That and a lack of careful reading without looking for inuindo or inference.I am may be sorry but let me stick my nose in this. I have heard these same arguments on other sites. They always reduce me to wondering if there is just a limit to how far dialogue can go on the internet. Both sides make reasonable articulate points, and, if you just look at the meaning of the words themselves, there is only a marginal nuanced difference of opinion. The real argument seems to be going on with some unseen third party who someone has dealt with somewhere else. This third party may have shown up on a cable news opinion piece or perhaps at someone's local town hall meeting or maybe he is someone's shiftless cousin, but he is not either of the gentlemen in this conversation. Yet when the arguments stray is usually in response to this unseen third party. The actual gentlemen in this conversation do not whine, make alibis or excuses for failure. Neither do they fail to face reality, gloss over the special challenges of a school like Tech, act like all schools have the same curriculum or pretend that we are still recruiting in 1954. Both gentlemen want excellence, both want it sooner rather than later and both want the athletic department to pay the price to see that that happens. Beyond that there are some real but nevertheless subtle differences that probably have to do with temperament, level of optimism and patience levels more than anything else. The rest is just semantics, in my opinion.