Originally Posted by pj7

Aha!, the post by deputyjones finally made it click in my mind what I was trying to say, and in a clear enough tone to be understood. so here goes my best and making my point, and a small one it is, clear.
You are asking here if people are advocating VC. So someone who sees the title, comes in, makes their vote, and makes their comments. Sure they see your definition, but they do not expect it to differ from what they have previously learned when regarding VC.
For instance. I clicked on the sub form, saw the post asking if I advocate VC. In my mind I sequence thru the following:
* What is vc?
* Oh yeah, it's that thing that John Forester pushes and teaches.
* Do I agree with him?
* Well let's see, here is what I have learned from him.
* ...... .......... ... ..... ..... .
So then I enter the poll, I see you defining VC. well, since I already know what it is, after all, the father of it already told me, I decide not to read your post because, well, because I don't expect you to redefine it. After all, why should you have?
I make my vote.
Then I post a comment and begin reading some bickering and wot not. Some of it makes sense, some of it is like "woah, wtf is bvc? something about my blood alcahol level? oh well, nevermind", and I go on with life.

So what do we end up with? A poll with baseless votes and alot of bickering in the thread because you decided to exercise your right to redefine a term (which I do dispute your right to redifine an existing term) instead of explaining from the get go that what you are asking is if people agree to advocating YOUR INTERPETATION of an existing technique.

Please, is that more clear? It's the best I can do... sorry.