Winopete: Price rises, rye whiskey and more

Yet another poor judgement on your part. One of many I'd wager. Give it up Joe. I will as I've made my point. Pete came as close to an apology in his last post as I ever could have expected and you keep proving what I've said about you above. Game, set, match. I'll give you one thing though you're a clever enough monkey to have come close to figuring out my name. I'd guess you're a Blarney regular yourself since you've only heard it spoken. Are you stalking me? Am I in for a glassing some night as i stumble out of the Blarney with a nice Guinness buzz on?

I'm not convinced, jeef/geoff. You sound pretty pissed off to me.

Dude, I'm laughing my ass off at you and your very weak schoolyard technique! Nice to see that WP ate some crow (45 RMB at your local eatery) regarding the Blarney in his latest post though...

stop taking yourself so seriously jeff/geoff. you'll feel better for it. Come on ... SMILE!!!

In the corner... in a straightjacket...drooling...

I'm not debating. I'm giggling

For a guy who insists that debating on the internet is useless it sure seems like the last word is awfully important to you. Get a life...

Ha ha. Surely you found that funny.

DAN! DAN! Where are you DAN!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2D3-F...

Lighten up.

thanks Les, guess we should feel sorry for the guy. Over and out.

gazjoe=winopete...

Both Trader Vics and Frankies closed down did they not? I don't see any problem here.

... and who keeps shouting for Dan? You can't fool us john08. You are clearly Alan Partridge.

Please see www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2D3-F...

Ah-ha!!!

Oh, stop getting in such red-faced tizzies, lads. Calm yourselves. Things really ain't so bad.

Take a few deep breaths, and repeat after me ... "there, there, everything's gonna be just fine" ... "there, there, everything's gonna be just fine" ... "there, there, everything's gonna be just fine"

So you published winopete's article on Trader Vics that had confidential business info leaked from a Trader Vic's staff member?

Dan, that's really the big picture here.

Of course you must have known that this could negatively impact their business, and that it would make things even more difficult than they already were for Vic's management and staff.

What was the point of this??? Additionally, the fact that Vics was open longer than you reported made your report even more damaging and irresponcible. Guess you felt the IST policy regarding the publishing of confidential info, didn't apply.

Dan, expected more more from you, IST and your Shanghai platform. Given the amount of venues and available and good subject matter in Shanghai, I just don't see the point of your and why you still think this info was some kind of "scoop" and worthy of your continued defence and support. Your hardball approach is out-of-line and wrong.

the blarney debate is out of my sphere of knowledge - never been. but ulitmately pete was right on trader vic's and frankie's. they both survived long enough to do their valentine's menu, and then promptly closed for good last weekend. he might have jumped the gun a bit with the original post, but he was right on the big picture.

Dan, What's you postion on what looks like Wino Petes use of this forum to single out and target the Blarney Stone and Trader Vics? I'm "staying tuned" for you reply.

Dan? Where are you with this?

I think they would say this falls under the throwing shoes at the clouds theory from gazjo above;

""There's no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky."

There's also no point in debating if you are obviously in the wrong. Of course this truism doesn't apply to the current US government...

I think they would say this falls under the throwing shoes at the clouds theory from gazjo above;

""There's no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky."

There's also no point in debating if you are obviously in the wrong. Of course this truism doesn't apply to the current US government...

I just went back and found the article. See below...it's still posted on the site. Shameless...neither Winpete OR Shanghaiist Ed. to this day provided a retraction or applology at all. Think they owe it to Vic's and Shanghaiist readers...

"The author of the post stands by his story, and says his sources included current employees of Trader Vic's. In his comment below, the Shanghai Golden Sands F&B Management Ltd. spokesman said: "It is absolutely not true the [sic] any of our restaurants are going to close in the future." We have asked Shanghai Golden Sands F&B Management Ltd. for more to their side of the story, asking which specific statements in the story they would like to refute on record. We will happily add their comments or any official company statement to this post. Stay tuned. Ed.

I get you Lez. It's not only the Blarney. Last time it was Trader Vic's. Wino Pete wrote they were to close by Feb. The GM of Vic's tryed to set the record straight, and sent a link for the Valentine's day menu. Vic's never did close and I don't remember seeing a correction, retraction, or appology. That was really unfair, and I don't understand of the point Winpete was trying to make by allowing the article to stay posted.

