Originally Posted by worriedbeef
tbh i feel no matter how much manwon stresses he means no offence in his putting down of Kevin's cues in comparison to gilbert's, what he was saying is still inherently rude and a bit irrelevant as well.
If reality is inherently rude then yes, manwon's statement is inherently rude.
You don't think saying that his cues are like comparing a flintlock to a machine gun to someone who's spent many years perfecting his trade, is passionate about it and it's his means of income, and who posts here regularly and is going to read it, you don't think making that statement is a bit rude at all? terrible sentence btw i know.
Quote:
but if as some people are saying that it's in the area of fancy inlays and bells and whistles that varney can't compete, then why is it even relevant?
No one said this. Varney does very well for himself, in his niche. And what's this "bells and whistle" crap? Properly executed points and veneers and finish are not extraneous aspects of cuebuilding.
the point being made and implied by some is that the area in which mr varney loses out to gilbert is in the, and yes i stand by my statement, bells and whistles. ie fancy inlays, expensive decorative aspects of a cue. my point was even if this is the case, surely this is irrelevant to the original question? the man wants to know which cue breaks and jumps better!
Quote:
i do think some of the "kevin is a great cuemaker, but even he would agree he's not in the same boat as such and such" comments are a little patronising and uncalled for.
Once again, I don't see how reality can be patronizing. Say we substitute Gilbert with Herceck, or Mottey, or Tascarella. Would it be patronizing to say, "Kevin is a great cuemaker, but even he would agree he's not in the same boat as Herceck, or Mottey, or Tascarella"?
Yes i do believe that. whether something is true or not doesn't define whether it's patronising or not - they are seperate issues. in this case i think it was patronising to say it because we all know he's a regular forumer and is going to read it. you don't agree it's patronising and a bit rude to read a post saying "varney makes good cues don't get me wrong, but we all know they're inferior to such and such however" which was the general gist of the point. besides, what if he doesn't agree with it? maybe he thinks he can make cues as good as herceck and mottey? the patronising part was just taking it as fact that he's not as good, and also just assuming naturally he'll agree himself. why should he?
Quote:
one thing that did amuse me is that whenever Kevin is involved in any debate, argument or disagreement, buddha emerges from the woodwork to try and stir things up.
I'm glad my involvement amuses you.
lol
-Roger
