Richard Winter
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2018
- Messages
- 5,032
My apologies @memzey if my responses seemed pretty humourless to you and thank you for pointing out my inability to articulate the correct grammar when responding to a post.Richard, as a relatively new user of this site I don’t know you or @zouzounaki particularly well if at all, I certainly don’t have anything like 1,000+ that both of you do, and yet even I can see that there was no particular curve ball thrown in this discussion. Quite the contrary, @zouzounaki may be objectionable in some other way, in some other threads (again I can’t say as I haven’t seen that) but he has been consistent in this discussion about the approach he employs and appears, to me at least, to have shared that approach with honesty and humility. He has apparently got under your skin though as your responses are pretty humourless to my mind. Starting a sentence with a term like “people can do this whatever way they like it’s fine by me” doesn’t inoculate the part of that sentence after the inevitable “but” from appearing fairly binary. Which in itself is fine as long as your argument is relevant and backed up properly. You may not mean to have done so but you have simply espoused the virtues of what I called the “scientific” approach while denigrating the “artistic” one zouz shared. Replicability is not the objective of artistic creation, indeed it is it’s antithesis.
Again it seems to me (someone, I hasten to add, that is new to this and not very good at mixing yet) that, while they may not suit everyone, both approaches have their merits.
PS - I did not claim @zouzounaki was pulling your chain. I surfaced the possibility (whilst acknowledging that I could not possibly know) and you claimed it was so.
Right - can we all be friends now please?
I did not accuse you of making the statement about @zouzounaki pulling my chain, I simply chose to believe he was.