These were a few of the adjectives which came to mind when Adam read this article in the Herald the other day. Lauraine Jacobs, described as a world renowned food writer
was invited to speak at an event organised by online review site Zomato. But in a leaked email she reveals her disdain for those “unqualified” to review restaurants.
So only the elite are ‘qualified’ to have an opinion or to write a review according to Ms Jacobs, if she was accurately reported.
Also in the article she is quoted as saying:
I do not agree with commercial sites like [Zomato] that rely on unqualified and unpaid restaurant reviewers,” wrote Jacobs.
“Unqualified amateur diners who are rewarded with stars for the sheer number of reviews they post, but usually are lacking in expertise and have no knowledge of the industry, can completely destroy the trade and reputation of good restaurants.”
This is in Adam’s opinion an extremely patronising, arrogant viewpoint. Diners who pay for their meals are fully entitled to express an opinion. It is up to those who read the opinion to assess whether they will be guided by it. Adam tends to read a wide variety of reviews if they are available, but likes to form his ultimate view based on personal experience. He has visited a number of places over the years which established food writers gush over, but he has not found them to be as outstanding as claimed. Adam’s views on a restaurant are as valid as Ms Jacobs. If Adam writes a review and posts it online that is his opinion, others are perfectly entitled to agree or disagree. Adam has found that he tends to place credence on reviews by people who has found over time tend to assess places similarly to himself, both on sites like Zomato and writers in magazines and newspapers. In a similar manner to reviews by TV and Film writers on blogs and papers and review sites.
Adam took particular offence at this quote from Ms Jacobs:-
“The average punter is entitled to an opinion, but when it comes to restaurant and food reviews, the ability to eat is not enough,” she said.
Pretentious twaddle spouted by someone who it is clear thinks customers should pay up, pay up and keep quiet as they are only qualified to pay money, but not qualified to really understand what is going on. What an arrogant set of statements by Ms Jacobs. Then of course the most insulting statement was this one:-
an unrepentant Jacobs told the Herald on Sunday online review forums gave a voice to people who may offer their thoughts on food when “in a bad mood that day” or who might be in an “alcoholic haze”.
What a patronising statement. Perhaps Ms Jacobs was in a bad mood when contacted by the Herald.
Disclosure: Adam goes to restaurants and bars on a regular basis, as a paying customer. He has been fortunate enough to eat many good meals in such places, he has also had some poor experiences as well. This post was written in the morning after a good night’s rest and he was in a good mood when he wrote it and was not in the remnants of an ‘alcoholic haze’, as was so memorably quoted by Ms Jacobs.
This can be the only reason she said:
Ms Harre told TV3’s Firstline programme this morning the email “provides very clear evidence that the Prime Minister did know about the existence of Kim Dotcom and more than that, that he was involved very intimately with the process of this case.”
“I have no doubt that Kim is absolutely truthful about that email.
“There needs to be a proper process now to investigate that.”
Asked why Dotcom declined to comment on the email last night, Ms Harre said he’d received legal advice not to do so.
“The strong advice to him was to make sure that this evidence was put before a proper judicial process. That is what Parliament’s privileges committee is.
“He followed the advice, rather than his gut instinct to share everything yesterday.
The problem is that:-
- Many commentators consider the email referred to, to be a fake and a pretty poor one
- Parliament is dissolved, so there is no Privileges Cttee so that reasoning is spurious and leads one to consider she and others are casting around desperately for reasons not to discuss the email
- If his gut said share everything he could have done so months ago, this claim about his gut simply does not have any credibility
- The idea that Key, Obama et al are micro-managing the affairs of NZ and the USA to this extent does not just strain the bounds of credibility it blows them asunder
We do know for a fact though that
- Harre is a politician bought and paid for by Dotcom.
- Internet-Mana is Dotcom’s tool for attacking John Key
- Dotcom is desperate to avoid extradition, so a government he owns would assist that
- Many journalists, so called, have worshipped at the Dotcom shrine uncritically reporting his every utterance and seeking to traduce the gainsayers
Some on the left and in the media refer to Planet Key as a shorthand for John Key not being in the real world. Well it would appear that Labour’s David Parker has discovered a his own planet where he clearly dwells happily undisturbed by any contact with reality, as these extracts illustrate:-
In last Friday’s NBR, Mr Parker is quoted as follows:-
NBR 5 Sept
According to Labour’s Shadow Attorney-General David Parker, allegations arising from the publication of Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics and the steady stream of leaks since are indicative of “a new style of politics.”
“I’ve got no doubt Bill English wouldn’t have done this and he’s as much as said that and neither would Helen Clark,” he says.
This comment caused Adam to recollect a recent article by one Duncan Garner on political sleaze:-
Duncan Garner DomPost
It’s worth noting this shadowy attack-politics stuff is not new and not the sole domain of National.
The then Labour Party president Mike Williams took a well-publicised trip to Melbourne to dig dirt on Key ahead of the 2008 election. It backfired: Labour found nothing and subsequently dropped in the polls.
Helen Clark was probably the biggest gossip of them all when she led the country. She leaked and spread rumours about people and even those in her own team – I wonder how her private communications and those of her senior ministers would look splashed across a book. I bet it wouldn’t be pretty. Her Maori Affairs Minister Dover Samuels was sacked for allegations ‘‘swirling’’ over allegedly having sex with someone under the age of consent decades previously – it was Clark and her team making them swirl.
Samuels, later exonerated by a police investigation, never got a fair hearing – the ninth floor of the Beehive killed him off. I was with him at his house the night he was sacked – he was devastated and blamed Clark for the dirty tricks.
The murky Left infiltrated a National Party cocktail function in 2008, secretly recorded MPs and leaked them (to me).
I was also involved in a series of stories about former Cabinet minister John Tamihere over financial irregularities at his previous job at the Waipareira Trust which saw him sacked as a minister. When I got home, my house had been broken into. Nothing was taken but all the windows and doors had been left open. TV3 hired a security firm to change the locks, watch my kids at school and investigate the break-in. The firm concluded that someone wanted to frighten me – and we left it there.
I also remember doing business with Labour’s chief of staff Matt McCarten in the 1990s, when he ran the Alliance. Matt was fun and charming – but let’s not kid ourselves, if anyone knew how to run a black ops sting it was him.
Senior Labour ministers and press secretaries rang to point me toward The Standard, a Left-wing blog, to read its vitriol on certain days. Who had written those posts? I’m told many were written under fake names by Labour staffers paid by the taxpayer.
Clearly Mr Parker is in some other universe where there is a parallel world where Helen Clark and the left are as pure as a new born child.
This made me smile. Thanks to Homepaddock.
Originally posted on Homepaddock:
David Cunliffe walked into a bank to cash a cheque, went up to a cashier and said, “Good morning, Ma’am, could you please cash this cheque for me?”
Cashier:” I’d be happy to sir. Could you please show me your ID?”
Cunliffe: “Truthfully, I did not bring my ID with me as I didn’t think there was any need to. I am David Cunliffe, leader of the Labour Party and the Parliamentary Opposition.”
Cashier:” Yes sir, I know who you look like, but with all the new regulations and monitoring of banks because of impostors and forgers and requirements of legislation, I must insist on seeing ID.”
Cunliffe: “Just ask anyone here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am.”
Cashier: “I am sorry, Mr. Cunliffe , but these are the bank’s rules and I must follow them.”
Cunliffe: “Now c’mon, I…
View original 171 more words