euponitone Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Besides, for a while there I thought the conversation was wrapping up, but it looked like MikeD was afraid it might end on a note that questions change. The "get the last word in even if I wasn't in much of this conversation" ethic won't allow that. Hence - Oh God here we go again..... Lol....even if I do this sometimes, I have to laugh at this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Bari Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Why didn't you say that when he posted that nutty untruth about "change for change's sake"?HH It isn't an untruth, if you view the changes that DCI has made over the years as voluntary. Because, if there's no need to change, why do it, unless it is change for its own sake? In the absence of need, there is only desire, and having the change becomes the only justification for it. Now, if you do view the changes as necessary, then I guess that statement could seem untrue to you. Of course, those are conditional "truths". As to the actual truth, that would require knowing things that are unknowable, at least for us trapped here in DCP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
It's Godzilla! Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 It isn't an untruth, if you view the changes that DCI has made over the years as voluntary. Because, if there's no need to change, why do it, unless it is change for its own sake? In the absence of need, there is only desire, and having the change becomes the only justification for it.Now, if you do view the changes as necessary, then I guess that statement could seem untrue to you. Of course, those are conditional "truths". As to the actual truth, that would require knowing things that are unknowable, at least for us trapped here in DCP. What kind of car do you drive, Dale? I bet it's not a beast thats ready for the junkyard. You didn't need that car, right? You just wanted it. (even if this is a bad example, I'm sure you can think of something where you got the better model because you WANTED it. Computer maybe?) Why should we not advance if the technology is there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cop Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 THE END. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 It isn't an untruth, if you view the changes that DCI has made over the years as voluntary. Because, if there's no need to change, why do it, unless it is change for its own sake? In the absence of need, there is only desire, and having the change becomes the only justification for it.Now, if you do view the changes as necessary, then I guess that statement could seem untrue to you. Of course, those are conditional "truths". As to the actual truth, that would require knowing things that are unknowable, at least for us trapped here in DCP. Nope. Just because a change is voluntary doesn't make it "change for change sake". It's "change because those who want the change think it's a good idea". That is not the same thing as what you posted at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 THE END. ...almost... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euponitone Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 What kind of car do you drive, Dale? I bet it's not a beast thats ready for the junkyard. You didn't need that car, right? You just wanted it. (even if this is a bad example, I'm sure you can think of something where you got the better model because you WANTED it. Computer maybe?)Why should we not advance if the technology is there? There is a case for the fact that many feel that the newer technology is not a better technology. Besides, art is a little less subject to the whims of new technology, than say....technology Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Oh God is right. In the group that Mike hangs out with they would say that. But we know that holds more weight than those who do disagree with him. Obviously it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 I'm not so sure that's a nutty untruth, that's why. Besides, for a while there I thought the conversation was wrapping up, but it looked like MikeD was afraid it might end on a note that questions change. The "get the last word in even if I wasn't in much of this conversation" ethic won't allow that. Hence - Oh God here we go again..... Why should I let a blatant statement like that just sit there? If you did not come along with the personal commentary the thread would have ended after my statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Bari Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Nope. Just because a change is voluntary doesn't make it "change for change sake". It's "change because those who want the change think it's a good idea". That is not the same thing as what you posted at all. Yes, it is. "I want the change because I want the change." I don't have to change, but I want to change anyway. The change is the only thing justifying the change. If you are sure you can define it otherwise, give us a true example of "change for change's sake" then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.