Oogie and TesTeq, it seems you miss the intense discussions we had a week ago and wish to reignite them. OK, I'll indulge you, if only briefly. It seemed for a while that the rest of us had deemed those critical debates counterproductive.
You apparently did not notice (or did not bother to recognize) that in my
post that you quoted I brought up two new interesting subjects that we have not discussed before, that would both be worthy of a discussion (IMO). I brought them up in a totally non-confrontational way, and they both even hold a potential for contibuting to some reconciliation of our differences. But there has been no comment on either of those two "worthy" subjects.
Instead, you focus on the opening statement, which was a reply to Longstreet's post just before it. You may perhaps recall (do you?) that in the old discussion (a week or so ago) it became clear that Longstreet is very conscious about what his system is called, which I am not. So we both knew we had a different attitude in that respect, and it did not seem worth much additional discussion, so when Longstreet suddenly made his "happy" statement about his GTD conformity in such a very friendly way, meaning no confrontation (I believe) I wanted to point out to him in an equally friendly and non-confrontational way that he does not really need to care so much about what his system is called. And, as a matter of fact, as the debate has shown, including in its quotes of DA, it has become quite clear and strongly emphasized that GTD is not a fixed system, but - I hope I am quoting correctly - a "framework", "guidelines" etc that you shape to your own needs. So if we are talking assessment of conformity, obviously I am aware that my system is very, very GTD both in the super-flexible sense that "it works for me, hence GTD" and in my own, stricter, personal mind even in its details (why on earth do you think I like GTD?), BUT I have no objective assessment of how somebody else (e.g. you two, or DA) might judge it. For example, I have always avoided dates to the furthest extent possible, and that has also been the very clear message that I have personally understood from DA from the very start, but I hear from these discussions that some seem to consider scheduling to have been an integral part of GTD even from 2001. In other words, people interpret the same text totally differently. There is no fixed norm against which to assess the GTD conformity of someone's practice, and that "problem" is exacerbated by statements such as "anything that works is GTD".
Regarding "FTD", well, TesTeq, let me inform you that "anything that is good in this world is Folkeism". You even have my blessing for doing it! Feel free to do whatever you want that is good for you and the world. It's canonical Folkeism.
On a more serious note, my own personal view on GTD is that David Allen has made the first good summary (careful selection, compilation, analysis) of well-proven common-sense everyday practices of its kind. He deserves great credit (and income) for his great work. I recommend GTD to anyone who is asking for such advice. I don't think I myself will read any more of his books, though, for the same reason that I would not bother to re-read my math books from school or the latest versions of those. A percent is a percent is a percent. But I might if I get wind of something totally new and "revolutionary" in them.
TesTeq, my "successful outcome" with these debates, besides having a bit of fun, is to see if we can identify anything that is uniquely GTD to communicate to the rest of the world in a simple form, in particular to people who are already structured and orderly, but perhaps not in the most optimal way. Most of GTD seems to be aimed at people who come from a more "disorderly" background, who have to learn, from scratch, that things need to be written down, out of your head, organized, in a trusted system etc. It is very good that GTD exists for them (although perhaps it is a bit too complicated, I don't know, for someone like that). But very many people are way beyond that stage. The merits of writing things down in a trustable way etc is self-evident and second-nature to these people, but they/we may still be constanly looking for way to hone and streamline their system by using the very best ideas. The very best may or may not be part of GTD. It could also be part of something else, and perhaps tally with GTD. Or perhaps be totally different, but I doubt whether that is possible. This is why I think the question of what is uniquely GTD is interesting.
I hope that satisfies your inquiry.
