BWS: Since somebody has to play the straight man here . . . there is no best/worst, no right/wrong, no good/bad which exists independent of the standards against which it is judged. Put another way, valuation is not intrinsic. That holds true in EVERYTHING, including, gentle reader, objects referred to by the word symbols "compact tractors." Unless you are willing to define a standard against which the object may be judged, there IS no best tractor of 2002. I realize most people hold valuation as implied or assumed rather than explicit, and, by psychological projection, assume that valuation in others. So . . . what might be some set of values/standards against which we can judge "the best tractor of 2002" for Mr. BWS? Anyone care to participate? I will start it out. My standards are anticipated longevity (including parts availability), ease of maint, build quality, production history (how long has this engine/drive train been in production), simplicity of design and flexibility of use. Secondary standards, such as operator ergonomics, are somewhat more subjective. So, folks, how about it? How about, dear reader, listing your objective standards which we may use to try and judge "the best tractor of 2002" for Mr. BWS? Happy Holidays to you all. John
