> It’s kinda hard to fix a problem that’s user-generated. "User generated problems" sounds like a clear personal attack on me.
> the real issues you are having are occurring on another > level that exists outside of any program "Nothing person"?! SRhyse if you cant see that you are attacking me personally there is no point in continuing this otherwise constructive dialogue. > I was addressing the issues you brought forth to the > best of your ability to articulate them You are implying that you did not understand how I articulated them, which is probably true. > move tasks between them however you’d like. Yes, of course, it's POSSIBLE in MLO to move tasks between lists but I have yet to find an easy, efficient way of doing so when dealing with hundreds of tasks in the system. > not possible to use MLO for GTD No. Again you misunderstand me. Of course it's POSSIBLE to do GTD in MLO. One of the strengths of GTD is that it is about principles and you could do GTD with a stick writing on sand on the seashore of you wanted to, but it wouldn't be very efficient. In fact, you would be much better off using paper. And using pen and paper is where I have several times been driven to. Note for anyone who hasn't tried it, paper is a surprisingly good way to do GTD and builds sound GTD habits. But the whole point of MLO is that it needs to overall work BETTER than paper. But the objective fact remains that I have come across a number of users outside of the hallowed grounds of this forum have frequently described MLO as requiring a number of "silly workarounds" in order to execute GTD _efficiently_. For example, since you push me, GTDNext.com was born out if this exact frustration by an MLO user. My central point is that given that GTD is one of the major if not THE major task & time management method on the planet, that MLO really needs to work better - particularly when users have several hundred tasks on the go - and do so with fewer "silly workarounds". I know that despite some support from other MLO users (e.g. Richard C and [tentatively] Dwight) for the ability to add custom fields, it still appears to be a battle that has been lost. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/mylifeorganized/john$20smith$20tags$20someday%7Csort:date/mylifeorganized/aHvLaU7lGuE/mGJf0W5JAwAJ Either way like I said above I am - like most GTD users - not attempting to execute a purist version of GTD, just something that I find usable given the constraints that I have taken to trouble to list. > As Dwight outlined to you, other than color coding > things—which may or may not be possible right now, > I have no idea—MLO already does seemingly all of what > you just outlined to me in your post to me, said post > seemingly having nothing to do with the post you made > prior about “GTD Lists. I have read that sentence three times now but whether or not it is grammatically valid, I only have a vague sense of what you are trying to communicate. OK, SRhyse I think we're done here. No more war of words. If you choose to attack me again it shall find something better to do with my time than respond. Dwight, calm & rational as ever, was good enough to address my issues constructively and I am road-testing his suggestions. They are clearly workarounds, and there are some unintending consequences but maybe I can live with them. Inspired by both Dwight, and New Year zeal, yesterday I decided to start again from scratch and I looked at all the default templates that MLO supplies to see if any of the suggested ways of doing GTD would work reasonably efficiently for me (or any other user with large numbers of tasks). Some of the suggested conventions in the templates have been quite useful. However, in the absence of a field for status MLO's templates are using MOVING of tasks to change status. This becomes works brilliantly with small numbers of tasks but becomes very clunky once one has hundreds of task as lots of scrolling becomes necessary. So I am back to Dwight suggestion of conflating Context with Status. Although I tried it several months ago I can't now recall quite what the issues were, and although it's messy, with a few subtle tweaks, I may be able to live with it this time around. Enough! So, thank you again Dwight. I shall revert once I have added more data. J On Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 3:11:34 AM UTC, SRhyse wrote: > > Hi John, > > I made no personal attack on you, I was addressing the issues you brought > forth to the best of your ability to articulate them over what’s now been > around a 4 year period. Namely, you saying that it was not possible to use > MLO for GTD, and your repeated claims about its inability to handle “GTD > Lists.” Your post to me here has completely ignored all of that in its > entirety, instead changing the goalposts to different things and calling me > hysterical for responding to you. Which is as odd as it is fine. But the > ever changing and obscure nature of your issues in any other context would > reveal that the real issues you are having are occurring on another level > that exists outside of any program, which is what my post was about, and > what this new posting is about. > > As Dwight outlined to you, other than color coding things—which may or may > not be possible right now, I have no idea—MLO already does seemingly all of > what you just outlined to me in your post to me, said post seemingly having > nothing to do with the post you made prior about “GTD Lists.” I feel like > many people have spent a good deal of time trying to tell you that from the > beginning. No one is batting down constructive suggestions here, though > there has been a lot of time spent trying to understand what it is you’ve > been going on about for 4 years now. There’s been a lot of attempts to mine > constructive suggestions from you that have thus far borne no fruit. > > I am not insulting or attacking you John. Nor do I think MLO is perfect > and should remain forever unchanged. I would love it if MLO did all manner > of things it currently doesn’t. I’ve suggested many things I’d like it to > do myself. I was and am genuinely reaching out to you in hopes you might > end your multi year quest to do ambiguous things unknown, and maybe help > you out of the rabbit hole you’ve found yourself dug into. > > If not, enjoy your stay, and Happy New Year. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MyLifeOrganized" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/50eae174-3dd7-4074-b577-c68599156822%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
