Oh I don't mean a formal conversation. They normally end in tears anyway! What I meant was more the sort of on-going questioning of all those false assumptions about 2mm that still endure. The best way to challenge them is to produce brilliant models - but there are also some specific issues that need to be tackled - track standards is a good example. I also don't think we've fully solved the coupling problem either - I don't find the Dapols that great. I think things like colouring and landscape techniques are worthy of further exploration - some of those larger scale techniques have yet to come fully across, and some are different anyway, for example is static grass useable and worth it in N? Or are there better ways?
There still seems to be a big unexplored area in terms of *how* we scale things down. One beef of mine is that many N gaugers still try to cram too much in - a misunderstanding of the spatial advantages we have, IMHO. In particular, the gains that can be had by *not* compressing distances. The incorrect proportions between the length and width of many models is more glaring than many realise. Or at least it is when you start avoiding doing it and see the benefits - which *is* a realistic proposition in 2mm. I think a greater realisation of how things scale to 2mm would help - one still sees things that are more grossly over scale in 2mm than in the larger scales - for obvious reasons, but it could do with tackling as an issue.
Then there is the lack of awareness of anything that even vaguely resembles real railway practice seen on many models - probably a consequence of the toy mentality again... I could go on!
All I really meant was something equivalent to the discussion that has gradually moved standards higher in the larger scales, but the majority seem content not to have it.