• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Van55

  1. The only Marevas that I would personally not buy are Montecristo #4. This is simply because, as the top selling Cuban cigar, they are made and distributed whether the tobacco for the best blend is available or not. Hence, they are inconsistent -- moreso than the less popular ones. If I had only one Marevas to buy, it would be the Por Larranaga, so long as I could age it adequately. Trini Reyes are not Marevas, but they are consistently excellent even when very young.
  2. I'm with others who wonder why in the world you want to smoke a Cuban cigar for this occasion when you find you don't much care for them. Stick to what you know you will like -- Tatuaje, Cabiguan etc. If you MUST smoke a Cuban cigar on your 40th, I strongly recommend the Bolivar Coronas Gigantes based on what you say you like and are looking for.
  3. Any vendor who would try to convince you that that is plume should b put out of business.
  4. I will be happy to embarrass myself again this year. Thanks Rob.
  5. Now THERE is a handsome pair! Nice to see mom and Dom.
  6. For me, they don't hold a candle to the Reyes or the Robusto T. Not bad, but not exceptional.
  7. Good question. And Ken.... did the cigar make your urine smell peculiar?
  8. Ah yes!!!!!! The famous leptokurtic negative skew. I would have guessed that immediately!
  9. KG has already posted his new year greeting in connection with his medical ills over Christmas. I want to post my own thread, though. So happy new year to each and every one of you. May 2012 be the best year for you ever! And may you keep every resolution you make (which is why I never make new years resolutions).
  10. One cannot help but conclude that the name of the organization was adopted with knowledge and aforethought what the acronym had to be. Thus, admonitions to the contrary notwithstanding, I think use of the acronym here is inevitable and excusable. I do like the Minnesota acronym very much.
  11. Anyone else lose the video at about 8:24?
  12. I'm not sure what causes the phenomenon, but opening the foil around a new box of Cazadores releases the most incredible aroma of Cuban cigars. Nothing like that smell. I'd buy a box just for that experience, but the cigars are good too. To my palate they're not as "strong" as they are reputed to be. I have smoked much stronger non-Cuban cigars.
  13. Oh. I should have told Rob thanks for reopening the Suckling DVD thread. I appreciate it and I think it was the right thing to do.
  14. Understood. But here are two questions for you or the Aussie lawyer members: 1. Is the owner of the internet website legally responsible for what members have posted (in the USA, the owner is generally not liable for members' statements) and 2. Is the same standard applied regardless of whether the subject of the defamatory statement is a public figure or an ordinary Joe? (I am not lobbying for any particular answer or "rule". I am just interested in whatever the answer may be.)
  15. Here in the USA, defamation law is interesting. If one is a "public figure" one needs to prove that a false, defamatory publication was made "with actual malice" in order to recover for libel or slander. This is a higher burden than for ordinary folks who can pretty much recover if the statement made was false and defamatory. I don't know if the standards of US defamation law are applied in other countries. But the rationale seems to be that if you are in the public eye, you are fairer game for criticism -- even false and defamatory criticism -- than if you are an ordinary citizen. It's clear to me that, under US law, Suckling would be considered a "public figure." He has published articles; he has his own wine and cigar websites; he has appeared in video blogs at cA; he holds himself out as an expert on wines and cigars. Most anyone who is a cigar fanatic knows who Suckling is. Do you guys think it should be a rule that Suckling can be a verbal pinata, as El Prez has termed it, but the ordinary member here who makes a video review cannot?
  16. Straight up. Was there "abuse" on the thread that was quietly edited or deleteted? Or was the thread closed for the reason Trev posted that he closed it? Closing a thread because it has become abusive is one thing. Closing it because it might become abusive (or worse because a moderator wants to protect a friend) is another. FoH has stood out for me because nobody, including El Presidente is above criticism, whether good natured BS or serious flack. Don't lose that, please.
  17. Well, there's the crux of it, isn't it? In my opinion he does not. I could deal with the attitude of arrogance if it were justified by superior knowledge. (I admit that his knowledge of Cuba IS superior to mine for sure. I've never been there. But people whom I trust tell me that he doesn't always get it right -- far from it.)
  18. Point well made. If there was stuff on the thread that stooped to that level and that was moderated out, I stand corrected. Regardless, I'll take this opportunity to thank all the moderators for what they do here. Because of the general tone on the forum I think their job might be easier than we suspect.
  19. Rob Ayala, you know I love you like a brother. And I expect you won't mind my telling you I think you are dead wrong on this one. Examining the posts on that thread, I find absolutly NO lack of decency. Here are the only truly negative quotes that I can find: "drone on in full pomposity" "can anyone re-dub this?" "phony accent cracks me up" "distated for and distrust of" "a character and can be quite annoying" That's it. Almost all the rest of it is praise of the project and, to some extent, the man. There's no vulgarity, no name-calling and surely no reference to anyone as an anal orifice. As I said, moderating is a thankless job. Over-moderating should be equally thankless. Locking that thread had nothing to do with a lack of decency or class in any of the posts, in my opinion.
  20. I have no doubt that Trevor had excellent motivation -- likely to avert the thread from degenerating. But that's sort of my point. FoH members are generally well restrained and left to their own devices are highly unlikely to post in such a way that the thread would devolve into name calling, defamation of character or any other form of embarassment to our host here. In my view, only in the unlikely event that a thread does so devolve should it be moderated and locked. The notion that we can't be expected to control ourselves in rational debate and conversation is demeaning.
  21. I know that moderating a forum is a thankless task, and I am not usually one to criticize moderators' decisions. That said, it seems to me that here at the Water Hole we have historically been free to discuss pretty much anything that comes to mind that is not specifically verboten. In bar rooms and living rooms conversations almost always veer from one subject to another quite naturally. Very rarely does someone tell people to stifle their thoughts because they are off the original topic. Locking a thread because the conversation turns from the availablity of a DVD documentary to the relative merits of the narrator/producer seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of the Water Hole and the forum generally. Also, it bespeaks a kind of overly authoritarian attitude that belittles the the huddled masses. I accordingly respectfully dissent and request that the thread in question be unlocked.
  22. I'll take that as your polite way of telling me to shut up.
  23. My distaste for and distrust of Mr. Suckling are such that I have no interest in this product notwithstanding kg's thoughts.
  24. I will lament the deletion of the T. The early release ones were spectacular right off the truck. Robustos Extra have come around of late. I wasn't shocked at the price point of either. Reyes are the perfect little cigar with a morning coffee.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.