I believe you misunderstand my point. But first, if I write "x ONLY does/achieves Y," I mean that literally. I mean what I write, and, as DW often writes, words have specific meanings. So, I should assume, rather than people mean what they write, that they DON'T mean what they write? And I should somehow know what they actually intended to mean, rather than reading the actual words and the meaning thereof?
Here is I was responding to: "is still, and nothing but, a justification for lower quality. And one that is rooted in and informed by the 'factory mentality"...by definition." It is that statement I find to be inegalitarian.
I am not sure what he was referring to there either but I do try to be careful in the words I choose and the way I string them together.
Of course, I'm not anywhere close to perfect in that regard but I do stand by what I said. Including my assertion that I don't care whether it is inegalitarian or not.
As testudo aubreii mentioned...or implied...whether something is egalitarian or not is not any better a determiner of quality than patina. Look at my sig--it says it all. Quality and the search for excellence is not subject to political correctness. I don' t have much truck with such woo-woo (IMO) considerations.
On the other hand I don't see how your "interpretation" follows my remark. You want to see it as a dismissing of personal preferences, priorities etc. But on the face of it, and in context, it is really, and always has been, about objective quality. Period. Nothing else.
It is what it is.
edited for punctuation and clarity
Edited by DWFII - 2/28/16 at 9:01am