He has indeed opened this can of worms all by himself, and as one say, extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.You started your post by quoting nickvc - you then (in reply to the quote from Nick) posted -------
Nick did not post "a method" he posted basic/general information
So - what method are you talking about that you have "nearly" completed ???
Per the bold print (above quote) --- please do elaborate - otherwise all you are doing is making a claim backed up by absolutely nothing
Really ? --- I find it interesting that on the very first day you join this forum & in your first post the first thing you do is tell us that we are ---- stuck in our way - we immediately shoot down ideas - refuse to push further into the unknown - & have reached a level of comfort with your own expensive and dated methods.
That seems to me to be an awful BIG assumption on your part - considering you come here telling us you have come up with ------------
But you give no explanation to these - "new ways" - that are - "indeed better in every way possible"
What makes you think we are not open to this - "new way" ????
We haven't even heard what it is yet ????
And yet you start by telling us that we are closed minded
IMO - not a good way to introduce yourself &/or to introduce us to this knew way
But that's ok - I (at least) am open to hearing about it
BUT - then you NEED to be prepared to discuss this in absolute detail --- for the way in which you have introduced yourself has placed the burden of proof fully & squarely on you
In other words -----------
Per the bold print --- this will not do !!! - you will NEED to provide absolute details AND be prepared to answer questions that we will most likely (certainly) be asking
Kurt
I for one, do not hold my breath.
Edit, added a comma.