Looking for a theatre director

Well, I see my attempt to gallantly save you from stepping willingly into the line of fire has failed. Had you agreed with the alternative premise I proposed, that my comments were aimed generally, you might have been considered an innocent victim of friendly fire. But you obviously consider yourself, and admit to being, a target. Prepare to duck! I have just re-read my second post. And yes, it is obvious that I was ANSWERING you personally. I entirely admit that that was what I was trying to do. No shame there. I looked hard at the first two lines of that post. I can see your logic. My rhetorical question implies you have missed an important piece of the argument (i.e. that I believe it is entirely valid for a Melbourne producer to advertise Australia-wide for a director, regardless of how 'inconvenient' some of the readership may think it.) No insults yet, though. And you were correct that my second sentence about 'demonstrating limited vision' could, ergo, endow you personally with such an attribute. But ONLY if you agreed to disagree with my first statement (let's take the logic seriously, here.) So it was NOT personally referring to you UNLESS you volunteered yourself to take up an opposing position, which I had already warned would put you in the category of people I consider to have limited vision. You obviously chose to wear this label...! And after all, I literally understood the brunt of your argument to be promoting a state-location filter...something that limits what you see on this website...reducing (or limiting) the information you read to your state only... Was that not your vision? Literally, a limiting vision..? So I should have been simpler, neglected to make the parallel connection with the Arts scene in Perth that tends to do the same thing, and simply said "You are demonstrating limited vision". Where you are continually WRONG is that you are implying that I am INSULTING you with this statement. I don't consider any of what I wrote to be an insult. I believe I was stating facts, derived from reading statements you have written in this thread. I have never placed a value-judgement, good or bad, on the category of people I defined as having limited vision, other than to point out that they opposed the arguments I was trying to promote. Again, YOU are the one who is taking this out of proportion and CHOOSING to feel insulted. That, in a way, is demonstrating another type of limited vision. The only two personal statements I made in that 2nd post were that I thought you came across as belligerent in a previous post, and that I thought you were starting to embarrass yourself. Sorry if you took that advice as insulting...but does anyone now think I was wrong? As to the second part of the argument, to be honest I don't know much about the auditions sections or the productions section, so I'm prepared to admit I may have been completely on the wrong track. This conversation thread didn't come up in that section for me, it came up in the 'All Recent Posts' forum, which is the only one I really read. As far as I know I get everything from everywhere there, it never bothers me, and I don't want it to be limited in any way. It seemed perfectly reasonable that the Melbourne person should ask for a director there, that's where this thread started for me, hence I joined in. You are now talking about elements that are unfamiliar to me. It may seem extremely relevant to you in those other sections, but you started the argument in THIS section, and I simply had to disagree with you. And the tag-on bit about marketing ('the more difficult you make it for the average punter to access your product the greater the chance of failure') might be perfectly reasonable if you were talking about a business selling a product...but we're not. In this context, it's more like an employer looking for employees (volunteer or not; in the Arts market that's irrelevant) where there is a huge glut of desperate artists looking for limited opportunities. This Melbourne producer was making it EASIER for the average 'punter' (not the right word, but I'm using it in your above context) to access his opportunity, by making it known to as wide a selection as possible...so surely by your above definition, the greater chance of his success? It's not a valid argument to say "Oh, because he advertised the position nation-wide, there's less chance I will get it because of all the competition" - because if he had not advertised nation-wide there would have been NO chance you'd have heard of it. And I think it is wrong to blame the advertiser of a position (shooting the messenger) simply because the reader of the message doesn't find it relevant to him/her. That's YOUR problem. Sure, it might be more convenient to have the state information plastered high in the title banner, but it was SO ludicrously easy to look up where the venue was that, again, that argument blows me away with its pettiness. It sounds like you are expecting all messages to be filtered to say "Wanted: someone exactly like you, for a role you were born to play, looking exactly like you do, living exactly where you live, wanting to work exactly where you want to work...etc, etc". Sorry, but the arts industry has never operated like that. Come to think of it, the general job market never has, either. It struck me as extremely odd and belligerent to start this argument expecting things to be otherwise. So in conclusion; I believe you are proved wrong in assuming I have insulted you. You are responsible for your response, not me. Should I be insulted by your incorrect accusation: "You meant to and did directly and personally throw more than one insult my way"..? It's okay, I choose not to be. See you on the 14th. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------