[...]
Just because you've developed the experience to manage the added
complexity of the decision-making, doesn't mean it isn't inherently
more complex than VFR decision making.

Now you are making the decisions in the air, not the go/no go.

Again, this is a semantic disagreement. However, it's my opinion that
throughout the flight, one is always making the decision of whether to
proceed. This is every bit as much a go/no-go decision as the one made
prior to takeoff, and I continue to call it a go/no-go decision.

Obviously your semantics are different, but you should know that not
everyone agrees or uses with your definitions.

As for the rest of your comments about minimums (I assume you're talking
about personal minimums, and not approach minimums), any minimums you can
apply to IFR flight, you can apply to VFR flight. Conversely, if you think
you have a fuzzy situation for VFR flight where it's impossible to apply a
strict minimum, that same kind of situation exists for IFR flight.

The two types of flight are only different with respect to the particulars.
They involve essentially the same kind of decision making, except that there
are more variables for IFR flight (which is what makes the decision more
complicated, IMHO).

The point you make about in-flight decision making may have been overlooked
throughout most of this thread, but it's an important one. I'd suggest
especially those of us who fly the longer legged beasts, where 4 hour enroute
legs might be not that unusual, that it's especially important to be alert
for things that move your flight into the 'do not continue' category. One that
may be overlooked too often (at least I have, more than once) is continuing
when the PIC shouldn't. It's easy to get really sleepy at 11 000 feet at night,
and most SELs at least will not take too kindly to the pilot nodding off.

AJW