This may surprise you, London Calling, and a number of others involved in this thread, but I see your point. I never didn’t see it, if I could be so presumptuous of myself.
The analogy you resurrect is indeed apt. I’ll try to explain myself even better than I’ve been able to do so at this point by using it.
I’ll try, but be patient with me. Others that are great at clarifying what I’m getting at haven’t come in here to do so, so I’m on my own (Not that I mind that, I don’t, it just makes it harder for me to try and explain it all, instead of going, “Yeah, what he/she said too!”) I’m a lone guy yelling at the chorus here.
Again, back to the silo thread and the ‘Table at a restaurant’ analogy-
A large table of people are turning ugly with each other. They’ve been there for awhile and nothing is being accomplished except that people are talking past each other and getting angrier and angrier with each other. Johnny steps in with a non-sequitor that effectively stops the previous discussion and moves it towards something else, something more friendly. All becomes fine and people settle down.
*Now, let me add an element to that analogy that might explain my position better- which is, the people are sitting at… hmm… table number seven and they’re at the desert phase.
Now, that’s all fine and dandy a technique to employ at that time, at table seven, to have Johnny come in and diffuse the argument. It worked over there and I won’t argue it merits with table seven, after all they’ve been through- hell, that’s a long meal- you deserve desert.
But why is that technique then appropriate for, say, table five over there on appetizers… table six over by the window starting on the bottle of wine… our table two that’s at its entre?
The conditions that led to the discussion over on table seven weren’t present over here on table two. It was just starting with salad, as it were.
Or was it only because people were having something similar to eat/say that made it appropriate?
That’s effectively making a topic that has every reason to belong in this forum moot. Because whenever that topic comes up, others will come in a start talking about tennis, splinters, or who knows what. Tables are no longer tables, it’s just one giant room.
How is that effective, or even a reasonable, open, discussion of the topic at hand?
Isn’t that much like what Diane accused me of doing up there earlier on this page? That is, ” …attempt to tell others what they should and should not write.”?
I think it is…
And that’s the only thing I’ve attempted to convey in my posts here.
Let the conversation at least resolve the O.P. before you decide it’s run it’s course and won’t be discussed anymore and hijack it.
Let’s get past the salad before you give me desert.
