Independents

ThomasM
[PuristS]
14331

• Show profile
• Show other posts

It seems we'll not reach any sort of "agreement" on this subject...

Hi, Al,

"I did not say that context is of no consequence - how you arrived to that conclusion is puzzling and "now I'm really curious....""

You are right, you did not explicitly write "context is of no consequence."

It seemed to me that such a conclusion is reasonable from comments like "I also have a slight problem with having to qualify one's opinion in some ways." But I admit, there is a bit of a stretch to get from your comments to my stated, drawn conclusion.

"  An opinion is just that, and to say that someone has to have certain knowledge and experience to express one without getting "shot" as another poster expressed it, is troublesome.""

Perhaps this last statement of yours is what got me on the "wrong path" - no one said that either, and, at least for my initial comments, and as far as I can read, Andrew's initial comments, we were asking for "context" for a comparative, not denying that an opinion can be stated without context a priori. No one (at least, I wasn't) was "shooting" anyone.

I find it a perverse irony that those who would want to protect their own (or others) "right to have a dissenting opinion" are also often the first to deny those who would "dissent with the dissenter"  (A general comment, not necessarily directed at you or your comments, Al)

"  So what I get from this discussion is that you are encouraged to express your opinion if you are by some (unkown) standard  "qualified" to do so, and if not you had better be prepared for the being told you don't know any better."

Speaking only for myself and my comments in this thread, your last is as far a stretch from my (original) words as my conclusion that "context is of no consequence" from yours, and a non-sequitor from the initial follow up posts to Riley, before defensiveness kicked in and degenerated the budding discussion.

To be clear,

anyone can hold any opinion they want - Rolex sucks; Rolex is the best; Patek is the best, Patek is a sham; G-F has disappointing finish, G-F has the best finishing in the business. (Personally, my opinion is that opinions that speak in absolutes are inherently wrong, and opinions based on personal opinion - whether finishing is personally satisfactory or disappointing - need not be qualified if held to oneself, but don't be surprised if clarification is asked for (in a non-challenging, non-demeaning way to the opinion holder) if presented publically. So long as presented politely and respectfully, anyone participating on a public forum should be prepared to "clarify" - ANYONE and EVERYONE (I'm avoiding using loaded terms like "defend" or "qualify" though those terms, if stripped of their judgemental implications, are perfectly appropriate terms in the proper context)

"Based on what I've seen of Riley's collection, he has owned a fair number of very nice watches.  I'm not sure it's fair to discount his opinions or what he saw."

Please ask Riley about his "collection."  Or don't; at this point, this discussion has veered far beyond it's significance to me and taken a personally unpleasant tack (sarcasm, misconstruing or misrepresenting intentions, character, etc. And no, I don't excuse myself from this, for which I apologize, that was not my original intention...)

  "After all, if these are hand made is there not a chance the xample he saw was lacking?"

Yes, absolutely, and one of the things I was trying to get at, in my original post in response asking for clarification.

"Am I overstating the situation - maybe but I think sometimes everyone here needs to take a step back.  They are only watches after all..."

Indeed.

"I guess I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt and not discount their opinions out of hand as I think has happened here. "

I'm not sure who did this? Certainly my comments didn't (or weren't intended to) in my initial request for clarification from Riley. And I'm not sure Andrew intended that either, though I am in no position to speak for Andrew.

Again, Riley is free to express his "unconventional" opinion; Andrew should be free to rebut it with his opinion and whatever supporting "facts" he wishes to bring into the discussion, so long as he is not dismissive. Where's the problem?

 "The fact that seemingly no one will even entertain the idea that the finishing on the watch in question is anything but stellar is really what bothers me."

Who did this? Isn't this a bit of a stretch, at least from my comments? I simply asked for clarification on what Riley saw. You might retort, "My comments were not addressed to you, Thomas, originally." Okay, but then, "seemingly no one will even entertain the idea..." seems pretty damning to anyone who already posted in reply to Riley before your comment.

"  As was ignored in my previous post, is it not possible that one is out there that is not as perfect as people in this thread claim them all to be?"

There is NOTHING that is perfect, and that is not the standard being applied nor discussed. (At least) my original post and questions were merely to get some specifics, and context, for what was presented so I could better understand what is being described and claimed.

"Certainly Riley's post where he says he will keep his opinions to himself is a step forward here, right?"

Not sure if this was sarcasm?

'"It is another thing entirely to not know the difference between a Swatch/Hamilton (or ABR, or Bell and Ross) and a Greubel-Forsey/Dufour/Voutilainen..."

When you have a system of proving who has what qualifications for posting their opinions, please let me know and I'll submit mine for review.  Until then, I guess you will consider me one of the great unwashed.'

Sorry, that's a non-sequitor.

"Thank you.  I have learned a great deal in this thread."

Indeed. Moi aussi.

Cheers,

TM