Hi Carsten Dominik writes: > The important point I would like to make here is that for all > intents and purposes, Org-mode *is* taskpaper! Here is what I think: Carsten *is* Clint! This was a very well planned, long prepared, identity-shifting and, indeed, very nasty April's joke. I'm reminded on the philosopher Paul Riccoer, who stated that words cease to be controlled by the speaker as soon as he writes them down and, thereby, makes them subject to interpretation. I think I was the first one to bring up the issue of complexity in the org/taskpaper thread. I never wanted to complain about this. In fact, I like it that way, because coping with complexity creates new ideas from time to time, even for a simple user. Since I use Org-mode (for more than a year now) I have learned many new features that I would miss very much, the table editor being one of them. I deem it an absolutely meaningful feature within a task management system, since it allows one to store a certain type of "reference material" (as David Allen would term it) directly in connection with associated projects. Great! I didn't take a look at the new ++ schedules and, so far, have no idea what they are for. But sooner or later I will come across a posting in this list, that will produce a new idea how this feature could make my life a little more easy. I'm sure about that. This is how a non-geek like myself makes use of complexity: slowly growing into it. And this is one of the main reasons why I read this list. By the way, I don't think that many newcomers are terrified by the complexity of Org-mode. Who -- as a non-geek newbee -- reads through the code and notices its complexity at all? They hear of it by a short howto on the web, download the package and start using it according to the howto. Gradually, as they read more and more pages of the manual, they become acquainted with the more subtle functions. Am I right? Thanks a lot for creating Org-mode Sven