WSJ on bourbon mania

[Flyfish]

I thought the coverage was reasonable considering how often journalists screw things up. At the bottom of the page, though, their graphics designer managed to get it 100% wrong. Pix of five bottles with a paragraph about each alternative to $700 Pappy. Not a single photo matched the accompanying paragraph.

[squire]

Well, I grudgingly admit I want Bourbon to get more respect while at the same time want them to leave our favorites unmentioned.

[Alden]

From the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

[squire]

Gag me with a spoon.

[Trey Manthey]

Compared to the rest of the article's fawning style, the last paragraph makes it worthwhile for a perusal.

[cowdery]

I heard somebody the other day complaining about hockey fans. "They complain that hockey never gets any coverage. Then, when it does, they complain about the bandwagon-jumper-on-ers." Bourbon fans are exactly like that.

[MyOldKyDram]

Yeah, but bourbon is actually good.

[Josh]

Yeah, but bourbon is actually good.

He shoots, he scores!

[squire]

The crowd goes wild.

[BFerguson]

I'm still at a loss to figure out why people are going nuts over regular BMH. Maybe if it was one of the long gone age stated bottles, or the ryes, but regular??? I'm left shaking my head every time.

It's ok, there is nothing special to it. It's a good blend. But nothing else!!!

What gives!!!

B