,,...
(Scoring on the 5-Bowler System)

sleepy · Post by **sleepy** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:42 pm

Bah! "Stop it. STOP IT! No more redundantly repetitious reviews! " was the answer. No room for subtlety, obviously!

EDIT: Ok, irreverent, but Imprecise, I cede to the declared winner.

sleepy · Post by **sleepy** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:45 pm

NCyankee wrote:
sleepy wrote:(Sorry, my Redskins have fallen deep into the darkest trench of hopeless incompetence and the erstwhile fans pelted them with ice-balls. Ugly, very ugly. And troubling)
I think the Redskins are doing a very competent job of protecting their draft pick, much better than the Bucs and Jaguars. Not as good as Houston though.

What draft pick? Oh, the one that belongs to the Rams!

NCyankee · Post by **NCyankee** » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:00 pm

Err - yeah forgot about that minor detail...

bearmark · Post by **bearmark** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:28 pm

Okay... back to the topic, which is not football!

I think that the real issue with the review is that it's confusing. If the statement were merely redundant, then it would be less of an issue. The problem is that both extremes have been mentioned and I still can't tell which one this rum leans towards. Is it more on the sweet side or more on the dry side. He's used a single rum as a reference without providing a real usable reference at all. This is completely useless! He might as well have said nothing at all!

sleepy · Post by **sleepy** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:08 pm

Quote: '"..the Small Batch seems to have a fuller, rounder, taste profile with a tad more sweetness than I remember in the Reserve. The Reserve may have been a little dryer in the mouth as well."

Small batch sweeter / Reserve dryer - given the comparatives = redundantly repetitious (also hideously worded - hence confusion).

sleepy · Post by **sleepy** » Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:14 pm

So this reviewer says that the Reserve was sweet, but the Small Batch was sweeter. Next, the Reserve is dry. Which is it... sweet or dry? I've never had a drink that was dry enough to note in the mouth feel, yet still sweet. Sounds like someone is confused.

Which is why I have trouble describing Westerhall Plantation - it hits the nose and taste buds with honeyed sweetness, but the tongue and palate with distinct dryness. <shrug>

Capn Jimbo's Rum Project Forum

STFU Dept: Not you. Moi.

A good idea?

STFU Dept: Not you. Moi.

I'll bite

The Confusion is the Issue