I found this to be a bit of a tease. Bottom line - you need something
more than English to describe complex systems. For sure. But I would
have liked more real exploration and less debunking of the "lies for
laymen" (which he called "19th. hole conversations").
Now taking it in the context of VPEC-T, there are of course parallels.
In VPEC-T we have defined some major concepts around which to
organize, but we don't have a language as such. We have some nouns, we
don't have any verbs in VPEC-T itself - not that that is a problem
necessarily. The verb set might be pretty simple. The verb set might
be an individual practitioner's private tool box, a verb set might be
a group best practice set. We don't have a syntax, nor do we have a
grammar (I challenge anyone to describe VPEC-T in BNF). By the way, I
also challenge the need to create a BNF definition of it. We would
have to introduce too much else, I fear and that would lessen its
Ok, back to the bird cage....