Well, I'll offer my own apology for a possible misreading and likely having come across a little thin skinned.
I didn't think a definition was in dispute ... I just expressed an opinion that the term "power of the pack" itself didn't shed a lot of insight into what's really at work. (By contrast, I find "penalty card" to get directly to the heart of what the term describes.) I also suggested that your article may have been lacking by citing examples, without providing a gut level generalization that cemented the concept.
But, that is, of course, a matter of opinion. I find it notable that no one else was prompted to weigh in on how strongly the term itself communicates the concept to them, or remark on the article. As such, it's probably a good idea to ditch the discussion.
- H.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@...> wrote:
>
>
> Harry wrote: Really, Bob?? I never considered "obfuscate" to rest among the most arcane reaches of my, or most anyone else's, vocabulary. While I suppose we could debate what percentage of vpFREE members could define this word, my comment was intended to be clever and smart-alecky. Apparently it didn't come across that way, at least to Harry, so I apologize to both him and the others here for my unsuccessful attempt at humor. Reading this thread, one could easily come to the conclusion that Harry and I are feuding with each other about the "Power of the Pack" definition. I don't think this is the case. We are friends and have mutual respect. It's a tough concept to explain --- and Harry and I have different preferences on the best way to simply that explanation. But neither of us are taking the position that the other guy doesn't know what he is talking about. Bob
