Recent Letters to the Editor

[Elliot]

Last issue, Mark Gillespie's letter was selected as the best of the month and was featured prominently in the magazine. I'm not sure to what extent it was tongue-in-cheek, and I'm certain that there are others who feel the same. This issue, there was a rebuttal to Mark in another letter that was undeniably political. Can we please not discuss politics in the magazine? It seems that with the editorial control of the content, it is much easier to monitor than the forums, which I think that the users self-police very well. Do others agree that the world is full of politics enough as is that when I read Whisky Magazine I am in part attempting to escape from the news and that readers outside of the United States, in particular, certainly do not care about American politics?

[Deactivated Member]

I'm not sure that's true, Elliot. My experience is that people from other countries know and care a lot more about American politics than Americans do about other countries' politics.

Still, I take your point, generally, and agree that we would prefer not to see partisan bickering in either the magazine or the forums. And yet, the whisky industry does not exist in a vacuum. Taxation, environment, social and moral issues, all touch on the drink we love. Some political discussion is probably inevitable, I'm afraid. Keeping it to those issues that are pertinent to the world of whisky should be our goal.

[Virginia Gentleman]

I for one like to talk politics. It is very common for me to talk about what an idiot George Bush is over a glass of whisky at my local pub. But I respect your opinion as well.

[pouranother]

Ahh! Somehow the world seems right tonight Welcome back. I agree with both points. I think, if partisanship can be avoided there is nothing wrong with political discussions, but I would hate to see a very friendly and enjoyable forum turn ugly. That being said I think there is more than enough news,notes and experiences to fill this board and the magazines pages without resorting to divisive issues.

[pouranother]

Too late! The partisanship has already begun.

[Virginia Gentleman]

Sorry! I have had a few too many glasses of Lagavulin tonight. I will try and be less partisan in the future.

[pouranother]

Now there is a divisive issue: Can you ever really have too much Lagavulin? Cheers!

[Deactivated Member]

I like to talk politics, too. But I do try (not always successfully) to avoid engaging in politically provocative speech here. We all enjoy this as a convivial virtual pub, and the bond we have as whisky lovers should take precedence over everything else.

Still, if we can have a "World Cup" thread down there at the bottom where anyone (not me!) who finds football dreadfully boring may ignore it, I suppose there is room for about anything. However, common decency (if that's not an oxymoron) demands that everything be kept in its proper place, and respect be shown to all.

[Virginia Gentleman]

MrT, that is well said.

[Frodo]

MrT, that is well said.

Agreed! Well said sir...

[Elliot]

Of course, as Mr. Tattiehead said, there can be a place for such discussions similar to the Whisky Chat. If someone were to create an "Iraq War" topic then let everyone argue whether we should blow them to pieces or fall at their feet and beg forgiveness. Any member who is not interested can simply move on to another topic. But as mentioned, there are topics that are affected by politcs that we can discuss without bringing partisanship into the equation. My concern is that we recently have been touching on, "This is the problem, and it's all Mr. X's fault, and if Mr. Y were in office, it never would have happened." Environmental concerns regarding peat, etc. have been the most recent culprits, but we have previously discussed whisky taxes similarly and began a social policy debate on wealth redistribution. It is more of an issue that when I want to read about whisky, I feel like I have walked into a Congressional debate or Question Time.

I would like to point out, in no uncertain terms, that we seem to adhere to this idea the vast majority of the time, and would like to mention that I immensely enjoy conversing with such a group of individuals.

[Deactivated Member]

I agree with you, Elliot. Sometimes, those of us with similar viewpoints tend to let our comments creep in a certain direction; we reinforce each other, take the lack of overt dissent as approval (when in fact it is more a matter of those who might not agree trying not to pick up an argument), and let it creep a little more. It's worth reminding us sometimes that we probably ought to be more careful about that. Even standard sort of offhanded and broadly cynical jabs at politicians in general can lead to hard feelings. We try to let such comments slide, generally, and it can be a touchy issue; we all support freedom of speech, and thus feel a little uncomfortable asking anyone to tone down their rhetoric. But a gentle reminder that "maybe we don't want to go there" should be taken in the spirit in which it is intended.

[Lawrence]

Everybody please remember that all human problems can be solved with high explosives.

Think about it, it's quite logical.

Have a nice weekend.

Lawrence

[Deactivated Member]

Crap. All I have are low explosives.

[MGillespie]

Elliot, what the magazine failed to mention was that my letter was intended as a very(!) tongue-in-cheek response to an article in an earlier issue on the impact of global warming on Scotland's climate (warming temperatures that led to less snow, and thus less snow melt to feed the springs that the distilleries get their water from). In fact, while my letter was rather smart-assed, it was delayed several months from the original article and no parenthetical mention was made of the reason for writing it. I can see where it could have been taken out of context because of that point...

Believe me, no offense was intended...just satirical comment!

Mark

[Elliot]

Mark, I had a feeling that your letter was in response to the article several issues ago. As I mentioned in the first post, I suspected that it was not intened to be entirely serious and I was certainly not going to criticize you for submitting it.
As Mr. T said, we occasionally need a little reminder. I don't think that many of us would want to swing entirely in the opposite direction and refrain from posting constructive material out of fear that someone may take it the wrong way. Like you wrote, suggesting that a discussion is probably for another place and time is an excellent method of self-regulation.

While we're at it, though, I like traveling to Kentucky - very close by and it comes in handy whenever I get the whiskey bug.

[MGillespie]

Thanks, Elliot, I'd hate to have to give back the bottle of Blue Hanger!

Mark

[Elliot]

How did you get ICE to release it to you? I recall reading on the forum once (it may have been from you) that because you live in New Jersey, they let you have it, as opposed to if you were a New York resident. Is that the case again?

[MGillespie]

I can't comment on how it made it to New York...all I can say is that the box it was shipped in had a New York postmark...

Mark

[Aidan]

Sorry for bringing this up... However, I don't know for sure if our carbon emissions are affecting the temperature of the planet. I think these emissions probably do have an affect, as this is actually the concensus amongst scientists and governments. I understand that some scientists may have evidence that casts doubt on the theory. However, I never understand punters with no knowledge of science say unequivocally that we are not affecting the climate. The theory usually suits their lifestyle.

[Aidan]

...and the winning letter this month... They must have had a very poor selection to choose from if they went for on saying the magazine's reviewers are great and have lots of experience.

Maybe I'd get a prize if I writing a letter saying how great the letter section is.

The End.

[irishwhiskeychaser]

Got my Issue 57 2 days ago and there is another letter taking umbrage to Marks letter well actually it's the same letter as issue 56 and it still did not get 'winning letter' I'd take comfort from that Mark.

[MGillespie]

Obviously some people just aren't getting the point here...it was satire, damnit!

I may just have to write a response...

Mark

[Aidan]

Obviously some people just aren't getting the point here...it was satire, damnit!

I may just have to write a response...

Mark

I know that Mark - I'm talking about the response. Anyway, I think the letter has a good chance of being letter of the month in the next issue.

What's the Blue Hanger like?

[MGillespie]

It's worth every bit of the grief I've gotten...and then some!

Mark

[rthomson]

Just received issue 57. After a second look at that letter it turns out it's the same one from issue 56 .

[rthomson]

Oops, I hadn't noticed that you already pointed that out, IWC. We have to stop this habit of repeating each other

Ron

[MGillespie]

The issue just arrived...I notice they've changed the prize rules a bit...from now on, only EU winners get the bottle shipped to them. Non-EU winners have to pick it up in London at Berry Bros & Rudd. I can certainly understand that...

Mark