I realize I'm as guilty as most others here, but (Ah the ubiquitous "but".) I would like to throw out the challenge; let's try to understand what what commenters are saying, and REALLY try to see if the thought behind the comment differs from one's own, before agruing strenuously that "what *I* have to say is unique and 'Oh so different' from what *you* just posted".
I have recently REFUSED to counter some posts that basically restated what I said in different language. When I read the posts, I could only chuckle and think to myself the differences were symantic at best. I also thought that by recommenting the only thing that would really happen was the arguement would be further drawn out. - *W* - What-ever!
I have, on the other hand, also seen many people commenting "I agree with 'so and so'" ----- WELL DONE, PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!
Thank you.
with love,
Hope
Where does one draw the line
Where does one draw the line exactly between a semantic difference and one of nuance? Honestly, subtle shades of meaning are difficult to express through written media. No body language to clarify things. To give an example, are the *s in your post meant to put as much of a negative and condescending slant on your message as what I'm reading into them? I don't know. There's also the fact that sometimes you just want to say what's on your mind in your own words, even if some people will find it hackneyed or worse. I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Alternate language can convey different shades of meaning. Maybe I just enjoy discourse too much to think that reiterating something is a bad thing. I do see your point, but I also would rather see someone type a redundant message than see yet another message board where one person posts a comment and 47 other people respond with QFT(quoted for truth) and nothing else. Hope my response doesn't offend you, not my intent, at all. :)
JL
Is a macintosh the same as a G Smith?
Dear JL,
Again I have to say that we agree quite a bit more than you seem to think. My point in all of this is that we should look for the ways we agree rather that arguing which is EXACTLY the correct word to use for the agreement. And as for 'QFT', that SHOULD allow for those 47 people to expand on their commentary rather than restricting it. (Well, ok, it would in a PERFECT world, anyway.)
Agreeing does not mean there aren't personal points to add or clarify. The examples in the title are all apples, but, there is a reason there are so many varieties, right? And even if my favourite apple to eat off the tree, is different from yours, I have a different favourite to have in pie or cobbler.
I'm never offended by intellegent commentary, stupitity on the other hand I find a challenge to my self-restraint. There is no such thing as a stupid question if said question is an honest attempt to become better informed.
with love,
Hope
P.S. Fav' apple off the tree, gala; fav' in pie, G Smith.
with love,
HER
Once in a while I bare my soul, more often my soles bear me.