but those two facts were supposed to be put together to argue that Beno being ranked #31 on that list should not be considered an argument. I was being sarcastic in that their was no talent differential between #19 and #31. Saying that Beno is ranked #31 in PER is exactly like saying that John Hollinger, a statistician for ESPN.com who never played pro ball, sees Beno as the #31 point guard in the NBA.
PER is a combination of statisics that validifies Hollinger's basketball theory - for when he tuned his formula, he tuned for his own preferences. That is not to say that Hollinger is a bad statistician, it is just that he is a bad basketball analyst, which is hidden by the fact that most people don't know statistics well enough to call his bluff (ie, didn't pay some fancy-pants professor several grand to tell them some crap about it).
That being said, justifying PER by listing eight point guards approved by it is like saying "these are the eight best point guards according to John Hollinger." Whoop-tee-doo. I preferred Section's arguments because he provided the raw numbers, and allowed us to draw our own conclusions based on them. If I value steals and assists versus points and rebounds, I can draw my own conclusions, rather than entrust this mystical formula that is actually some bad black magic when you read the book on it and see what's going on. Without the backing of ESPN, PER wouldn't matter. And I don't think anybody wants me beginning a tirade against traditional media, no matter how much fun they are.

That said, your assertion that

is absolutely correct. Bringing in PER to argue these points would be absolutely foolish though. Would we really compare Shawes to Wilcox and say they have the same value because their PER is both 12.4? No.

The thing about Beno is his relative experience (he's basically a rookie), his mileage versus his likely age-of-retire (a shooting, passing guard of his size will stay in his primes till he's 33), his skill and maturity as well as philosophy (kid was on the Spurs, and says all the right things), whether he'll aid in the development of our young players (we need him if we're ever going to define Douby in the next year and a half), whether he fits in well with our system (crisp passing? check. good shooting? check. creative-with-the-ball? check. zealous defense? che..oh.), and whether he'll get better with more experience (his improvement so far suggests yes).

All of these were ignored in your first argument, and your defense afterwards was weak. I can understand not wanting Beno for the future, that is no less than my arbitrary for my want of him (or 3-Will) for the future. But to attack him off-handedly without an appreciation for the game by using misplaced statistics ain't the smartest way to convinve me otherwise. Bring up the question, they are good questions, just careful with your argumentation. My statement that your arguments are fallacious and sensational ties to your arguing that we should focus on his early wins-losses and statistics when he is readjusting his playing time. That shows a misunderstanding of the extremely precarious balance between point guard, coach and team (look at what's going on in NJ with Harris and all the attention being paid to him fitting in - even though he's been playing well enough individually). The W/Les focus was also extreme, much weirdness was going on there, not the least of which had to do with the Artest/Theus dynamic.  

Also, this is my second time typing this out cuz I hit the wrong button, so feel free to respond if I left something out.

Till you get it.