Originally Posted by
redietz
This has turned out the way every single person said it would.
This has been a silly exercise. If a lottery player touting a system produced tax returns proving he/she won money IN THE PAST, how is that "slamming the door in critics' faces?" It's not.
Rob, why don't you spell out exactly how the use of transcripts will enable arci to fool Alan? That's what you're saying here. Exactly how would the obfuscation work? I'm asking because I have read all of your responses, and you do not spell it out or present a theory of how he would fool anybody.
This isn't you versus arci. This is you versus credibility. If you're going to tout a system on someone else's forum. and the system cannot be shown mathematically to work (and it can't), then what you are left with is demonstrating that at least it worked FOR YOU FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. But you can't even do that.
No math prove. You seem to trust Alan, but would prefer not giving him historical evidence.
Let's stop spinning this as Rob vs. arci and start calling it Rob vs. Alan. Does that motivate Rob to send in income tax evidence or does it simply enable him to categorize Alan as a "critic" who is therefore unworthy of seeing any evidence?
Personally, I think this is all silly. If Rob lost for five or seven years before his 10 years of winning, how or why do the losing years not count? Because he was wearing a blue shirt rather than a gray one?