Wow,

I don't recommend anyone reading the below again word of word. It's too fragmented and lacks a theme other than "I don't like TGJB and Thorograph".

Sometimes you just have to step back and distill why everyone is up in arms. The reason is this:

Jimbo66 had the audacity to propose a study or a contest of sorts comparing Rags to TFigs. Thats it!!! I have no real bone to pick in that fight, but I'd like to see the study.

They don't want to engage in the kind of activity of course. It would probably kill them, so they resort to pulling out 10 year old documents and pawning them off as somehow relevent to the present accuracy considerations of Jimbo's proposal.

But thats not enough. Jimbo66's proposal gathers some steam so then they feel they have to smear him in regard to the form of the proposal. Heck, for all I know he can't even get the administrator there to issue him a i.d. I know they won't issue me one. Now they say Jimbo's proposal lacks merit because he isn't particularly concerned about a lawsuit no one knows anything about.

Well I know one thing, Frivilous lawsuits can result in huge penalties. So the Ragheads can all root for a frivilous lawsuit I suppose.

That doesnt make proposing comparison of Figure accuracy unethical does it? Thats a rhetorical question.

Is all this other stuff crazy men or what?

razzle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> " 1-- Len, you got it wrong, again. Jimbo made
> clear that he was using
> Beyerguy's log-in, and why, in his first post on
> YOUR board. "
>
> I regret how harsh this sounds, but I thought
> Jimbo got exactly what his posts, on both boards,
> deserved. Actually,
> the"name calling" you object to started with
> Jimbo(pigs, etc). Until
> recently, I've enjoyed Jimbo's posts, as I've
> mentioned to you. However,
> when he says he supervises 100 programmers but
> can't manage to figure out
> how to get a password on the Rags BB, or find
> Len's post, I have to wonder?
> Then come his posts of "outrage" at the Rags BB
> comment on TGJB's legal
> dispute with Chris. Isn't he at least a little
> curious about Derby1592's
> position? Didn't he form any sense of Chris'
> character in all of this time?
> Those issues cast a pall on the sincerity of all
> of his posts, and certainly
> on the seemingly feigned objectivity of his
> comments regarding studies that
> compared the two products.
>
> Isn't it odd that there's hardly a word of
> support here for
> Derby1592? He was one of the most revered posters
> on this board(he was my
> personal favorite here, though there are several I
> enjoy reading). One day
> he's guest ROTW analyst, the next day, anathema.
> What
> kind of "lock-step" mentality exists here? Isn't
> sp curious about this
> sudden turn-around of fortunes, especially since
> he elaborates on his
> perception of JJ's. I don't expect you to give
> legal positions/information,
> nor to give air-time here to a defendant in your
> law suit, but the axe does
> seem to fall more swiftly, completely, and
> menacingly here than the simple
> guillotine over there.
>
> "You guys are still around because I am a better
> person than you are."
>
> Are you suggesting that somehow, on this board,
> that kind of statement
> stands as a fact-based methodology comment?
>
> "despite giving you a huge head start, "
>
> For you, TGJB, and all others who may wonder at
> how some of the
> controversial posts originate, speaking only for
> myself, that statement is what prompts most of the
>
> jabs I poke at TGJB. On this BB, readers would
> be led to believe the
> implied intellectual distortion that TGJB,
> Pittsburgh Phil, Buddy Abadie and
> Donaldson(or whoever else is convenient to the
> position that dilutes TGJB's
> reliance on Ragozin for his beginnings in this
> business) put together a
> consortium that generated this whole vision of
> single number,
> effort-pattern, variant-based assessments of
> probabilities(that has inter-track reliabilty) as
> an approach to handicapping. TGJB makes it sound
> as though he trained the Ragozins, and even
> generously gave them a head start in the
> business!
>
> TGJB's approach has it's advocates, and likely has
> it's own merits, it's
> just not as portrayed on this board. I like
> downloading the ROTW here, and
> reviewing the analytical comment. I value the
> support for cleaning up the sport. I listened to
> the Expo audio. I applaud the business success of
> entrepreneurs, including TGJB. However, if you've
> read Ragozins' book, or listened to the tapes, you
> already know Friedman clearly acknowledges his
> humble beginnings in this business as a student of
> Len Ragozin. That whole piece is glaringly absent
> over here. The absence of that humility, honesty
> and integrity is the substance of my objections
> here, and many of my posts, and predisposes me to
> doubt TGJB and favor Chris in wondering about what
> happened with Derby1592.
>
> I don't know if this will stay up or not. But, if
> it does, I ask that you, as readers, please make
> your best objective attempt to glean the essence
> of what I am saying here, then see if TGJB
> responds in a way which shows that he acknowledges
> an understanding of what I have said(I don't
> expect any agreement from him, just enough of a
> response to show the capacity for acknowledgement
> of anothers' point of view).
>
>
>
>
>