It still is. It's just that we've now gone on to compare wine tasting to other endeavors where subtlety make or may not improve appreciation.

That may be your larger point, but it isn't mine.

Well that's why I said it was my point, not yours.

Hummm...I don't see the word "my" in that post.

Why would it be necessary? Why would anyone assume a point I am making is attributable to you as well?

My understanding of discourse is that points I make are my points not yours.

Because when you state "I guess the larger point is this: . . . .," you are suggesting/implying that "the larger point" is shared by all.

If you wanted to say that "the larger point" was merely the point that you are trying to make, then you should have stated "I guess that my larger point is this: . . . ."

Which, from the above posts, is what you apparently thought that you said, but did not.

Maybe the folks in this thread can meet up with all the posters on this one.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni/...l#post13467944

dh

Not at all. I'm implying nothing about what you might think when I say "the larger point is this." That the point belongs to me is implied.

It's like if I say to you "go to the store." The "you" is implied; it need not be said.

If you are confused by my language, I apologize that you misunderstood.

Now, how about some substantive discussion? Do you feel that greater knowledge of the ins and outs of the NFL do not increase appreciation for the game?

I vote we stop talking sports and semantics and go back directly to the topic at hand.

I've given my reply, although I must add that often (this is more when I order wine by the glass) I am not given the chance to taste a wine before it is served. At the most, if a bottle is being ordered, the choice will be confirmed, but no tasting will be offered.

No, the example that you are providing is not "like" your earlier comment. Your example is a command or directive, and the "you" is only implied in certain situations (for example, if I am the only possible recipient of your statement). Your "larger point" comment is not a command or directive, and it is not clear if I am the only possible recipient of your comment.

And I apologize that you are seemingly unable to use the English language properly in order to convey your "larger point."

Back on point, knowledge of the "ins and outs" of the winemaking process or the wine industry is not necessary to appreciate whether a particular wine is "good" or "bad."

Who said anything about the winemaking process? I'm talking about nuance of flavors. Appreciating how different wines taste differently beyond "good" or "bad" comes from a greater understanding of taste and how tastes are cultivated.

I think your position in untenable. You're saying appreciation doesn't matter with wine but clearly this doesn't hold in other areas. So the question must be asked: what do you have against wine? Is it the snobbery? Is it the feeling that others may know more about it than you? Is it the cost?

I've found that often you only get the taste for a glass if it is a high-end place. Occasionally a more mid-tier joint will do it. I do appreciate being able to taste before they pour a glass.

You referenced the "ins and outs" of the NFL, as they related to the process of football and the development/creation/existence of a "good" or "bad" player/team and the appreciation thereof. I disagreed with your analogy as it applies to the appreciation of a "good" or "bad" wine.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure what you are "talking about."

Shrug.

"Clearly"? You've evidenced no such thing.

My comments on this matter have already been stated.

Blimey I've opened a can of worms here. I only asked what the point of tasting a little bit of wine in a restaurant was before before they fill the glass.

Reading through all of the posts, I think that the 'general' concensus is that if you select a bottle of wine and there's nothing wrong with it, then you're stuck with it. But if there's anything wrong with it, then it's fine to send it back. I agree with both tese statements.

However, I still don't see the point in the waiter pouring just a little bit into the glass first. They may as well fill the glass up and if it's ok (which it usually is) then fine, if there's something wrong with it then pour it down the sink. The only difference is whether they need to pour a full glass or a little bit away.

I have a suspicion that the tasting excercise is just a pointless ritual that people enjoy doing. I think I'll carry on as I always have and just get them to fill up the glass.

Well some people swirl the glass of small pour before tasting. A bit difficult to do this with a full glass.

I can't remember precisely what this allows the wine to do - perhaps introduce oxygen? Of course, this doesn't stop anyone from quaffing right from the get-go...