I may have read too much into what you initially said.

Yes, I think so. I read Greg's post and did *not* infer what you did.

I think that Greg's use of the word "truly" was unfortunate, and
misled you into
thinking he was saying something that he didn't intend. His primary
point was
simply that the difference between Bortle Class 1 and Class 2 is *not*
due
to light pollution, but rather to local variations in transparency. In
other words,
a Bortle Class 1 site is simply a Bortle Class 2 site on a good night.

That sounds right to me. Many other people have said or implied the
same.
Does anybody disagree?

On your other two points, David, I think it's possible to take some
action.
Your claims a

1. The Bortle scale has too many levels.
2. The criteria within a scale are inconsistent.

The first point, I think, is partly a matter of taste and partly a
matter of
experience. It's very hard to criticize the Bortle scale on those
grounds
unless you've *habitually* observed at each of the levels, and
concluded,
in essence, "oh, the difference between level x and x+1 isn't really
important." And frankly, I don't think that *anybody* has ever
observed
consistently and habitually at all the different levels of light
pollution.
Why would they? Nobody goes out of his or her way to observe in
light pollution *worse* than what they've got at their own homes.

On the second point, I heartily agree. For instance, the business
about telescopes being invisible is just plain wrong. Yes, that
can easily happen in the eastern U.S., where people observe
in clearings in the forest, and you see the scopes with dark trees
in the background. But in the desert, the light of the Milky Way
is ample to highlight telescopes and people against the brightly
lit ground. Likewise, I'm quite sure that I'll never see M33
naked-eye no matter where I go.

But the fact is, it's very easy to criticize the Bortle Scale. But
when
you actually try to substitute a different one, you start to realize
just how much hard work went into it, and how hard it is to do
better. And since it is, for better or worse, widely used, I'd like
to propose that instead of throwing it away, we attempt to
preserve the categories but improve on the way they are
defined. That's something that I don't think any single person
can do, for the reasons I've stated above. But it does seem
possible as a collective enterprise. Among the entire internet
amateur-astro community, we have the knowledge and ability
to come up with a really consistent scale.

- Tony Flanders