> >Since Pc
> >is a design process doesn't there need to be ongoing design for it to
> >exist. Results are not Pc and the techniques are not Pc.
>
> Might just be my predilections here, but these semantic issues seem silly
> to me. It's all close enough for me to be PC.
Ah... that gets to the heart of it. With a relaxed definition of Pc we
might view others as purists and feel more comfortable workng with
industrial ag. That would make me a purist.