I'll address the bold above.
Your attempt to quote the third rule of the fundamental four is flawed. The rule reads "Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you've made the CONSCIOUS decision to fire". When I field strip my Glocks, I point them at something I AM willing to destroy, and I make the CONSCIOUS decision to fire/pull the trigger. That being said, You can field strip your Glock without pulling the trigger.
My "approach" is not "my way or the highway". My approach is "support your side or reserve judgement." Whether you believe in what I post or not makes no difference to me. All I ask is that you(anyone and everyone) think about what you do and why you do it. Justify the gear, guns, tactics, matches, disciplines etc to yourself and no one else.
I wasn't quoting the fundamental four. I was referring to your statement earlier: "finger on trigger when not firing is wrong, end of story".
Well, finger on trigger when not firing is not wrong, end of story...finger on trigger when not pointed at something you wouldn't miss is wrong, end of story.
That is why I say, if this were someone else, I wouldn't point out the error. But your habit of talking as though there is one approach, and that approach is your approach, and people who do not see things your way are wrong, makes it more appealing to point this stuff out.
What I am doing here is applying your level of critique witnessed in the Magpul thread, to your posts. I know what you are trying to say...of course. But if we take you at your word 100% of the time, then no, a lot of what you say does not actually work.
I agree that the only valid critique of technique is one based on facts and experience...but the reality is that if you applied the stringent approach to your own information that you do to others', you would recognize a lot of errors.
Like the "finger on the trigger when not firing is wrong, end of story" thing. No, there are times when you can have your finger on the trigger and not be firing. What IS true is that you should be treating the gun as something with the POTENTIAL TO fire.
But that is a different statement, and although I know that's what you meant, that is not what you said.
I therefore conclude that IF you think your posts should all be treated as though they are factually correct, you should probably be looking more closely at what you post.