Posted by Ben C on 02/18/07 20:57

On 2007-02-18, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <53r6mrF1tlmj5U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Bergamot <bergamot@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>> >
>> > I am not saying it is not a good thing to practice and improve,
>> > especially if it is an activity someone enjoys, just that what you
>> > said was over optimistic.
>>
>> Some innate talent is always a plus, of course, and as with anything
>> else I suppose there are some people will never "get it". So I'll
>> revise my belief slightly: with enough study and practice, just about
>> anyone can become skilled in CSS. It will just take longer for some
>> than others. It still requires effort, regardless.
>
> OK, let me just again add a rider to the "skilled". Skilled in a
> workmanlike way is often possible. But there is something else, I am
> not sure if I am getting this idea across: touch, mastery, a bit of
> elegance. If you want a stark quite closely related analogy, listen to
> a very industrious indefatigable taker of piano lessons for 20 years
> who was not born with a certain natural sense of touch. Compare it
> with someone who has it but has had nowhere near the experience. The
> latter might be very imperfect but has the ability to bring a lump in
> the throat in certain passages of a sensitive listener. It is not a
> matter of magic or anything, it is plain to see all around us in every
> field, including the one that is the subject of this ng.

There is a spectrum though, which has being able to tie one's own
shoelaces at one end and playing the piano at the other. CSS is
somewhere in between, and if most of the people who want and need to use
it can't then it's probably too difficult.

It's not to say that you can't always go one better in mastery and
elegance- you can with almost anything-- but it's not necessary. With
piano playing it is.

[Back to original message]