Slow Food announces Slow Wine! « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » Events » Food & Drink Events

Slow Food announces Slow Wine!

[259 posts] [33 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 3 years ago by Bear
Latest reply from Bear

Tags:

« Previous 1…111213 Next »

Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM

jackoh wrote >>

Rockmastermike wrote >>

jackoh wrote >>

Rockmastermike wrote
Does boones farm meet the slow food ideal of "Good, clean, and fair"?

If not, please tell me what does- that's all i'm interested in. And if "true slow wine" doesn't, tell me why not (other than it tastes like crap or people won't buy it).

why should what fits that ideal not be left to your own judgement? Why should any organization tell you what specific wine to drink? Does slowfood recommend specific farms to buy your lettuce from? Your carrots? Should slowfood recommend a specific winery to you? Why would you want that?

Then why should I pay any attention to anything that slow food had to tell me about anything? And, if so, why the hell would they presume to exist?

Why not? How is it a problem to discuss general principals and then let people make their own choices? Are you against people being able to decide things for themselves?

Posted 2 years ago #
tak70

Login to Send PM

Why are we supporting as an organization wine shops and distributors and not wine producers? We support food producers but not wine producers.

Posted 2 years ago #
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM

tak70 wrote >>
Why are we supporting as an organization wine shops and distributors and not wine producers? We support food producers but not wine producers.

Why don't you continue posting under your other name?

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

jackoh wrote >>
Then why should I pay any attention to anything that slow food had to tell me about anything? And, if so, why the hell would they presume to exist?

I think what Mike and Becke are trying to say is that Slow Food doesn't try to force its message on anyone. The organization doesn't tell anyone what to eat or drink or how to behave. It's an organization for, and of, people who either are, or want to be, interested in good, clean and fair food, drink, etc., and who want to come together with others to pursue it more effectively. If that's you, great; if it's not, fine. But the organization doesn't typically go around telling other people how to live their lives, or what to eat or drink. That's why the idea of a "recommended" wine or food purveyor or what have you is so alien to the people who are responding.

Posted 2 years ago #
jackoh
The Village
Login to Send PM

Rockmastermike wrote <
Why not? How is it a problem to discuss general principals and then let people make their own choices? Are you against people being able to decide things for themselves?

No. I am perfectly happy with people making decisions on their own about what they find to be to their liking and not. What does bother me is advocacy organizations that take it upon themselves to recommend courses of action or products that violate their basic principles. If they can't adhere to the reasons that brought them into existence, why do they continue, or why should anyone join with them, or pay attention to them?

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

jackoh wrote >>
What does bother me is advocacy organizations that take it upon themselves to recommend courses of action or products that violate their basic principles.

For example?

Posted 2 years ago #
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM

jackoh wrote >>

Rockmastermike wrote <
Why not? How is it a problem to discuss general principals and then let people make their own choices? Are you against people being able to decide things for themselves?

No. I am perfectly happy with people making decisions on their own about what they find to be to their liking and not. What does bother me is advocacy organizations that take it upon themselves to recommend courses of action or products that violate their basic principles. If they can't adhere to the reasons that brought them into existence, why do they continue, or why should anyone join with them, or pay attention to them?

Can you name even one wine, product, or course of action that slow food columbus has recommended that violated their stated principal of "good, clean, fair"? Do you think the members would still be members if they had?

Posted 2 years ago #
jackoh
The Village
Login to Send PM

Bear wrote >>

jackoh wrote >>
Then why should I pay any attention to anything that slow food had to tell me about anything? And, if so, why the hell would they presume to exist?

I think what Mike and Becke are trying to say is that Slow Food doesn't try to force its message on anyone. The organization doesn't tell anyone what to eat or drink or how to behave. It's an organization for, and of, people who either are, or want to be, interested in good, clean and fair food, drink, etc., and who want to come together with others to pursue it more effectively. If that's you, great; if it's not, fine. But the organization doesn't typically go around telling other people how to live their lives, or what to eat or drink. That's why the idea of a "recommended" wine or food purveyor or what have you is so alien to the people who are responding.

I don't necessarily want you to be telling other people what to do or how to live their lives. But, for god's sake, I want you to stand for something. Don't you have a cause that means something to you? Isn't food of crucial importance to you, and don't you see that as being important to other human beings on this planet? If so, why aren't you willing to stand up for, or at least respond to challenges of, the things that you claim to represent? Or is all of this merely a fun, but not serious, endeavor on your part? (I am willing to accept that drink (or wine) is not part of your purview. So drop it!)

