Haha we could probably debate this for hours
I've honestly never thought about it before so it's interesting for me.
I don't disagree with anything you have said. That's my polite way of saying you didn't paraphrase my sentiments successfully
It's okay though, I'll take the blame for that one - I'm often clear in my head but then get misunderstood... something to do with being neuro diverse probably.
I used guitar as I was responding to somebody else and I was riffing off that, but here is another example that might be better:
- An engineer uses a pencil and paper to design a component which somebody then uses to make a component. The medium, the pencil and paper, has utility, but it isn't the end result. The component is. Once we have the component we can throw the drawing away. And we do.
- An artist uses a pencil and paper to draw a portrait. It has no utility, other than to look good. You cannot throw it in the bin once you have drawn it, otherwise you have nothing. It's sort of at the end of the chain already, whereas the technical drawing was just part of the journey
- Rembrand may be able to make a techy drawing look great, but the component wouldn't be any more accurate once it's made. In this example rembrand is adding the commas but nobody cares.
- The pencil and paper used to draw the techy drawing is equivalent to how I use words on forums - a stepping stone to achieving understanding.
I love rembrand and Monet, but they can't draw a driveshaft any better than Gordon Murray.
I love Andy McNabb and Stephen fry but they can't explain quantum locking to me with any more clarity than some random dude on physics forums.com smashing out 100 words a minute and using zero commas, full stops or even sentences
I'm probably exaggerating here a little, and much of this is I expect simply laziness on my part; I just can't be bothered with grammar. Or spelling for that matter
Martin