different approaches
Posted by John Vidale on February 18, 2003 at 21:25:09:

Petra,

I guess we each take our own approach.

This is different than mine:
"But the element which I believe is still missing in this thread is the fact that this theory was put to use right here. It had success, even at the hands of a layman named Don in creepy town and it did work. So the existence of fact that it does work already exists right here. Are those cold facts hard to uncover?"

In my crowd, the assumption is that if I can't convince you, then I don't really know what I'm talking about. Here, the assumption is if one feels it deeply enough, one is on the right track.

It makes this an interesting place.

John


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: different approaches - Petra Challus  22:38:35 - 2/18/2003  (18068)  (1)
        ● practicality - John Vidale  23:18:14 - 2/18/2003  (18069)  (1)
           ● Re: practicality - Canie  12:04:37 - 2/19/2003  (18080)  (1)
              ● Geoforecaster - chris in suburbia  13:44:56 - 2/20/2003  (18088)  (1)
                 ● correlations - John Vidale  14:48:32 - 2/20/2003  (18089)  (2)
                    ● Re: Scoring - Canie  23:00:41 - 2/20/2003  (18092)  (1)
                       ● automatic hits from loose scoring - John Vidale  06:38:58 - 2/21/2003  (18096)  (0)
                    ● I meant only geoF, not Don's work - John Vidale  15:11:31 - 2/20/2003  (18090)  (1)
                       ● Re: I meant only geoF, not Don's work - EQF  22:40:17 - 2/20/2003  (18091)  (0)