The Quality Guru
Blah! he says.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Posts
- 887
- Likes
- 10
It appears that Beagle is no longer suspicious of Lou, and now, BenG, why is it that you are so reluctant to step across to the other side? We are not against you personally, however, many do seem to have a bone to pick with the opinion of Lou that you are so inappropriately advertising.
To put it simply, which ultimately is the best way to put it, when one reads into words of any kind, spoken or written, they can create a new animal. A great example of this that I can use is on standardized tests. The test directs you to "pick the BEST answer." Which is the BEST answer, you might ask, as I'm sure we all have. As you read the questions on the test, and you read into them and dissect every word's meaning in the sentences and questions on the test, many times you WILL GET THAT QUESTION WRONG. However, if you go on gut instinct and go with the first answer that you thought was initially correct, you have a greater chance of getting it right. How many times have you erased an anser that you had right the first time?
Although my analogy is a bit incoherent and not totally solid in its nature, I think it sufficiently demonstrates the problem in this instance with Lou. BenG is scraping petty details out of Lou's posts in effort to support his case, doing a rather pathetic job at proving that Lou is a 'fake' or a 'shill' or whatever the accusation; but the point of the matter is that he is READING FAR INTO Lou's posts, adding new meanings to what he is written. Driftwood demonstrated very well what Lou was truly saying, and that Beagle had given Lou more credit than he intended to write into his posts, by READING INTO his posts. Read what's really there, not what 'could have been written' or might have 'originally been intended to be written inbetween the lines.' I'm just defending Lou's case; call me his 'defense attourney' if you will. LOL.
To put it simply, which ultimately is the best way to put it, when one reads into words of any kind, spoken or written, they can create a new animal. A great example of this that I can use is on standardized tests. The test directs you to "pick the BEST answer." Which is the BEST answer, you might ask, as I'm sure we all have. As you read the questions on the test, and you read into them and dissect every word's meaning in the sentences and questions on the test, many times you WILL GET THAT QUESTION WRONG. However, if you go on gut instinct and go with the first answer that you thought was initially correct, you have a greater chance of getting it right. How many times have you erased an anser that you had right the first time?
Although my analogy is a bit incoherent and not totally solid in its nature, I think it sufficiently demonstrates the problem in this instance with Lou. BenG is scraping petty details out of Lou's posts in effort to support his case, doing a rather pathetic job at proving that Lou is a 'fake' or a 'shill' or whatever the accusation; but the point of the matter is that he is READING FAR INTO Lou's posts, adding new meanings to what he is written. Driftwood demonstrated very well what Lou was truly saying, and that Beagle had given Lou more credit than he intended to write into his posts, by READING INTO his posts. Read what's really there, not what 'could have been written' or might have 'originally been intended to be written inbetween the lines.' I'm just defending Lou's case; call me his 'defense attourney' if you will. LOL.
