[r-t] Unclassified (Was: ?CCBR meeting - Methcom, proposals)

[Richard Smith]

Ted Steele wrote:

> Perhaps classify these as Freestyle.

Why?  What purpose does such a class serve that's not 
served by leaving them unclassified?  We shouldn't be 
inventing classifications unless they have a clear purpose.

Saying it's not currently classified makes its status very 
clear.  We're simply saying it doesn't fit cleanly into the 
most commonly rung classes of methods.  We're not expressing 
disapproval and pretending it doesn't exist, nor are we 
trying to shoehorn it into an arbitrary or inappropriate 
classes.

Introducing a Freestyle class seems to be an attempt to 
cling to the old ideology that all methods must be 
classifiable, however far-fetched that classification may 
be.  Certainly it's better than the current muddle of 
Differential Little Hybrids and so on, but it's still not a 
useful class.

RAS