I think what one can take away from the messages you quoted, is that
there are always AT LEAST two different methods for achieving any
goal, and probably many more than just two.
It’s important to remember that, in spite of all the postings on
this forum that purport to be the ONLY way to approach tasks, the
multiplicity of procedures is what makes it possible for everyone on
this forum to make their work, THE WAY THEY WANT TO MAKE IT.
There is no right way to make our stuff, and the only wrong way is
the way that doesn’t achieve our goals.
The best postings here that answer questions that have been asked,
and there are so many good and experienced voices who respond to
those questions, are those answers posted without prejudice or bias.
I can think of so many who respond with presented
generously, clearly and in depth (Peter, Gerald, Sessin, Andy,
Elaine, Charles, Alan, Cindy, and so many more), sharing expertise
gained through years and perhaps decades of working in our field.
As far as those voices that have been silent on the forum, that have
absented themselves from Orchid, perhaps they’re just still lurking,
receiving and reading the digest, without feeling the need to
participate actively. When the subjects that interest them come
around again, maybe they’ll jump right in again.
I am grateful for all those voices over the years that have shared
knowledge and I’m also grateful for those voices that have expressed
a lack of knowledge (that takes courage) and asked questions,
sometimes questions that I share with them. I’m grateful for those
voices that ask questions or answer questions re: new techniques,
materials, and skills. This is a community that knows that every new
or radical process or material eventually will prove itself useful
or useless and only time and practice will prove either. And I’m
especially grateful for Orchid, for the platform where all those
voices can be heard without fear of being ridiculed or silenced;
where can be shared that helps to keep our field alive.