scarf man
Master Member
Re: === G R A F L E X === flashgun ... anyone? **??? QUESTION ???**
In the end, we will of course agree to disagree on this one small point.
I really do understand the sentimental desire to have a functioning flash, and if the rise in cost were small, I'd be right along side you.
I've been around the block a time or two and have studied as a machinist, and know that adding functionality will bump the cost out of many members budget.
The needs of the many and all that.
Anyway, good debate, and no grudges I assure you.
You have no business making assertions as to my understanding, or ability to get your point. You're meant to debate the topic, not the man. You brought a personal attack into this debate, not me. If you'll notice, I did not dismiss your opinion as sentimental rubbish, I debated your example. "That's pretty much what you're saying:" is code for "let me twist your words to fit my opinion." I do understand your desire, and still don't agree with it. You're making it sound like understanding your desire and agreeing with it are mutually exclusive, they'er not.Wait, how is my assertion that you don't understand why some of us want functioning flashes inaccurate? That's pretty much exactly what you're saying: that you don't understand why we want accurate flashes, right? Because such a desire is illogical according to the points you've stated. I'm simply stating the obvious: that you don't understand our desire, and therefore don't agree with it. What part of this assertion is incorrect?
I took thisThat said, I never said you didn't care about the opinions of others or about accuracy in general.
to mean just that.If you can't understand why that's important to some, I don't think anything I say will get the point across.
If you had said that last part initially, I would not have taken offense. Clean, concise, and no aspersions.I've read many of your posts, and know that you do. No need to feel insulted. I certainly didn't mean to offend—just to point out we have different views that may not be easily changed by an exchange of a few posts.
Again, apples and oranges. I took offense to a personal jab, not a rational deconstruction of a talking point.And I'm not saying that your points aren't valid. At the end of the day, all of us that want functioning flashes could turn out to be an illogical bunch (your insinuations of which by way of pointing out no valid reasons exist for wanting a functioning flash could, ironically, have caused me just as much offense as what you said I was insinuating towards you—if I wanted to take such offense, which I don't). .
:thumbsupEven if you can shoot down the associated points from my Obi pommel example, that was just one example off the top of my head to try to explain my desire to have a functioning flash.
:thumbsupWhat if I forego examples associated with other sabers, and just say that I want to be able to say that I built my saber from a camera flash, instead of a tube replicating the appearance of a camera flash? Is that an important thing to be able to claim? I say yes.
I have no problem with you wanting a functioning flash, it's not personal. I want what's best for the group, as I see it.You likely disagree, which is where the fact that you, as you put it, "hold a different opinion." If you look back at the posts above, please realize that I never tried to attack the logic of your opinion. I've been instead defending the supposed lack-of-logic of mine. I have no problems with you not wanting a functioning flash.
In the end, we will of course agree to disagree on this one small point.
I really do understand the sentimental desire to have a functioning flash, and if the rise in cost were small, I'd be right along side you.
I've been around the block a time or two and have studied as a machinist, and know that adding functionality will bump the cost out of many members budget.
The needs of the many and all that.
Anyway, good debate, and no grudges I assure you.