- Joined
- Oct 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,424
I don’t see how disagreeing with you has made the conversation unhealthy, or why the two sentences I wrote has made me “defensive.” You are interpreting a lot about my emotional state based on two sentences.
Yes, Larrin has been very accepting, and patient of criticism, and I've seen no indication otherwise. I only jumped in here originally to make a statement of caution, about "reading more into the study and articles, than is constructive", but frankly, that should have been, and was, obvious to most of us. Larrin, I believe, gave us credit, that we would understand the limits of the test, and not jump to conclusions.
I have less faith in people, so I wanted to advise caution, specifically, as opposed to assuming that; "it goes without saying". In my experience, among enough people, nothing ever really is so obvious, that it doesn't warrant disclaiming, and I'm sure we'll still see makers pop up using extrapolations of this data, as their new found "claim to fame", proving how they're smarter than the rest of us, and making statements about how great their performance is, because they're following the magic formula, they think is laid out by this data.
None of that is on Larrin. He's been incredibly giving of his time and wisdom on this subject, and exceptionally open to debate, from what I've seen so far. I'll admit I was skeptical when he showed up, which is why I haven't said anything on his previous posts (and because I'm no better than an arm-chair metallurgist like most of us, so really what, do I have to say?), but we really should give the guy credit where due, and thank him for his efforts, to all of our benefit.
We've had overzealous self proclaimed experts do damage in this area of information, in the past, that wouldn't accept anyone questioning their "gospel". This clearly isn't the case.
Thank you Larrin. I appreciate, more than your contribution of knowledge, your openness, and willing to explore these things with us, and hope you will continue to do so.