ILLfarmboy Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 The thought hit me that he might be confusing two different things. If someone was told that EWSB 1999 release consisted of 70 barrels, they might not realize that all 70 barrels are dumped and bottled individually.They might misunderstand, and come to think that SB bottlings aren't really singles, that the information regarding the number of barrels selected for that release was some inside dope he uncovered about singles not being singles. funny, when you think about it........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazer Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 The thought hit me that he might be confusing two different things. If someone was told that EWSB 1999 release consisted of 70 barrels, they might not realize that all 70 barrels are dumped and bottled individually.They might misunderstand, and come to think that SB bottlings aren't really singles, that the information regarding the number of barrels selected for that release was some inside dope he uncovered about singles not being singles. funny, when you think about it........ding ding ding ding, we have a winner, thanks for playing :grin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BMartin42 Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 The thought hit me that he might be confusing two different things. If someone was told that EWSB 1999 release consisted of 70 barrels, they might not realize that all 70 barrels are dumped and bottled individually.They might misunderstand, and come to think that SB bottlings aren't really singles, that the information regarding the number of barrels selected for that release was some inside dope he uncovered about singles not being singles. funny, when you think about it........Funny, but also pathetic and ridiculous when you are trying to write a whiskey book and portray yourself as an expert. I hope book sales ate limited just to keep misinformation from spreading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadewood Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 he should hire one of us to proof read this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 The thought hit me that he might be confusing two different things. If someone was told that EWSB 1999 release consisted of 70 barrels, they might not realize that all 70 barrels are dumped and bottled individually.They might misunderstand, and come to think that SB bottlings aren't really singles, that the information regarding the number of barrels selected for that release was some inside dope he uncovered about singles not being singles. funny, when you think about it........ Nailed it. You're not an idiot, Brad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinjoe Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I texted the guy, and he explained that he DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express the night before he wrote the book... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clavius Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I texted the guy, and he explained that he DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express the night before he wrote the book... I lol'd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalessin Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 he should hire one of us to proof read this. Only if the whiskey is higher than 90 proof while we read the book... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongBeachScott Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 The thought hit me that he might be confusing two different things. If someone was told that EWSB 1999 release consisted of 70 barrels, they might not realize that all 70 barrels are dumped and bottled individually.They might misunderstand, and come to think that SB bottlings aren't really singles, that the information regarding the number of barrels selected for that release was some inside dope he uncovered about singles not being singles. funny, when you think about it........That is what I thought when I read it. And I can forgive a blogger for making that mistake (although I would disregard him forever as any kind of expert). I thought it was pretty bad that Four Roses linked this review from their Facebook page though. I would think even the social media person would be trained well enough to know that this an incorrect statement. The social media person should also know not to link a review that mentions a competitor's product in the first paragraph and criticizes the veracity of a term they are using!Incidentally, it appears Four Roses removed the link from Facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILLfarmboy Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 That is what I thought when I read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts