Could You Tell The Difference…??

[warren]

My Rolex at, say, a working depth of 125' would certainly keep better time than any Casio back in the day. That was the only reason I purchased a Rolex. My health was somewhat dependent on the performance of the Rolex.

Certainly didn't prove any point. Your question was could a person wearing a blindfold, not a "blind" test, tell the difference between the pipes? You did question value over cost but, you never posed that question. Your second question asked whether or not one could value, percentage, the difference. I thought one too subjective to even bother with. I answered the first question and ignored the second.

 

[anotherbob]

The thing people forget is that a pipe is a tool and an accessory. Yeah it's a piece of jewelry you know just like a watch which is a tool and a fashion piece all at the same time. People are paying to wear the pipe as well as smoke it. And fashion has always been a weird and esoteric practice where little things translate into bigger prices.

 

[captainsousie]

Yes, the Mechanical versus Quartz analogy is perfect.

The phrasing in your first comment was still open for some interpretations to say the absolute best smoking experience requires the most expensive pipe.
While on average that may be the case, it is not an objective requirement.

Actually, my original post says the opposite. It says that quality does not necessarily increase in proportion to cost. It says that it can take a 1000% increase in cost to increase quality by as little as 5%. None of these things says that cost or name makes something objectively better.

It's often our own context with which we read a post that determines our reactions instead of what actually was written.

 

[warren]

And, some feel their choice of pipes defines them, if not to others at least to themselves.

It's often our own context with which we read a post that determines our reactions instead of what actually was written.

Perhaps better stated as "what was intended" as opposed to "what was written." What was written, in this case was surely open to interpretation no matter how reader parsed the words.

 

[captainsousie]

And, some feel their choice of pipes defines them, if not to others at least to themselves.

Perhaps better stated as "what was intended" as opposed to "what was written." What was written, in this case was surely open to interpretation no matter how reader parsed the words.

I disagree. If you parse it you find each statement, with one exception regarding the reasons why we pay more for things, to say that cost does not directly correlate with performance. It's the prejudice with which it is read that results in the reader's conclusions.

 

[anotherbob]

I disagree. If you parse it you find each statement, with one exception regarding the reasons why we pay more for things, to say that cost does not directly correlate with performance. It's the prejudice with which it is read that results in the reader's conclusions.

I'd say it's always a bit of both. Intention is a big part of writing perceived or intended always. This is multiplied in casual conversation, which I think this forum certainly falls hard into that category. I guess what I am trying to get across is that I wouldn't blame people for making certain assumptions about what a posters intentions where. Also the longer a post is the more chance the whole thing will not be read with rapt and full attention.
Although it's annoying to read a response that misses significant parts of what you're saying, it's bound to happen and more fun to just try to take certain statements as response to the broader conversation and less to specific statements. Or at least that's what I have to do to maintain a modicum of sanity when perusing the internets.

 

[anotherbob]

I'd say it's always a bit of both. .......

so glad captainsousie gave this a like. Means it came across like I was trying. I was afraid it might come across as critical when it wasn't meant to be. Wouldn't mention it in another context.

 

[warren]

Intention is a big part of writing perceived or intended always.

True. One should never write as casually as we usually speak. The written word must be taken as it parses out, if you wish your intent to be obvious. Leaving your intent to be "hunted down" simply creates confusion and misinterpretation. And, we all get too lax/lazy now and then with our written words. We tend to think we are conversing with friends, people who know us well and that's simply not true on a forum. We are a hash of nationalities with a wide spectrum of education levels and varying amounts of time as a pipe smoker. Such makes being understood a bit more complicated and frustrating. If you are presenting a point important to you, read your missive carefully before sending. Read it as a person you've never met would.

 

[anotherbob]

True. One should never write as casually as we usually speak. The written word must be taken as it parses out, if you wish your intent to be obvious. Leaving your intent to be "hunted down" simply creates confusion and misinterpretation. And, we all get too lax/lazy now and then with our written words. We tend to think we are conversing with friends, people who know us well and that's simply not true on a forum. We are a hash of nationalities with a wide spectrum of education levels and varying amounts of time as a pipe smoker. Such makes being understood a bit more complicated and frustrating. If you are presenting a point important to you, read your missive carefully before sending. Read it as a person you've never met would.

and even more so not worth getting too frustrated when you miss the mark and are not understood.

 

[jpmcwjr]

This has gotten boring,