Heh. We can screw up anything...
It's what we do best.Originally Posted by Fuchs
The saving grace is that we argue and quibble with each other about how to do anything and everything. Thus for every foul up, somebody gets things right. That's only a '50% right' average but that's so far been ahead of most others most of the time...
And that quibble factor, really, is the basis for my concern with the theorists. More accurately with the potential for misapplication of their ideas. Actually, most of the theorists are smart enough to know that -- it's the acolytes and dedicated followers that miss the mark by insisting a particular method or theory will solve all problems. Those ideas might if they ever were implemented in the pure fashion but that will not happen. People will not apply theory as designed, they will interpolate and add their own fillips. That's really okay and whatever works for each person is great.
Read a lot, preferably from conflicting sources. Try ideas, preferably radical idea and develop your own methods. Accept things that work for you at the time and reject all the rest as extraneous. That's what Bumperplate says he's done and that's the way to go.
Most people do not adapt the pure operational methodology of others all that well but they will, if they exercise a bit of thought and initiative come up with solutions that are appropriate to the time and place. Some people like a pattern (some must have one -- they're generally dangerous...), some like to free flow, most mix the two approaches. Few will be able to apply 'rules' or precepts as they were intended. That's one reason we see so many discussions concerning Boyd and Warden.
Fuch's comment that better naming and adaptation is desirable is spot on not only on this score but on many others. It's the fanatics who insist on rigid adherence to the gospel of the Master who create problems.
Armed Forces trying to make Pattons from Pandas tend to breed particular problems in this regard...
Bookmarks