I have been wrong, and the "APs" have been right. Sometimes events can be reduced to easy mathematical constructs that are infinitely more useful than stating opinions. For example, rather than argue with kewlJ in perpetuity, I think it'll be of value to people to propose a rather obvious axiom I call The Kewlj Theorem. It goes something like this:
The degree to which the kewlJ narrative makes sense is inversely proportional to the multiplication of a reader's time spent in Las Vegas by the amounts a reader has wagered in Las Vegas.
I don't think it's any great mystery as to why the people who have spent the most time and wagered the most in Las Vegas believe kewlJ the least. But now we have a theorem that can be referred to by name whenever the subject arises.
There is another lesson here as well. My non-fiction writing professors always preached that a failure to convince by a writer is mainly a failure of the writer, not the readers. So when nobody is convinced by thousands of posts, the problem is likely not with the readers or their ability to judge evidence. The primary failure lies squarely on the person doing the writing. Assuming for a moment that the KewlJ is not lying, it's a horrible failure of self-presentation. Listing Singer, Todd, MDawg, myself, and Axelwolf -- that is one widely varying array of people with damn little in common except time spent in Las Vegas, money wagered in Las Vegas, and a lot of eye-rolling regarding the KewlJ tales of adventure and woe.
