JimSmith - 1/20/2005 10:06 AM
I guess the connotation for "style" for me is one of a lack of substance. "Presentation" and not the substance. Kind of means "flash" or "superficial" and that is not what Kirk's approach was about on MBShop. Kirk took the lead role. Because he was effective, he developed a "following" as I see it, not because anyone particularly like his "style." He insisted on being out front and was effective. He got his "following" "the old fashioned way - he earned it."
As for he said, she said, well, it used to be in the MBShop records. I don't care to look back, but based on the announced purge I doubt looking would be worth the effort. Jim
That's the ambiguity of English, sorry about that. I didn't intend to offer a content criticism. That particular horse is beaten, dead, gathering flies and sarcophagus beetles. I am not at all interested in taking one more shot at it.
Look, what I'm trying to point out is that style is at least as important as substance. I could write a love letter for example, that would use the same vocabulary as say, Byron, but my leter would sound smarmy where his is...poetry. Both Byron and I would be honest and believe what we say about the same subject, but nobody's gonna collect my love letters for posterity (please God, don't let that happen!).
Assuming that everybody agrees on a certain subject, the best presentation is the one remembered and if it's important to people's lives, the presenter gets remembered, too.
So now let's look at it another way, how can one evaluate the merits of a particular subject without being swayed by presentation? Because if the truth is what's important, then the package shouldn't mater. So how can we remove the contents from the various packages and fairly evaluate them?