Oh sorry, I thought it was pretty clear because you did only reply to one sentence I wrote.
I disagree with this:
That's actually a very big difference Paul !
and the rest of the paragraph was indeed what you were asking of. The why.
Until this part:
I'm not trying to dampen your enthusiasm though and this is really just me uhh..."trying" to clarify concepts from my perspective and not so much directly criticizing Forster. (Plus I've said much harsher words elsewhere in the forum about AutoFocus so hopefully even if we disagree, you won't think I'm being insincere or trying to hijack the heart of the topic.)
which I said basically to prevent any sort of implication of this:
if you think it's rubbish, that's fine, that's good even!
Personally I had hoped that the length of time of my posting here is enough proof that if I think a system is rubbish, it's rubbish to me and I don't hold back on my explanation.
Unfortunately my previous explanation isn't good enough to prove that I understand not only the system but where you are coming from which I was hoping it would.
But I honestly dont understand the content of either of your posts.
The "intent" of my post was to highlight a weakness of a system (from my perspective) by providing the reasons why.
Edit: Actually this was more the intent of my 2nd post. My first post, I felt that if I did this it would only come off as an attack so I weighed in the value of sharing a software that could easily be Superfocus but for a computer and at the same time I felt by explaining why, I could also imply what the system's weaknesses are. Of course, worst case scenario, I was hoping that even if someone disagreed at least they may get a software referral out of it but I really under-estimated my explanation. I thought I didn't need to expand or if I did, it wouldn't be from the perspective of someone who doesn't understand the system as, again, I thought I added enough of an explanation.
Because just as much as a productivity system that works for someone can stand on it's own, a productivity system that is lacking or could be improved or is flawed - could hurt someone. That's why I try to present a perspective that may not have a high percentage of being presented in case there are readers that might not have considered that factor.
In reality though, it's not that grand of an intent. We do this all the time with software. If a certain software is lacking, do we not provide an alternative software link to the best of our knowledge. Similarly if a software has a feature that did it first, and that feature while novel is not as effective, do we not save people the trouble of trying out a software first by warning them of things so that they can put it into context.
Again though, all this hinges on the idea that my previous reply is evidence that I understand and am expanding. If I am unable to deliver that (which right now I'm not able to) then there's really no way for me deliver this intent.
this is nothing todo with values, this is a system
Oh right, when I meant values here, I don't mean something explicitly concrete. I just mean perspectives.
If you perceive a name change as something helpful for example then that name change is major where as I'm coming from a perspective of it being a wording and a wording from my perspective is not that different of a system from say something like what app did for her software.
It's kind of like some people seeing colors in their folders as something that helps in their productivity and is a system in itself while other people may see the color of a folder as merely aesthetic.