Interesting -
Profitaker: Sorry, you misunderstood - I wasn't arguing with you, simply pointing out that whilst it does take a lot of 'got it right' calls to prove a hypothesis to be right, you only have to show it's wrong ONCE to disprove it. Hence the hypothesis 'writers have the edge' would appear to be disproved, and I was inviting Soc to perhaps reconsider explaining it.... because I accept I am fallible, might well have it all wrong, and would welcome being granted what would (presumably) be a deeper understanding. Should he choose not to then obviously I'll tend to think this was a flawed strategy....
What's fascinating is that the anti-Soc movement seem to think I am supporting Soc, while CYOF is (as usual, see quote) spitting feathers about my being against the chap... somebody here must be wrong <G>
What's 'my like' then CYOF? If you'd like to read my post I said 'I think Soc got it wrong, I don't see the logic in holding these positions against the market, I would welcome an explanation of how it made sense'. I also was polite about it, have twice said that Soc is actually much nicer than his T2W posts would suggest (in the distant hope that some of the aggro might be reduced so sensible discussion could occur) and agreed that whilst I'd like to see this I fully accept it would be Soc's choice to do so.
What is it that offends you in that - the fact I appear to consider the margin issue to be a significant problem that cries out for explanation? The way to show that I'm too stupid to understand the answer is to tell me the answer, then see if I understand it...
Profitaker: Sorry, you misunderstood - I wasn't arguing with you, simply pointing out that whilst it does take a lot of 'got it right' calls to prove a hypothesis to be right, you only have to show it's wrong ONCE to disprove it. Hence the hypothesis 'writers have the edge' would appear to be disproved, and I was inviting Soc to perhaps reconsider explaining it.... because I accept I am fallible, might well have it all wrong, and would welcome being granted what would (presumably) be a deeper understanding. Should he choose not to then obviously I'll tend to think this was a flawed strategy....
One thing is for sure - and that is you know your like really well
What a load of rubbish, really, for someone that appears to have been around a while you would think that you would have a small bit of Cop On - but as you said yourself
What's fascinating is that the anti-Soc movement seem to think I am supporting Soc, while CYOF is (as usual, see quote) spitting feathers about my being against the chap... somebody here must be wrong <G>
What's 'my like' then CYOF? If you'd like to read my post I said 'I think Soc got it wrong, I don't see the logic in holding these positions against the market, I would welcome an explanation of how it made sense'. I also was polite about it, have twice said that Soc is actually much nicer than his T2W posts would suggest (in the distant hope that some of the aggro might be reduced so sensible discussion could occur) and agreed that whilst I'd like to see this I fully accept it would be Soc's choice to do so.
What is it that offends you in that - the fact I appear to consider the margin issue to be a significant problem that cries out for explanation? The way to show that I'm too stupid to understand the answer is to tell me the answer, then see if I understand it...