OT: Crazy Programming

[Laura Creighton]

> Christopher Encapera wrote:
> > 
> > While Willie Nelson's 'blue eyes cryin in the rain' might not be Mozart, it
> > is vastly superior (in every respect) to say, the rapper of the week (or
> > that "modern art" that sits in front of county hall).  And that ain't no
> > personal opinion - that is objective truth -
> 
> If it's objective, how do you measure it? Given
> two alleged works of art, what procedure does one
> use to determine which is better?

The ability to rank something and whether it is objective or not are
independent concepts.  I spent a good part of yesterday at a
Champaigne testing.  The highlight of the event was a tasting hosted
by Rikard Juhlin, perhaps the world's foremost expert on Champaigne.
12 champaignes, all very good/excellent from 1995 or 1996.

I could find the 3 best, and the 2 worst with no trouble, and there 
was broad consensus in the room about this.  There was disagreement
as to the precise ranking, however.  The top 3 Champaignes were ranked
94, 94, and 95+ out of 100, by Juhlin, but I preferred a 94.  I went
home thinking 'how splendid I have to work on my discernment more. A
pity we cannot live forever.  So much awareness to develop, and so
little time to do it in.  Rikard Juhlin can discern qualities which I
cannot.'

All Champaigne tasting is subjective.  It is a subjective experience. 
But some Champaignes are objectively better than others.  And if all 
you want to do is make Kir Royale (adding black current syrup to your 
champaigne) pretty much anything with bubbles will do.

Laura Creighton