"al Guacamole"
lava.net> wrote in message
news:1218651600-sch@news.lava.net...>
> On Aug 12, 5:50 pm, "Lawrence Akutagawa"
sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>>>
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9431285
>>
>> And the old "quality vs quantity" issue again comes to the forefront.
>>
>> But a couple of questions here..."Improve vistas" - what exactly does
>> that
>> mean? Tear down all those high rises in Honolulu that so detract the
>> view
>> from Punchbowl to Waikiki? Or restore that wonderful sweeping beach
>> level
>> vista of Waikiki beach towards Diamond Head by passing building height
>> restrictions of - say 4 floors? Restore Onomea Arch? Bring back
>> Kapalana
>> Beach? Dig out Warm Springs?
>>
>> And why - given the push of quality over quantity - "...continue to
>> offer
>> discounts on the high priced rooms" in an effort to attract more
>> "quality"
>> tourists? I mean how is it that those "quality" folks with all that
>> money
>> need discounts? Isn't casting discounts before the wealthy "quality"
>> folks
>> kind of like a logical contradiction of terms? Is it not the case
>> that if
>> such "quality" folks need these discounts to entice them to the islands
>> that - well - they are not that kind of "quality" folks that are being
>> sought in this push of quality over quantity? If those "quality"
>> folks are
>> not weathy enough to afford "...the high priced rooms" without those
>> discounts, then they really are not the right "quality" folks?
>>
>> [and Alvin - I did correctly quote you there, yes? I don't want you
>> again
>> to falsely accuse me of misquoting you, you know!]
>
> Don't worry about misquoting. You hardly seem to read my postings when
> you respond. Maybe it's because you really don't understand anything
> about selling if you can't understand discounts to customers. Here you
> seem to be questioning me rather than the travel experts and the Star-
> Bulletin editor that made that comment. I agree with it, but your
> choice of words doesn't show any understanding on your part of why
> they made such a statement. Do your really think that they are that
> stupid?
>
umm...Alvin, you...and not the Star Bulletin article...did say
"Improve vistas, and for now, continue to offer discounts on the high priced
rooms"
no? And those are the words that I responded to, no? I mean the words I
quoted in my post were those words and those are *your* words, no? And I
did quote you correctly when I did reference your words, no? And I quoted
no other words from your post, no?
I do think that anyone here who read your words and my response will agree
that I did read your posting and responded to *your* words. Yet - yet -
you rather have me question the words of the Star Bulletin article.
OK...fair enough - show us where in the Star Bulletin article are the words
"Improve vistas" and "continue to offer discounts on the high priced rooms"
and I will indeed address my questions to the Star Bulletin folks rather
than to you. But - I submit before all here - these words to which I
responded are yours and yours alone - not those in the Star Bulletin
article. And it is not at all true that "...the travel experts and the
Star-Bulletin editor that made that comment". No such thing. Simple
enough to confirm - do a quick search in that Star Bulletin article on the
words "improve vistas" and "continue to offer discounts on the high priced
rooms" and you'll come up as empty as I did. So where in the world (of
ours) do you come up with this notion that I responded to words in the Star
Bulletin article and not to *your* words?
And I see that yet again you've typically ducked the central issue, wanting
to discuss me as per the Star Bulletin article rather than address the
questions/issues I've raised in response to *your* words. I challenge
anyone reading your post here to summarize/recap/restate any substantive
response on your part to the issues/quesitons I've raised, because there is
none in your post here.
One more thing - you being you - and my having experienced once before just
how quickly you resort to the "you misquoted me" line when not true, I make
very very very sure whenever I do quote you that I do put you on notice that
I not only did quote you, but also that you on your part have ample
opportunity to note not only any possible misquotation on my part, but to
also state your words that are so misquoted. After all, the last time you
falsely claimed that I misquoted you, I time and again asked you for your
words that I supposedly misquoted as well as my misquoting of them - and you
never did provide any kind of definitive answer despite multiple attempts on
my part to get you to divulge the supposed misquotation...remember? I don't
want to repeat that experience again, so now I do my misquoting disclaimer
whenever I quote you.
[So, Alvin, I did correctly quote you here, did I not? Those words are
yours and yours alone, no? As I said, I don't want you to again go around
falsely accusing me of misquoting you.]
