>
> "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.]
>