Ok, i thought i understood cladistics (i've read faqs-a-plenty, and thought it all made intuitive sense) but i'm pretty sure that i'm missing something because i'm really lost in the argument. I mean, i don't see where the argument is? What makes a strong cladist different from anyone who beleives in naming-based-on-evolutionary-relationships, for example? Ken Kinman referred to researcher's becoming frustrated with Phylocode... frustrated just for the stretching out of the traditional ranks, or is it something else that i missed?
Or am i misunderstanding the argument - is it a debate between those who like the traditional ranks of kingdom-phylum-order etc.. and those who couldn't care less about them? (as opposed to a debate over wether or not cladograms are too angular looking (yes, im sure that one line just made me look like a complete fool, but if so that just illustrates my non-understanding of where the argument is, and hopefully will inspire someone to clear it up for me more vehemently than otherwise). Because i would tentatively venture that calling it a debate over "cladism" in that case might be the wrong word to use, if cladism in principle isn't being disputed?