Posted 2 years ago #
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM

Rockmastermike wrote >>

jackoh wrote >>

Rockmastermike wrote <
Why not? How is it a problem to discuss general principals and then let people make their own choices? Are you against people being able to decide things for themselves?

No. I am perfectly happy with people making decisions on their own about what they find to be to their liking and not. What does bother me is advocacy organizations that take it upon themselves to recommend courses of action or products that violate their basic principles. If they can't adhere to the reasons that brought them into existence, why do they continue, or why should anyone join with them, or pay attention to them?

Can you name even one wine, product, or course of action that slow food columbus has recommended that violated their stated principal of "good, clean, fair"? Do you think the members would still be members if they had?

*chirping crickets*

Posted 2 years ago #
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM

jackoh wrote >>

I don't necessarily want you to be telling other people what to do or how to live their lives. But, for god's sake, I want you to stand for something. Don't you have a cause that means something to you? Isn't food of crucial importance to you, and don't you see that as being important to other human beings on this planet? If so, why aren't you willing to stand up for, or at least respond to challenges of, the things that you claim to represent? Or is all of this merely a fun, but not serious, endeavor on your part? (I am willing to accept that drink (or wine) is not part of your purview. So drop it!)

are you going to stand up for any of the baseless accusations you have made in this thread? How do these silly, irrelevant, ignorant accusations constitute any kind of "challenge" to any claim made by that organization?

If you're looking for someone to tell you specifically what to drink, try Jonestown. Slowfood isn't for you.

Posted 2 years ago #
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM

Rockmastermike wrote >>

Rockmastermike wrote >>

jackoh wrote >>

Rockmastermike wrote <
Why not? How is it a problem to discuss general principals and then let people make their own choices? Are you against people being able to decide things for themselves?

No. I am perfectly happy with people making decisions on their own about what they find to be to their liking and not. What does bother me is advocacy organizations that take it upon themselves to recommend courses of action or products that violate their basic principles. If they can't adhere to the reasons that brought them into existence, why do they continue, or why should anyone join with them, or pay attention to them?

Can you name even one wine, product, or course of action that slow food columbus has recommended that violated their stated principal of "good, clean, fair"? Do you think the members would still be members if they had?

*chirping crickets*

come on... I can't wait all night... My roast is almost done.

Posted 2 years ago #
drew

Login to Send PM

Rockmastermike wrote >>

Rockmastermike wrote >>
Can you name even one wine, product, or course of action that slow food columbus has recommended that violated their stated principal of "good, clean, fair"? Do you think the members would still be members if they had?

*chirping crickets*

Quoted for emphasis.

Jackoh - can you explain how Slow Food doesn't live up to the goals it set out for itself? You do realize that Slow Food doesn't exist to abide by rules you arbitrarily impose upon it... don't you?!

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

jackoh wrote >>
But, for god's sake, I want you to stand for something. Don't you have a cause that means something to you? Isn't food of crucial importance to you, and don't you see that as being important to other human beings on this planet? ... (I am willing to accept that drink (or wine) is not part of your purview. So drop it!)

I've told you what that cause is and explained how wine is, in fact, part of that purview. I then quoted myself three times -- in fact, you even quoted me:

jackoh wrote >>

Bear wrote <
Well, briefly, Slow Food is about food that's good, clean, and fair: good-tasting and good for you, clean in the sense of having a low environmental impact, and fair in that everyone in the chain of production is equitably compensated for his or her labor. Wine, too, should ideally meet those criteria. ...

jackoh wrote >>
If so, why aren't you willing to stand up for, or at least respond to challenges of, the things that you claim to represent? Or is all of this merely a fun, but not serious, endeavor on your part?

I'm quite willing to stand up for the things I represent, and I have. I've responded to every question that you've asked of me, seriously, and in good faith, despite everyone else's conclusion that you're just being difficult or intentionally obtuse. And I'll continue to do so. Precisely because this is a serious endeavor.

Posted 2 years ago #
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM

Bear wrote >> despite everyone else's conclusion that you're just being difficult or intentionally obtuse...

my conclusions are far less flattering.

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

Rockmastermike wrote >>

Bear wrote >> despite everyone else's conclusion that you're just being difficult or intentionally obtuse...

my conclusions are far less flattering.

