Extrapolating from "it worked for Craigslist" to "it will work for us" is highly naive. If someone showed up to a meeting and said, "let's do like Craigslist" and totally ignored all the ways that our business is very different from craigslist I'd be sceptical too.

Who said anything about "extrapolating from 'it worked for Craigslist'"? I didn't say "Some of us have been trying to get our bosses to copy Craigslist for years!" What I said was that some of use have been aware of such principles for years, and telling others about them. One hopes that sharing such principles would involve applying them properly, rather than naively trying to copy someone else's formula.

Do you just dislike Craigslist, and thus hate anything related to it -- including its principles of success and anyone who happens to be aware of some of those principles?

I, for one, have never told anyone "You should base your business model on Craigslist's model!" but I have said "You should probably simplify your business model. I have some suggestions."

Why sad? That's more opportunity for those of us who do take notice.

Do you not find the notion that humanity is full of ignoramuses "sad"?

Gaining advantage because the rest of the market is populated by idiots doesn't make it any less sad that everyone out there is an idiot.

Instead of assuming everyone is idiots, try assuming you need to gather more convincing evidence to support your ideas. It might not be more correct but it will probably be more productive.

These two concepts -- that many people are ignoramuses, and that more convincing evidence might help -- are not exclusive of each other.

No, but the assumption of the ignorance of others as the reason you can't reach them is passive whilst the drive to provide better evidence to convince people is active. Sitting back and saying I've got what you need but you can't understand is not going to move you forward. Pushing on to a position of greater clarity and persuasion will usually help in convincing not only the as-yet-unconvinced but also win more mindshare with the convinced.

[Was that generic enough?!]

I don't see where you get the impression that I'm advocating for (solely) taking your "passive" approach, either. Against what, exactly, are you arguing? Is there something I actually said to which you object? Are you assuming for some reason that the fact I said something is proof that I advocate everyone doing nothing but sitting around saying the same thing? I even agreed that providing more convincing evidence could be helpful, indicating that trying to come up with that evidence is a good idea! What's up with your attempts to cast everything I say as opposition to that?

I was remarking, rather than arguing. More of an expansion of my interpretation of the GP's post. Note that I start "no" as agreement that the two things are not exclusive.

[I think if we're not on the same page then we're at least in the same Dewey classification.]

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.