Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 9101582" data-attributes="member: 2525">It sure seemed like &quot;optimizer&quot; has serious overlap with what you're calling &quot;munchkin&quot; right?I posted that graphic, not you. And I said &quot;I think they said thy increased the threshold but it's a vague memory and I am not sure&quot; to make it utterly clear I am not sure. And now, without quoting that part, you re-posted the graphic and claimed somehow the graphic I posted doesn't support the comment I made, which I never claimed it did, and claimed I am making a &quot;what if scenario&quot; out of it, which I never did. Why did you just do that?Did they? Show me proof of that. That graphic isn't showing weighting, it was my vague comment about it remember?No they don't. You have not in any way established they even exist, much less are bad or need to be weighted. That's the entire thing we've been discussing and now you're just asserting it's all as you say and must be adjusted for?There isn't any indication of weighting yet either, right?Yes and that view is as valid as any other view. You are arguing there is some reasons to &quot;weight&quot; or adjust for that view - with no justification behind your argument. It's absolutely a valid perspective, and should be equally represented in any decisions as any other view. Why is YOUR view more valid than the view you're describing? You have yet to show why this is somehow an inherently bad view for anything, You're just asserting it and then declaring it to be so.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 9101582, member: 2525"] It sure seemed like "optimizer" has serious overlap with what you're calling "munchkin" right? I posted that graphic, not you. And I said "I think they said thy increased the threshold but it's a vague memory and I am not sure" to make it utterly clear I am not sure. And now, without quoting that part, you re-posted the graphic and claimed somehow the graphic I posted doesn't support the comment I made, which I never claimed it did, and claimed I am making a "what if scenario" out of it, which I never did. Why did you just do that? Did they? Show me proof of that. That graphic isn't showing weighting, it was my vague comment about it remember? No they don't. You have not in any way established they even exist, much less are bad or need to be weighted. That's the entire thing we've been discussing and now you're just asserting it's all as you say and must be adjusted for? There isn't any indication of weighting yet either, right? Yes and that view is as valid as any other view. You are arguing there is some reasons to "weight" or adjust for that view - with no justification behind your argument. It's absolutely a valid perspective, and should be equally represented in any decisions as any other view. Why is YOUR view more valid than the view you're describing? You have yet to show why this is somehow an inherently bad view for anything, You're just asserting it and then declaring it to be so. [/QUOTE]

Verification