First of all, my apologies for not noticing this post earlier. I have a habit of jumping in and out of HM in a non-systematic way and therefore some posts catch my attention sooner, some later, and some not at all.
Reason for the apology is the strong suspicion that you started this thread based on a post of mine that contained a less than flattering reference to the Patex Pigueron Submersible Travel Timer Small Date. (Small correction here: it was not the Travel Timer Big Date variant. I have nothing against the Patex Pigueron Submersible Travel Timer Big Date.) Correct me if I'm wrong but if this is the case, I do wish I'd seen this earlier.
The issue you table is a very interesting one. Email, messaging, Twitter, forums and social networks, they all have a serious impact on the way we communicate. One of the first victims of the whirlwind of change have been elaborate politeness phrases of the 'in all sincerity remaining humbly yours' kind. For a very nice treatise on this I refer you to an article in the recent Economist Christmas edition, under the title 'Hi there' (http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15108779) which imho (there you go) says it all.
I too value politesse highly in communication. I was brought up on always speaking with two words, as they say in Dutch, starting letters with 'Dear Thomas' or 'Dear Madam' and ending them with the usual phrases including sincerity (either sincere or false, both allowed), kindness and regards. Even today I start most text messages with the name of the addressee and end them with 'Rgds, Jos.', thereby reducing the available communication space from 140 to around 120 characters.
On th'other hand, I tend to be very wary of political correctness. It always starts out harmlessly but often tends to escalate into a reign of terror and hypocrisy, preventing people from speaking out in fear of being ostracised. A post on HM caught my eye the other day, of someone hesitantly bringing up something he didn't like about a new watch in the most cautious language possible, followed by a meek 'please delete this post, moderator, if it's inappropriate to say this'. Mind you, I'm not saying that terror reigns on HM. Fortunately it's a forum that allows people to speak their minds in a broad spectrum of ways, posts like the one I cite here are an exception and the invitation to delete was totally uncalled for. But the idea only raises the hair in the back of my neck. I guess we all have our hangups.
My answer to this is to try to find a balance between politeness and being outspoken. I try to avoid the imhos of this world but do use them occasionally, I try to make my posts user friendly by giving casual readers like myself a clue in the subject line so that they don't need to click on it if they're not interested, and I sign most of them with regards. Another way in which I try to contribute is by consistently using my own name as an alias as I think it's only polite to let people know the name of the person who addresses them. Mind you, I'm not condemning anyone who uses a creative alias as not all of these are meant by people to hide under and there're other ways to let people know who you are, but I do think it's important that anyone with a beef about my posts knows where to go.
Back to the Patex Pigueron affair. The remarks that apparently raised your hackles contained a couple of indisputable facts, which in turn formed the basis for some value judgments. The Patex Pigueron Travel Timer Small Date is a big watch with a small date which is hard to see. This is an indisputable fact. It has been built in a certain way that was logical 30 years ago but no one would even dare to design a high end watch that way in this day and age. Claiming that no one would do that is not a fact; but the fact that no one does, is.
I understand that you're viewing this in a completely different way than I do; whereas I am annoyed by people pushing an obsolete design for five digit prices, trying to get away with it by putting garish colour schemes on dials and an endless series of the most ludicrous 'limited' editions, you see this is as beautifully imperfect and try to focus instead on some good aspects of the watch. This is your good right. You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. Imho.
One way to deal with this would be to imho my remarks to the wazoo. I choose not to. Instead, I try to dilute my remarks in another way, for instance (as in this case) by not claiming the thing is the biggest ripoff in all horology, but by claiming it is a strong candidate for biggest ripoff in all horology. Calling an election is a good way to give people a chance to dispute something if they feel like it. Imho.
That said, Thomas, there is one other thing in which in my view is an expression of politeness. When opinionating (and I admit I do that a lot) I make a point of refraining from attacking people. My post was directed at a watch (which imho is an inanimate object) and not at its wearers or fans. I even apologised to you for possibly hurting your feelings in the process. I know that some people have very strong feelings about some of their watches (and I respect that; it is what makes forums like these attractive) so there's a risk of stepping on those feelings. One can't bake an omelette without breaking an egg. But one can apologise to the eggs
In conclusion: is there a difference between these two statements?
1. "The Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore is one of the biggest rip offs in the watch industry."
2. "The Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore is a strong candidate for biggest rip off in the watch industry."
Yes, there is.
Kind regards,
Jos.