cnerd123
likes this
You definitely can find meaning in a discussion with regards to what each person believes the primary value of a cricketer is, in that everyone shares their beliefs and opinions and we discuss it and learn where everyone stands and understand their reasoning behind it and blah blah blah.
But the way you posed the questions was as though you were searching for an objective truth; and give you asked a subjective question, it is impossible to find an objectively true answer to it. So it's basically pointless to ask such a question anyways, since any effort to find an objectively true answer would inevitably result in someone like PEWS coming out and saying "It all depends on the person evaluating the player", thus killing off the conversation and the thread. Bad question leads to no answer basically.
If you just want to see what everyone's opinion is on the primary value of a cricketer, then that's a fair enough discussion and you can definitely find meaning in it. But that's not how you phrased the question.
Because I wasn't trying to evaluate who did a better job of explaining it relative to their respective grasp of the language. I was just stating who I thought did a better job at explaining it, period.
If I had to pick who did a better job at building a wall between two builders, I would pick the one who, in my estimation, actually built the better wall, regardless of the abilities of each builder. It doesn't matter to me if one of the builders was a professional and the other had no arms and had to use his feet. Their respective abilities have no bearing on who actually did a better job. The better wall is the better wall.
Likewise, the better explanation is the better explanation. BW's grasp on English has no bearing on this. If I was trying to make a point on who did a better job explaining it with respect to their command of the language, then it would be relevant that BW isn't a native speaker, and I should cut him some slack for it. But I wasn't, so it isn't, and I didn't.
