Re: Theory: Gigabet\'s \"bands\" and \"The Finch Formula\" Grand Unificati
[ QUOTE ]
Atticus, this assumption (or theory) doesn't make sense at all, unless you assume people way too frequently play to survive in a winner-take-all, which they clearly do not, or at least not more than they "play to survive" in a ring game. I don't know how you come up with these assumptions.
[/ QUOTE ]
They're not assumptions, they're theories. Big difference.
[ QUOTE ]
There are more very problematic assumptions that you make in your recent posts, but I won't adress them, since obviously you don't seem to welcome criticism.
[/ QUOTE ]
Once again, they are theories, not assumptions. I have stated multiple times that they require testing. At the present I only suspect them to be true. Testing may well prove me wrong.
I welcome constructive criticism. Your comments qualify, for the most part. I don't, however, welcome flames which add nothing to the discussion.
The trouble with most of the criticism I've received in this thread is that it's not useful at this point, because it mischaracterizes what I am saying. I have an idea. A theory. Instead of telling me all the reasons why my "methods" are wrong, when I haven't even begun to employ any methods other than brainstorming, simply is not useful.
Instead, tell my why my idea is wrong. That would be very helpful.
|