OK r3m0t and others,
I can see we’re not really going to agree on the use of the MILD method, so maybe we should agree to disagree?
However if we could agree on the use of the two seperate terms (WBTB and WBTS) I really think that this could help to clarify the differences ( as percieved by the different parties) between the methods and help to avoid confusion.
It’s a simple compromise and everyone would benefit from it.
What do you reckon?
Nick.
OK, you can keep believing and I’ll keep believing. 
Differentiating short and long WBTB is fine with me. We’ll need to make a sort of announcement briefly describing why we thought it should be made. With luck it’ll be adopted. If not, well, we’ll have to carry on using our “good enough” terminology (which has done us quite well for a few years 
).
Personally, I can say that I wasn’t too confused as a beginner about the difference between WBTB and MILD or WILD, I mean the breif but accurate descriptions come with a mouse-over. I find WBTB most useful when I get up and either read this site, or write down ideas about lucid dreaming, like goals and stuff. Anyway, I don’t think there is a problem with acronyms for this stuff, since it is described in greater detail in other places.
Although I’ve only just skimmed this topic through, I don’t see why it matters. I think that we are just nit picking and that more methods only serve to create confusion and undesided desitions for newbies.
When you lucid dream, you MUST vary the method to suit YOU. Basic methods should be told as they are, but then variations given afterwards. Maybe with new acronyms, as suggested here.
People should be made aware that it has variations. WILD is a perfect example for this. There are so many WILD variants.
No, where does it say to get out of bed 
It should be WGOOBGBTBGTS! (Wake Get Out Of Bed Go Back To Bed Go To Sleep) 
Lol.
I agree here as well. Stop being over critical about r3m0t. This obsession of trying to make r3m0t look as though he is wrong is silly. Opinions cannot be wrong. 
I also think that creating a new topic was only ment to attract the forum’s attension unesssasarly. Although, I am not here to judge.
I think that a new acronym should be made, but I don’t think many people will use it.
No, it’s just as worthy as any other thread.
There seems to be a confusion here between variations and methods. Two methods, obviously, should be basically different (unlike two variations). However, where exactly to draw the line is a personal opinion (affected by the people we talk to). For example, people used to call (before my time, or maybe on alt.dreams.lucid) MILD, reality checks, lucid living all DILD - dream induced lucid dream. After all, when these techniques are successful you have a lucid dream stemming from a non-lucid one, unlike WILD. There is no “DILD technique”. (Happily, I don’t see this acronym used much now. I think it is a pointless distinction.)
Well, funnily enough there is no “WILD technique”. Yet people’s occasional attempts to seperate it into CILD (counting) etc have apparently failed. I wonder why?
No, I think you’re the one being paranoid here. (What an unusual occurence!)
Opinions cannot be… hmm. Whatever. 
It already has, sort of. They already aren’t, sort of. So are people going to push for it to be in the acronyms list, etc, or not? Is somebody going to write a press release about it or not? (Don’t ask me; I’m not interested.)
Yes. Maybe such a line should be voted upon.
As I said, I am not here to judge Certainly, although I did judge it’s not my job
Paraniod! Maybe 
Although my first impressions of this topic were that people were taking sides and arguing against each other. I don’t think it is fair to regard people’s own opinions as “wrong.” Maybe that’s just my opinion Lol.
By all means, make a new acronym. Maybe their should be variation and method boundary guidelines too.