Sorry, didn't mean to presume.

Posted 2 years ago #
jackoh
The Village
Login to Send PM

Let me try to summarize how this whole debacle unfolded. The title of this thread is "Slow food announces Slow wine". My assumption was that slow food was advocating for slow wine. What is "slow wine", well one poster said that is was merely a gathering to drink wine(of any kind, presumably). But, then, another poster offered a specific and detailed definition of "slow wine" that referred to the process of its origination and production (what has come to be referred to as "natural wine"). I simply asked for a list of what these wines were and, presumably, where I could obtain them. The response to my inquiry was that there wasn't much available. My question, then, was what was the problem. The answer was that the wines that had been tasted were not well received. So,then, my question was- OK so they weren't popular, were they any good. I did not get a definitive answer to that question,and the equivocation led to what has transpired up to this point. If I had simply been told that these "natural wines" were horrible(not only didn't you want to drink them, you wouldn't even flush them down your toilet) I would have been thankful and not given it another thought. But that it not what happened. And if I had been told that there were no palatable alternatives to commercial wine in the opinion of the slow food folks, I would have no problem accepting that either. Why couldn't they have done that and then all of this could have been avoided? Maybe slow food should avoid any attempted association with slow wine and then we could all be happy.

Posted 2 years ago #
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM

jackoh wrote >>
another poster offered a specific and detailed definition of "slow wine" that referred to the process of its origination and production .

Then ask that poster what they ment because that is not what the rest us were talking about.

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

Oh Jesus Christ, of course. So your impression was that there is a thing called slow wine, made via Slow Food-friendly processes, and that Slow Food is hypocritical because it eschews it. Got it.

OK, so here's the thing. No one calls natural wine (or any other kind of wine) "slow wine." The poster who offered a detailed definition of slow wine that referred to the process etc. etc. was... um... not writing on behalf of the organization. I don't know of anyone in the wine industry who uses "slow wine" as an industry term of any sort. The phrase was coined when we were looking for a name for a meet-and-greet event for Slow Food. It seemed like a natural fit.

Do Slow Food's principles apply to wine? Yes, sure. In the same way that they apply to cabbages, or beef. But examples of that sort can be multiplied indefinitely, and it'd be a little silly to run around calling them slow this and slow that, though (increasingly) people do it. So no one, as far as I know, uses "slow wine" to refer to a category of wines.*

Natural wine, on the other hand, is a category of wines, those that are made with minimal intervention. Contrary to the impression I managed to convey, we don't eschew it at all. We emphasize wines that are good, clean, and fair, just as we emphasize foods that are good, clean, and fair. The closer they are to that ideal, the more we emphasize them.

Natural wine tends to be a good fit, though people differ a lot in their enjoyment of it. It would definitely qualify for a taste education event, no question. (In fact, I like that idea. I don't know how many we can actually get in Ohio, but it'd be worth asking.) That said, for Slow Wine (the event), which serves in part as a meet-and-greet for people of all different levels of experience and interest in wine, there are a lot of different wines we can choose that are still consistent with Slow Food's principles that won't be so overwhelming.

I (dearly) hope that clears things up.

*ETA A quick Google search suggests that the term "slow wine" has started to be used sporadically here and there recently, but as far as I can tell not with a lot of consistency... mostly to mean "wine created using sustainable practices," as far as I can tell.

Posted 2 years ago #
jackoh
The Village
Login to Send PM

Bear wrote <
I (dearly) hope that clears things up.

Yes, it absolutely clears things up. And I thank you for your patience and understanding. It was a matter of confused definitions, concepts, and associations and presumptions. A recipe for, not only, misunderstanding but mistrust, which is even worse. I still would like to have your opinion on what "natural wines" there are available here(whether you consider them to be worth drinking- forget their popularity[I have a curious and tolerant palate]). And I would also like to know a list of wines that slow food would reccommend as adhering to their criteria, since I respect their criteria for assessing food.

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

Not at all. Natural wines are not too common, and unfortunately the only ones I've had have been from out of state. The silage and concrete one was a 2005 La Grapperie Coteaux du Loir L'Enchanteresse; it might be available in state but I kind of doubt it. But to answer your question, yes, the few that I've had have been among the most interesting wines I've tried -- absolutely worth drinking, even if I didn't like them much. And I liked most of them.

I hope you don't mind if I defer on the rest, given the hour.

Posted 2 years ago #