jf47t,
I did not firmly believe that tuning of any kind set any fire. However, once there is a statement, even with a numeric value (zero can reasonably be considered numeric value for this purpose) attached to it, there is a question of legitimacy of the whole statement. If there is some count of tuning fires, the whole thing becomes much more meaningful than someone just stating things left and right and then making fun of the one who questions it. Add a little bit of the "educated guess" claim which, as sophisticated as it may seem, was just a dust in our faces to detract from worthlessness of everything that was written in sentences preceding and following it.
One big flaw of this thread is that there are many things mentioned without ever clearly determining what it means. Participants start talking about it without knowing if they are talking about same thing. It started with OP and talking and walking. I am serious when I ask where is the border between those two. What is considered talking and what is considered walking. The only response was from geoffkait telling me that I am a bit slow, or am putting on a good act, adding that Internet description of "talker" has my picture next to it. Those pseudo-humorous comments is as far as this thread has gotten with clarifying first words in original post. 20 pages, statements being thrown around without any merit, but they seemed strong. Like zero fires. It was not licencia poetica, it was cheap bluff.
As far as that historic employment dispute goes, I do not think that anybody should pay much attention to it. It is a dispute between two people who have known each other and are talking things that are basically opposite. Robert is definitely upset, but it does not necessarily make his statements incorrect. Same goes for Michael. None of us on the thread have enough knowledge to be judges what really happened. Not even you, unless you were hanging out with both of them a couple of decades ago. At the same time, this thread, even if started by one of them, may not be the right place to argue their dispute.
I noticed some deleted posts and I noticed frequent use of word "troll". It appears that anything can be called "troll". At the same time, posts in which a person calls the other one "crazy" do not get deleted even when flagged. Apparently, this deleting process is not flawless. Not to mention that, given the track record here, "troll" may have different definition for everyone. I would not give too many negative points to posts deleted because of "trolling". I would rather see their content first.
I did not firmly believe that tuning of any kind set any fire. However, once there is a statement, even with a numeric value (zero can reasonably be considered numeric value for this purpose) attached to it, there is a question of legitimacy of the whole statement. If there is some count of tuning fires, the whole thing becomes much more meaningful than someone just stating things left and right and then making fun of the one who questions it. Add a little bit of the "educated guess" claim which, as sophisticated as it may seem, was just a dust in our faces to detract from worthlessness of everything that was written in sentences preceding and following it.
One big flaw of this thread is that there are many things mentioned without ever clearly determining what it means. Participants start talking about it without knowing if they are talking about same thing. It started with OP and talking and walking. I am serious when I ask where is the border between those two. What is considered talking and what is considered walking. The only response was from geoffkait telling me that I am a bit slow, or am putting on a good act, adding that Internet description of "talker" has my picture next to it. Those pseudo-humorous comments is as far as this thread has gotten with clarifying first words in original post. 20 pages, statements being thrown around without any merit, but they seemed strong. Like zero fires. It was not licencia poetica, it was cheap bluff.
As far as that historic employment dispute goes, I do not think that anybody should pay much attention to it. It is a dispute between two people who have known each other and are talking things that are basically opposite. Robert is definitely upset, but it does not necessarily make his statements incorrect. Same goes for Michael. None of us on the thread have enough knowledge to be judges what really happened. Not even you, unless you were hanging out with both of them a couple of decades ago. At the same time, this thread, even if started by one of them, may not be the right place to argue their dispute.
I noticed some deleted posts and I noticed frequent use of word "troll". It appears that anything can be called "troll". At the same time, posts in which a person calls the other one "crazy" do not get deleted even when flagged. Apparently, this deleting process is not flawless. Not to mention that, given the track record here, "troll" may have different definition for everyone. I would not give too many negative points to posts deleted because of "trolling". I would rather see their content first.