Well I thought that was pretty clear... as my teacher used to say... it's all Aikido. One and the same. This "my style, your style, our style" thing is not only divisive, but irrelevant. Everybody does things differently, but at its heart, it is one and the same Aikido.
What Dan's saying is that the comparison should not be of form and style, but whether your aiki-do is strong or weak in comparison. If you were to remove "aikido" all together, is what you know good enough to hold water?
Well clearly what's clear to one isn't to another. I'm glad you got it though since you're able to point out what now seems
a bit more obvious to me. I think I just get a little too microscopic and literal-minded sometimes. The rest of his post made sense to me; it was just the idea that "there's one Aikido" (the proper noun instead of the generic term threw me) that I remembered being confused by the first time I read it. Apparently I wasn't the only one. I was just hoping something more than "you don't get it" would be offered to explain it.
So Dan was saying whatever you're doing, you need to compare it with others in terms of effectiveness, while Stefan was saying it's pointless to compare certain approaches at all?
As an aside, i don't think it's divisive to compare styles/approaches unless we make it so. I've personally found it useful.