Well heck, I was going to log in again to give you credit for starting a new thread, so I figure I may as well post a real post.
A) Good idea for a new thread. Â That’s good moderatin’.
B) Ok, you quote the Canadian Shield paper which says, “The basic move is this”. Â Doesn’t that imply immediately that there are other ways to do it as opposed to the move only being a script? Â
More importantly, doesn’t the paper go on to detail many variations of the basic move? Â So that’s not a script, that a discussion with a starting description of the basic concept. Â It’s weird that you’re trying to split this semantic hair. Â Must be the influence of that darn post-modernism…
C) You write “You are not likely to admit error.”  1) Like you are?  I admire your undaunted self-righteousness in the face of evidence to the contrary.  2) In fact, this may be one of the ways we are most different.  In the link Squirecam posted you can see that I give him credit for several points and say that I’m going to go back and work on a couple of concepts.  We were having a good debate (though later on in our history we did get a little raucus.  Heh  :-D).
You, on the other hand, have a track record of starting debates off like a knob. Â And I quote: “What this idiot who wrote this paper misses when he advocates the 3 tranny build…” Â
See http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=5719.msg85316#msg85316
I don’t usually push back hard on folks, but when you’re both wrong AND obnoxious it tends to get my dander up. Â I tend to try and look for things to give people credit for (evidenced in a vatiety of threads), you tend to look for things to call people idiots.
I guess you must feel like you’re succeeding.