I am afraid that open dialogue on this topic which would illuminate and perhaps clarify the errors of Calendar reform zeal is not possible.
There has been a whole lot of dialogue on this topic, very detailed and at times excruciating, over the course of at least 10 years. Just the content of this thread in its entirety is an example of such dialogue. But you have to read it.
... inappropriate to answer personal attacks against myself which contain such flourishes as "you lack the necessary skills to discuss this topic" and "Old Calendarist zealot,"
The words in quotes are close to what I've written but are not properly quotes of what I wrote and, consequently, do not adequately reflect my position.
Your last comments were addressed, rebutted and set aside.
My comments did not reject your proposal, so why set them aside?
While the supposed 54 years of adjustment to correct the calendar seems difficult for some, it is a natural transition which avoids schism ... by preserving the Calendar adopted at Nicea. It preserves the liturgical Communion of the churches with the historical Church (the Catholic reality of the Church Militant) and avoids the pitfalls of being condemned for introducing schismatic innovations. It also allows local churches an irenic time of transition which will prevent unnecessary scandals and divisions. Those factors all in themselves warrant the gradual transition as being a better solution than what has been done with its ridiculous time travel and schismatic methodology.
If the old calendar folks accept this gradual fix over ~ 52 years, I'm all for it. There was no "Calendar adopted at Nicea" but the proposal to gradually correct the Julian calendar to bring it in line with what is attributed to Nicea is on the mark. One then continues to correct the Julian Paschalion as needed to kept the computus stabilized to what is accepted by all as the proper determination of Pascha. As stated:
Leap years can be added or subtracted to suit the needs of the time (or astronomical calculation)
That (and the moon phases) fixes the defective Julian Paschalion. The result then after the ~ 52 years is basically the Gregorian or Meletian calendar and paschalion or the methodology proposed at Aleppo.
So the old calendar adherents can believe that they've preserved their Julian Paschalion against the perpetrators of schism etc., but they will have managed to end up at basically the same place and accepting the same necessary adjustments, but in an ad hoc fashion, that were accomplished ~400 years ago by Pope Gregory's reform.
So what is one to conclude?: The "schismatic innovation" is acceptable as long as it's done over a sufficiently long period of time and it's still called the Julian calendar.