...when you see webmasters posting and pandering to the Shillery monkeys. The Preacher tolerates these boyz - to a point - as long as they forego any real challenges or post any critques, but instead stick with the "it's all good" program and all while picking fleas off of one another's butts.
For example, currently NOT posting is the Frozen One, whose ability to pump out many hundreds of softball interviews means the freebie' conveyor belt is running at top, "I Love Lucy" speed; ergo, he no longer needs to pucker up to the Preacher.
OTOH, the Count, Ruminsky and the Fat Pirate are hurting, so they kneel down, start picking and try to act authoritative (but not threateningly so), making sure of course to include copious links to their own sites and - gulp - even sometimes one of their reviews.
Ruminsky never quite made it the first time around, and left his old crew and reviewing for quite some time. He recently started up again due to "tremendous demand". Sure. The only time most of us webmasters experience "tremendous demand" is after pigging out on smoked ribs and baked beans - and our demand is for the nearest loo, and now, lol!
Rummy posted this question:
I mean really now, don't we all know the answer why rum doesn't get the same respect as single malts? Is he really serious? Or is just an attempt to play dumb, and use the post as a vehicle to post a link to one of his reviews (which he did)?"The rums are awesome, and yet it begs the question why it's only independent (primarily European) bottlers that are issuing these full proof expressions, and not the Bacardis, Mount Gays, Appletons, DDLs or others?
Is it really seen by the source distillers as such a niche market that it doesn't warrant their participation? I find that a really odd attitude -- especially since whisky drinkers pay five, six, even ten times as much for a rare, aged and unique bottling of a favoured distillery. And the guys who like the full proof expressions are the ones with the money to follow the passion, so it's not as if neither the money nor the interest is there."
Not to mention his comparative selections. And he's even wrong about them, to wit: How about Bacardi's 150th Anniversary (43%) release at $2000, or even the Facundo Selection at up to $250? Why has he overlooked Appleton's 21, 30 and 50 year old releases, all between 86 and 90 proof - and - that he himself has reviewed?!
He also reviewed Mount Gay's 1703 and Extra Old (both at 43%), and is he completely ignorant of MG's Eclipse Black at 100 proof? Or El Dorado's Special Reserve 21 at 43% for example, or even their Single Barrel/Still series? He's left out Pussers and Seales Ten, both of which meet his criterion.
Is Ruminsky that stupid?
No way. He knows exactly what he's doing, and surely he knows these rums, as he's reviewed nearly all of them. In sum, this post is simply a puckering plant designed to push traffic. Maybe if he's lucky, the Frozen Wonder - his Canadian butt bud - will reroute a few bottles to him. As for the other fat guy - the Fat Pirate - he's far less inventive. He begged to be allowed back on the Project, but after consultation with one of my expert advisors, he was denied with the suggestion that he'd be a better fit at the Shillery.
Obviously, he agreed and he is.. Curiously, the Shillery seems to have run its course. The list of regular posters seems limited to a very small pack of primates.
