If megan's mixing, I'll take a dark and stormy.

More photos: [link]

what fun is looking down on people if there is no one to look down on?

I am not even a little concerned in pegging people to a board and seeing who's on top.

I don't pretend to know anything about knitting, but I do know that there's a wide variety of yarn to work with.

I don't know anything about horse racing, but I understand that there's a depth and wealth of knowledge on the subject.

So I will make a distinction between an informed opinion and an uninformed one.

You can go to bat for Kraft Green Can parmesan, but it's not going to convince me you know anything about cheese.

You can like what ever you want; that doesn't make it good.

Opinions and qualitative informed choices are two separate things. Your opinion can be informed by deep knowledge of the subject, or it can be shit you pulled out of your ass.

I can have an opinion about knitting with merino wool but that's shit I pulled out of my ass.

Heh. Well, if it makes you feel better David, I'd only have a dirty VODKA martini, since I won't drink gin. :)

To put this in meara-ish terms, to me this is roughly equivalent to saying, "I only read Nora Roberts since I won't read Tom Clancy."

There's a better cocktail that you would enjoy more out there for you. I mean, I haven't had as many kinds of gin as you've read books, but even just a brief excursion around the back bar with a decent bartender would get you something tastier. Just as one walk around a used book store would yield many better results than Nora Roberts and Tom Clancy.

Oh, fear not. I wouldn't have one very often. I'm much more likely to...probably have something that would offend your sensibility even more. Or a dark and stormy. Or, given my migraines, no alcohol at all. But even Nora and Tom have their place. (Nora and Tom! See? They're MFEO!).

You can like what ever you want; that doesn't make it good.

If it tastes good to someone it tastes good to them.

That's what informs an opinion on how something tastes. In fact, it is the only way for an individal to form that opinion.

They can have all the wealth of knowledge in the world but if they don't say "yum" when it goes in their mouth they do not like it. Conversely, if they do say "yum" then they do like it. In matters of, quite literally, taste how something tastes to the taster is the only opinion that matters. To them if it tastes good it is good.

In matters of "which horse ran faster" there are actual objective standards at hand. In matters of "which fibers are finer and straighter" there are objective standards. Even in matters of "which cheese/bourbon/pizza was made with care and fresh ingredients and quality control there are quantatative factors -- but "yum yum" may or may not be influenced by such things and is certainly not beholden to them. In fact there ARE people who enjoy both the terroir of various brie AND salty shit from cans and they may even have no interest in convincing you of anything.

In fact there ARE people who enjoy both the terroir of various brie AND salty shit from cans and they may even have no interest in convincing you of anything.

Just like how I love Stephen King and James Joyce.

There's a better cocktail that you would enjoy more out there for you. I mean, I haven't had as many kinds of gin as you've read books, but even just a brief excursion around the back bar with a decent bartender would get you something tastier. Just as one walk around a used book store would yield many better results than Nora Roberts and Tom Clancy.

Or not. If you like the taste you like because that was how your grandfather made a whisky sour any deviation from that might be nice and all, but it won't be an improvement.

Dean Koontz and Fyodor Dostoevsky.

I cannot imagine a scenario where somebody who is expert on cheese, who has had experience making it, tasting a wide variety of cheeses in the world would say "yum" about a green can of Kraft. Because it's sole virtue is its saltiness. It doesn't taste like cheese.

So, I don't believe that the Kraft can advocate is knowledgeable about cheese. They can think it's yummy, and that's their prerogative. I don't care what they put in their mouth. I just wouldn't give much credence to the value of that opinion.

and they may even have no interest in convincing you of anything.

So I'm not convinced. It has no bearing on what they want to eat. I'm only talking about why anybody would value one opinion over another. Why an opinion might be useful (informed, knowledgeable, something you could learn from) vs. useless (closed, hermetic, self-referential, uninformed, reactionary, baseless).

Shit, I'm not going to apologize for my standards in gin. And nobody else on this entire board would apologize for their standards in whatever they know well.

You might as well say "infer" and "imply" are synonyms.