On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 1:43 PM, frank zubek <email@example.com> wrote:
> You guys can all see, the subject the misunderstandings the confusions are > still going on strong now Alan was labeled as the sharpest of guys and I'll > agree, but than apparently he is wrong also, so who a hell understands > synergetics, and why to go through so much trouble when I can do EVERYTHING > they claim to be original I can do it with the good old cube that we are > all familiar with, no conversions, no constant, no aproximations, just > guick precise, accurate account, of the lowest common denominator for all > the structures, and Fuller has nothing absolutely nothing, all his work is > obsolete, well but you be the judge. > > frank >
You should really stick to what you know Frank, since there's so much you can do.
Some of us in this world happen to be interested in exploring a branch in math where area and volume, 2nd and 3rd powering, are modeled in a different way.
It's actually not a requirement that alternatives be "useful" to be "interesting" but I would argue there's even some utility in using the whole number volumes set (e.g. rhombic dodecahedron of volume 6), complete with Jitterbug Transformation and all the rest of it. I'm not the only one who thinks so.
So uou should leave us in peace to enjoy our sandbox and to recruit new talent.
If there's something we're doing that's an outright mistake, that's different from just exploring an alternative.
You oscillate between two positions.
If it looks like you're losing the argument that what we're doing is mistaken, then you fall back on how you can do everything we can do too. Skis are just as good as snowboards. Apples are just as good as oranges.
That's a different argument.
When do we get to the part where you admit we're not mistaken and you just leave us alone because you feel superior in your ways?
Anything I can do to accelerate when that day comes?
Recruit for your team all you want, but without deliberately spreading misinformation? Can you do that?