> Wells was way above James in quality

In all of my twelve years on this godforsaken site, i had never had the displeasure of reading something more wrong; it actually transcends being wrong and, as Pauli would put it, it's not even wrong.

I may see it, but perhaps a more descriptive opinion of yours backed up with actual shades from your own viewpoint will provide a better trust with your comment. Sure, sometimes words cannot explain a thought, but effort may at least spread a few light rays on it supporting during discoveries. What do you think? Why do you, personally, disagree with someone's else opinion highlighting the whole 12 years of your experience of communication...

It's not even a pair of authors I'd have considered comparing in a "who's higher-quality" way. It's like comparing Spielberg and Aronofsky or something, as one being "way above" the other "in quality". I dunno, man... maybe? But I dunno. Pretty sure you can make it look like either one's way better than the other by picking your framing of "best", and in several different ways.