You're repeating yourself. Is this technique the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nyah nyah nyah... I can't hear you?" As far as I'm concerned I'm not debating anyone so far, as a debate requires refutation. Point counterpoint as it were. Anyway, I'm sure that even though he hasn't commented yet (or has he, hmmmm...), Winopete is sober enough in the morning to read each and every response to his Shanghaiist posts. I know if I was him I would.

"There's no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky."

Its shoes for clouds? I've been throwing my dirty dishes! What an eeejit I am... I'm actually hoping that WP might answer my question. I happen to be one of the " sea of regulars" who will "stupidly take this on the chin" because the place has great craic, good food, very nice music and a friendly welcoming atmosphere. The prices may be a bit higher than some (though I haven't found that to be true) but they're by no means the highest. I've been to plenty of other pubs in town and I'm afraid most just don't measure up when it comes to quality and environment. If you feel like I'm being overly snarky sorry for the offense.

Why do so many threads become slanging matches? The absolutely bloody brilliant Charlie Brooker recently wrote:

"There's no point debating anything online. You might as well hurl shoes in the air to knock clouds from the sky."

The "BB now boasts the most expensive..." may imply a price rise to you but it doesn't say they raised their price. Your reading comprehension needs improving my friend. He also doesn't recommend that people stop going to the Big Bamboo. Whereas; "Will the Blarney's sea of regulars stupidly take this on the chin or will they justifyingly abandon ship?" No bile there, eh wot?

Laughable. He points out that BB have raised the price of their Guinness and he points out that the Blarney have also raised various prices. I'm sorry if you are feeling picked on but the Blarney is not being singled out.

You are a moron.

Are you dense or what? I wrote "the Blarney is the only establishment that he has faulted for raising their prices," You responded "He faults Big Bamboo for their 70 RMB Guinness." That's raising prices, not high prices. Are you too thick to understand the difference between these two statements? Stop being an idiot.

He faults Big Bamboo for their 70 RMB Guinness in the article we are commenting on. Stop being paranoid.

You are right they can charge what they want. Bloggers can also freely comment on it.

If you reread my post I'm not talking about the individual high prices that he mentions. Now this is the third time I'm writing it so read carefully and hopefully everyone can get my point, the Blarney is the only establishment that he has faulted for raising their prices in any of his posts and he has done it twice. That's what I think is unfair. As far as I'm concerned anyone can charge what they want for food and drink. I'm just wondering why WP has singled the Blarney Stone out for such close scrutiny.

If you reread the article he mentions 45 kuai Carlsberg at the Blarney. The 70 kuai Guinness is at Big Bamboo.

Do you think 45 is a fair price for fizzy dishwater?

I'll concede the keyword connection. As far as price rises go James, I believe that food costs have gone up at least 10% in Shanghai in the last year. There are maybe what, 50-100 western style restaurants in Shanghai? I'd be willing to bet that many of them have raised their prices in the last few months without it coming under the scrutiny of WP. He's slammed the Blarney twice now in 2 weeks. I think I asked a very fair question. As a matter of fact it costs around 30-35 kuai for a pint of Guinness wholesale while Tiger costs a pub around 4.5 per pint. Shouldn't WP be up in arms about 35 kuai Tiger at some other pubs? The real story is why has he chosen this one place to slam. If you peruse all his posts for Shanghaiist they are the only establishment he has chosen to criticize this way.

don't google ads pop up on keywords related to the content? So mentioning "Theme Pubs Shanghai" is pretty certain to make those ads pop up.

Price rises are news Les, you can't deny that. 70RMB for a guinness is the worst of the lot though.

I might add that its interesting that half the time your posting opens up next to an ad for Theme Pubs Shanghai, which happens to be Sasha's ownership group. Mere coincidence no doubt...

What is your deal with The Blarney? You know of course that their rent was raised by like 75%? They have the best craic in town and you're always trashing them. What gives? As for Sasha's the prices there are astronomical... You need another crusade man, those guys run a really nice establishment with the best pub food in town.