|
I've tried my best to remain civil, but sometimes that doesn't just work. I realize there is no end to the number of really stupid questions prople can manufacture, but thought, or at least hoped, this discussion could somehow manage to rise above nonsense.
Some of you insist on acting little little children asking unending, "why" questions that you know full well cannot be answered, but you seem compelled to dwell on them anyway and seem to have taken upon yourselves the roles of chief inquisitor, judges and jury. By virtue of your stubborn insistence on clinging to, and repeating, the same stupid observations, you don't seem qualified for any of those roles.
MikeL: I'll be honest, I can't fathom how you can stretch seemingly inocuous statements into such ridiculous extremes, unless you objective is just to be silly. The only "opinion" that trumps anyone else's is the judge's (or in this case the rule makers), and nothiong has been said to suggest otherwise.
Why it may seem, "you seem to go to some awfully long stretches to excuse/support KB's questionable position" is really very simple. The man has an idea, which I'm pretty confident he believes in, and even though I don't happen to think his idea is all that great, I actually believe it unnecessarily lowers anyone who chooses to attack him personally, with nothing to back up their assertions than speculation and opinions and the opinions of like minded people who seem only interested in their narrow perspective. Simply put, "you don't get to decide, for anyone other than yourself, what the spirit of the rule is". I simply accept the fact, "IT'S NOT MY CALL" and see no vlaue in demonizing a different perception, just because it's different.
Some have rendered disagreements about this formation based on non compliance with existing rules, potential ineffectiveness due to the extremely hign level of precision execution in complying with other rules or the exposure key players have to a well executed defensive scheme. That type of disagreement is fine, helpful and worthy of discussion.
However, those that choose to harp on personal insults, speculative bad intentions and purely SUBJECTIVE interpretations of undefined principles that they insist on twisting to suit their arguments are wasting everybody's time throwing smoke, innuendo and nothing but personal opinion about as if they speak for some higher power. If your belief is that you hold some higher value than those who disagree with you, that's entirely on you, but suggest you might focus on convincing the "man in your mirror" before you convince yourself anyone else might be convinced.
asdf: I don't know how to say it clearer, what you think the "spirit of the rule" means only reflects YOUR opinion and doesn't necessarily mean squat to anyone else, so repeating what is a totally subjective statement over and over doesn't add anything to the discussion. Each of us determine what we understand the "Spirit of the Rule" to be, and that conclusion may be right or it may be wrong.
Do us both a favor and stop with the stupid, childish "why" questions.
|