> Consequently it is void of meaning to say that each idea is judged on its
> own merits. While it may be true, it is largely irrelevant, for the
> following reasons: (1) If the idea is judged on its merit, you can be
> virtually certain that its merit has not been understood, so what is
> happening is that a mistake is piled on top of a misunderstanding.
> Multiply this event by tens or hundreds, and you can see that the use of
> GroupSystems in complex situations is dysfunctional (2) With complex
> situations (and this is a pronouncement, uncorrupted by demonstrable
> evidence) it is very often true that whatever effective communication
> occurs from the initial reception of an idea is at least partly due to
> what others have experienced in communicating with the author of the idea,
> because they have some understanding of how that author applies the
> English language in conversations.
Methinks, John, that you have little or no experience with GroupSystems,
or the class of problems to which it is successfully applied. It is
used, generally, to address problems that are simply too vast to admit
to analytical reasoning.
Are you suggesting that "judging an idea on merit" is inherently false,
and that "merit has not been understood" is a necessary condition? If
so, then either you're using the English language in a unique way, or
no problem is ever admissible to solution...unless, of course, you're
saying that every idea is inherently misunderstood, but practically
applicable.
--
Carol Anne Ogdin "If we fixed a hangnail the way our
Deep Woods Technology, Inc. government fixed the economy, we'd
CAOgdin @ DeepWoods.com slam a car door on it."
--Cullen Hightower