Obviously you didn't read very closely. I think alarms starting going off in your head as soon as you saw something that was possibly a criticism of Dan and you lost all focus on what I was trying to ask in your rush to defend him.
It is you who did not read closely. You clearly asked what we thought about your post and thus your thoughts, and I answered directly and completely. Your claim that I "rushed to defend" Dan is quite interesting. I notice you didn't try to state any kind of basis for such an absurd claim. Probably a good idea since there isn't one.
However, failure to substantiate such asinine statements tend to make one look very dishonest. Don't think we didn't notice. Let me explain further. It is very clear by your first post that you were not "attacking" Dan, you even went so far as to state the obvious for us. You then stated your own silly thoughts about Dan's diversity being a problem and asked for our thoughts on them. My response was just that. (Brief summary: The idea you've thrown out is baseless and silly) Very simple. How you managed to miss something so obvious as this and then respond with this wild accusation and babble about imaginary "alarm bells" and my "defending Dan" is beyond me. Intriguing.
All I was asking is if you ever worried about this.
And now you have your answer, don't you? As you can see by reading this thread, noone is the least bit "worried" about this - in fact the phenomenon that you are worrying about is the very thing that draws the rest of us to Dan and his many different works of art.
If you thought it was possible that this could happen.
Yes, and I covered this very clearly. Again, I believe you are tripping yourself up in thinking this thing about Dan's "focus." Your thoughts are purely imaginary and have nothing to do with reality. Dan is not sacrificing quality for quantity and variety. What Dan does best is found in his diversity whereas this may not be the case with other artists. Read my last post again. It's all there, and I hope I don't have to repeat myself a third time.
I never claimed this was what I thought was in fact the case. I said sometimes I wonder if it is.
So what?
Regardless of if you "think" this is the case or "wonder" if this is the case (oh boy) The responses you get to the general idea would be the same, wouldn't they?
If there is a certain point where an artist starts spreading himself too thin and if Dan has reached this point. Obviously, you don't think so, which is fine.
Obviously I do not, correct. What was so difficult to comprehend about this, again?
I also throw out other possibilities as you can see in the bold.
You're essentially offering the polar opposite to what you originally suggested. What you have in bold more lends itself to the post I made, don't you think?
Also, notice the 'I don't know' part.
It's a shame you didn't know before, but at least now you do.
