I tried to do this late last night, but I got disconnected and went to bed, which, as it turns out, was just as well.

David Patent writes: "My post on the Ragozin site was no different in tone or message than what I put on this site (though it was admittedly shorter)."

Nonsense, David. Here it is:

"Len will almost surely not respond--which is entirely proper in my view. Please read my post, if you are interested, titled 'Jerry, Jerry, Jerry.' The fundamental difference between Rag and TG is that Rag figs are based on observable data from the times run and A BASIC ASSUMPTION [emphasis mine] that a track does not materially change over a 20-30 minute period absent some major intervention. As a result, a horse's pattern will sometimes look a little 'ragged' or ugly. TG believes that horses run in predictable and steady patterns and he will thus change the variant for a race in order to make the horses' patterns fit his beliefs about what he thought they have run in that race. One thing I did not add in my post on the TG site concerning the turf races was that I'll bet a good meteorologist, physicist, or chemist could verify that the rate of evaporation over a 2-3 hour period between the 5th and 10th races could not significantly affect the firmness of the ground. This would invalidate Jerry's figures for the 5th and 7th races."

The only thing that is invalidated, David, is the above statement, which you made to HP.

Patent writes: "...my preference is to use factual data for my variant as opposed to one's personal assumptions..."

What about the huge assumption Ragozin makes: that track speed doesn't change unless he can see the reason for the change. Isn't that all-knowing and altogether immodest? He doesn't take soil samples, does he (or should that be He)? Why don't you take the next step and claim that Ragozin doesn't permit the track to change speed unless it gives advanced, visible warning? And don't forget to track down that meteorologist to invalidate JB's figures. Did you actually write that, David? Talk about patent Patent crap.

Patent writes: "...as usual from the TG gang, instead of choosing to engage me on the facts or on handicapping theory, you just fire a bunch of personal attacks."

Ask Jake when he's going to apologize for calling me a liar. Ask Plever, who is a demented cowardly punk, when he's going to apologize for preposterously saying that I made public his private email. Ask Cory, who used to work for Ragozin, when he's going to apologize for saying he knew several people who knew me personally (a total lie) and disliked me (impossible, I am reliably told). Ask Howard Dennis, a former Ragozin employee, to explain his latest post on The Derby List (link on the Rags site). And while you're at it, be sure to tell him that Ragozin uses the projection method. Quite a gang you have there, David.

The numbers part of your posts reminds me of that basketball commercial with Larry Bird calling his shot in a game of Horse: "Over the building, off the billboard, through the tunnel, into the Atlantic Ocean, across, up, off Big Ben, nothing but net." Yeah, David, they all bounced. They were all sore. They all hated the distance. They all hated the grass. They all hated soft turf. They all had that Ragozin filly pattern that no one but you has ever heard of. It happened. All of it happened. It had to have happened. Ragozin said it happened. Nothing but net.

Let me leave you with a question, David: When choosing between competing explanations for an event, do you habitually choose the one that is more complicated?