> Further, it appears to me that any one person isn't necessarily going to
> convince another person that his or her methods are superior, and cause t=
hem
> to convert.

> With that said, it seems logical (IMHO) to say that we all agree to
> disagree, and leave it at that. =A0 There has been much discussion with v=
ery
> little forward motion as I see it, so why not call it a draw, and move on=
 to
> something else?

I'm afraid that that makes no sense to me wrt finding out about
something different/.
.
A small but significant body of people have indicated a willingness to
hear about new ideas and to be able to try them for themselves.
These people are NOT trying to disagree, so agreeing to disagree makes no s=
ense.

While we  could all make up our own versions of a more minimalist
commenting style, Vitaliy reports a truly revolutionary variation in
what is traditional lore and general experience and what he finds
workable. One comment per 100 lines is so different  from the norm as
to be paradigm breaking.

What is lacking is a description of what exactly this new system is.
Within the one  post that I quoted we find 4 people trying to explain
what they have heard - and all differ. What is required is not
something to disagree ABOUT but enough details to agree on.

Inquiring minds want to know. No?

                    R

-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist