I notice that Mr. Mendelson very meticulously sticks to defending Argentino's first claim mentioned in my #30 post, but studiously avoids the second Argentino claim. I doubt this is accidental.
What he is doing is using the past tense "Rob could have won" as a rationale to defend Argentino against "Rob is a liar and con man" statements. Mr. Mendelson completely ignores the more farfetched claim of Argentino's. The more farfetched claim is not that Argentino himself won, but that others can benefit and win using the Singer systems going forward.
Clearly, if dozens of people were to play the Singer systems, in aggregate, no amount of arguing "Rob could have won due to variance" means anything. The variance argument goes out of the window. Since consumer advocate reporters should, one would hope, care more about con men affecting others than about con men's biographical claims, the more important question in this debate is not whether "Did Rob win?" The more important question concerning the welfare of others is, "Do the Singer systems work for an aggregate of players using them, or is it a bad idea and a con?"
Mr. Mendelson, possibly by design, does not address any questions about an aggregate of others using the Singer systems.
Since he does not read my posts, would someone else be good enough to ask him why he avoids "Singer's" second claim so carefully? And does he really think it's a good idea to defend Singer systems since other people in aggregate may use them based on what Mr. Mendelson argues?
The main question isn't "Is Argentino a bad man and a con artist for his bio stories?" The main question is "Can Argentino be considered a bad man and con artist for saying that the systems will work for others, with the others being plural?" Mr. Mendelson, a former consumer reporter, is very, very careful to avoid the second question.
Reply With Quote