'Blogger Budd won't talk to us!!'
In a further post (02.15.2012) on his bulletin board Robert Parker has suggested that his various teams of lawyers have been trying to arrange a 'sit-down face to face' with me since the beginning of December:
'This is why I have hired lawyers as well as the international firm of KROLL conducting investigations and interviews....and they have doing this since the beginning of December, and have yet to get Budd in a sit-down face to face. Hopefully he can find the time this week as I would like to bring this matter to a conclusion. I suggest everyone would be prudent to wait for the final report we will share with subscribers, and make your own judgments based on what has been a very thorough analysis of allegations we have taken very seriously.'
••
Good morning Mr Parker,
Re: 'a sit-down face to face' (Alice in Maryland?)
I'm afraid I find this increasingly mystifying and bizarre. You are absolutely right to say that your lawyers 'have yet to get Budd in a sit-down face to face' for the very simple reason that no-one has asked me. No-one from Cozen O'Connor, Kroll or even The Wine Advocate has to date contacted me to ask for a 'face to face' meeting or even a phone interview. Yesterday I set out in full my correspondence with Stephen Miller.
I will admit to being more than a trifle perplexed. I hope your lawyers haven't been telling you that they have tried without success to set up a meeting with me. If they have been trying to contact me, I can only assume they rely on pigeon post, smoke signals or perhaps, clairvoyance. Please ask them instead to use email and I can provide a contact number. Alternatively I can be reached on Skype.
Following your earlier erroneous comment that I have been 'been reluctant to talk with us, I emailed Stephen Miller of Cozen O'Connor yesterday morning asking for clarification and copied you and The Wine Advocate in. To date I have had no response or acknowledgement from anyone. Sadly not a surprise that you haven't responded as you haven't acknowledged any of the several emails I have sent you starting from 23rd November 2011.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary I would be most grateful if you would make it clear on your bulletin board that you were mistaken to suggest that I have been reluctant to talk and that no attempt has yet been made to set up a meeting with me.
Kind regards
'This blogger'/ 'blogger Budd'
17 comments:
Keep writing, Jim! This PC/RP scandal (yeah, I said SCANDAL) is the best thing in the wine blogging world!
didsI think the best way to get Parker to put up or shut up and stop the inferences that you avoiding his investigation, a cowardly slander itself, as it infers that you do not want to contact them because the allegations you have published up until this point is not true; is to get him to openly publish the correspondence from the solicitor(attorney) asking you to attend a meeting.
Looks as if Parker is paving the way create a whitewash of the whole affair using you as the stooge. Puts him a notch or two further down in my books.
Anons. Many thanks for your comments.
Minor amendment to Harold's post:
Harold Heckle said...
It's odd. Robert Parker drew the spotlight when many Spanish producers became incandescent with rage at being asked to pay for access to possible inclusion in tastings linked to his publication – and being told they would be denied access if pay wasn't forthcoming. To many, including me, it looked like he was being taken for a ride.
I can vouch for the fact that Jim contacted me as soon as he had heard from Stephen A. Miller of Cozen O'Connor. Miller sought help in compiling facts on events in Spain. Jim and I agreed to help him and wrote back within hours saying so. He and I compiled all the information as rapidly as other commitments would allow and sent it over, receiving thanks for our efforts. Jim and I have always sought a just and fair airing of the events that have so enraged sectors of the Spanish wine trade. This seemed a good opportunity to continue pursuing this aim.
The impression given by Parker's latest words, to me, is that Jim has been slow to respond and hard to pin down to a face-to-face interview. This impression does not reflect reality. I cannot fathom the motivation for trying to convey this impression. Both Jim's and my availability has been total. Apart from Miller's emails, there has been no other contact. By disseminating the impression that there has been reluctance, Parker is, in my opinion, just making himself look bad. And this, from someone who has been buying his books and reading him since 1991.
I asked Jim to please fix a small typo.
Now his is slandering you, but I guess its not slander as it’s a closed forum, he is still in denial and using redirection as his main tactic, interesting business model, I don’t think they teach it in Harvard Business School.
Not only "This Blogger", "THE Blogger". Moving on up!
It appears to me that someone is LYING and I do not think that it is either Jim Budd or Harold Heckle.
Could be Gerry. Alternatively someone could be misinformed. If this is the case you would imagine that they would be keen to correct an erroneous statements and claims.
Being "keen" requires having at least a bit of "ken". Pretty much all evidence points to there being very little of that in the Monkton camp.
Jim, you have had the good fortune not to have to endure following the American political campaign up close and personal, in which bare-faced lies by Republican candidates are their modus operandi. Mr. Parker should run for President on the Republican ticket, since he seems to have mastered their game plan. Mr. Parker and the Republicans seem to have the same basic flaw: They don't seem to realize that the internet exists and that their statements are whipped around the world in mere minutes, seconds sometimes. However, bare-faced lying is such an ingrained habit that it is very difficult to break it no matter how much a majority of people view such claims as moronic.
Yes Gerry I suspect that the primaries are best watched from a distance, a little like the annual Bordeaux en primeur campaign.
You may be right that these are 'bare-faced lies'. However, I would prefer to think that RP is either mistaken or misinformed, although it is strange that now that the errors have been pointed out that he has not withdrawn his erroneous claims.
The idea that the imperious Mr. Parker might possibly consider anything that he or his minions might do as "erroneous" stretches the boundaries of credulity.
Good morning Gerry!
We ought to be shocked & appalled at Parker making that post, but in truth there is surely little surprise.
I'm sure he sees you, as well as anyone who might disagree with him, as out to destroy the empire he so successfully built up.
It's here that he consistently falls down, in assuming that any disagreement with him, or issue with his employees, is just a jealous wannabee wanting to destroy his business.
That is I'm sure why he fires off such rubbish, because he sees it as a challenge to his authority, that must always be responded to head-on. The issue in question is typically seen as secondary in importance to the challenge - and I can't recall any instance where he's failed to react to any challenges.
The way it's going, he's in danger of being remembered as a polarising and dysfunctional person, rather than one of the most influential wine critics of our time - which should have been his legacy.
regards
Ian
We ought to be shocked & appalled at Parker making that post, but in truth there is surely little surprise.
I'm sure he sees you, as well as anyone who might disagree with him, as out to destroy the empire he so successfully built up.
It's here that he consistently falls down, in assuming that any disagreement with him, or issue with his employees, is just a jealous wannabee wanting to destroy his business.
That is I'm sure why he fires off such rubbish, because he sees it as a challenge to his authority, that must always be responded to head-on. The issue in question is typically seen as secondary in importance to the challenge - and I can't recall any instance where he's failed to react to any challenges.
The way it's going, he's in danger of being remembered as a polarising and dysfunctional person, rather than one of the most influential wine critics of our time - which should have been his legacy.
regards
Ian
Thanks Ian. All very mystifying and he appears to be incapable of making a correction, which rather suggests that his comments may be deliberate and very shabby smears.
Post a Comment