Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8203257" data-attributes="member: 6790260">So literally everything is a quality something, so long as you can find a value associated? &quot;Quality&quot; becomes rather a weak word in that context. Anything, so long as there's some merit one can find, can be a &quot;work of quality&quot;; a film so bad no one can find anything to like about watching it is, for example, now a &quot;work of quality&quot; because it's the best bad example anyone could ever hope for. It's not a quality work for what it wanted to do, but it's still quality work under the right perspective.So.....Are you saying &quot;quality&quot; isn't measurable, and thus purely a matter of taste, or are you saying something can be &quot;quality&quot; without being &quot;good&quot;? Because I'm really quite confused as to what you're arguing here.~~~~~~~Totally unrelated to the above: No one has yet meaningfully engaged with the question I asked, other than to reference back to it. How should I feel about this &quot;something for everyone,&quot; &quot;restaurant that does a bit of everything well enough&quot; theory, when there's a very clear and present example of something it DOESN'T do well, both intentionally and accidentally?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8203257, member: 6790260"] So literally everything is a quality [I]something[/I], so long as you can find a value associated? "Quality" becomes rather a weak word in that context. Anything, so long as there's some merit one can find, can be a "work of quality"; a film so bad no one can find anything to like about watching it is, for example, now a "work of quality" because it's the best bad example anyone could ever hope for. It's not a quality work for what it [I]wanted[/I] to do, but it's still quality work under the right perspective. So..... Are you saying "quality" [I]isn't[/I] measurable, and thus purely a matter of taste, or are you saying something can be "quality" without being "good"? Because I'm really quite confused as to what you're arguing here. ~~~~~~~ Totally unrelated to the above: No one has yet meaningfully engaged with the question I asked, other than to reference back to it. How should I feel about this "something for everyone," "restaurant that does a bit of everything well enough" theory, when there's a very clear and present example of something it DOESN'T do well, both intentionally and accidentally? [/QUOTE]

Verification