Still on vacation . . .
I am NOT able to approve comments whilst gone.
I haven’t had the opportunity to pick on a poorly researched article from the New York Times in a while.
Unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal stepped right in, granting me a new target at which to “unleash the fury.”
The following excerpts (through the glory that is the fair use doctrine) are from an article released on Saturday, December 10, 2005 in the Wall Street Journal and written by G. Bruce Knecht.
One too many “e’s” in Whisky
Let’s start with the title – which immediately shows that the WSJ
has writers and editors who aren’t qualified to write on the subject: “Whiskey’s Risky Moves – Makers of scotch roll out new twists on an ancient quaff.”
As YOU know, but the WSJ writers and editors obviously
don’t, when referring to a whisky made in Scotland, it is spelled
whisky – no ‘e’. But if only that were the least of the transgressions.
There are a number of small mistakes and stupid statements
throughout the article, but I don’t have all day,so I’ll stick to the
big ones. For example, the third paragraph:
appeal of single malts is based on a singular proposition. Each spirit
comes from a particular distillery and has been aged, generally for 10
years or more, a period that is usually specified on the bottle.
Silly me, I thought that the appeal of single malts was based on taste.
Continue Reading >>