It's July 12, 2026, 09:12:38 AM
Not sure what you're trying to say here dude, but I'll take a guess: Are you saying that the same way we differ on 'creative', we also differ on 'fall off' — so whether Quik's fallen off is just a matter of definition? That's different than what you said though - you amputated the analogy and stapled a flat assertion onto it: "DJ Quik hasn't" lol. But I'll waive the missing connective tissue and grant you the benefit of the argument... just so I can tell you why it's still problematic lol. Your whole position rests on the claim that "fall off" and "creative" are definition-dependent... That I'm just using idiosyncratic definitions, and under a different (equally valid) definition, Quik is innovating rather than declining. That's a relativist move dude: it's all in how you define the terms.But then your actual statement — "DJ Quik hasn't [fallen off]" — is stated as a flat, objective fact. The contradiction is staring everyone in the face: if our whole disagreement genuinely reduces to differing definitions, then you have no more standing to assert "he hasn't fallen off" than I do to assert "he has." Relativism about the term cuts both ways my man. You can't say "this is purely a matter of definition" and then, in the same breath, declare one side of the definitional divide to be the true one. If it's definitional, there's no fact of the matter to assert; if there's a fact of the matter to assert, then it isn't merely definitional.So you wanna have it both ways: use definitional relativism to neutralize my claim, then quietly abandon that relativism to plant a flag of your own. Logic doesn't work that way dude lol.
Sigh! Allow me to retort, Dj Quik has not fallen off as a producer. You can disagree; it isn't that deep.