Forked thread: Treasure & Advancement Rates

[Lanefan]

I do know, though, the reason I brought up the nature of the modules. The Q thread suggests that the higher levels of the characters in the next round is evidence of Q/B's analysis being correct. There is also a strand of (perhaps not obvious) assumption in Q/B's analysis that the setup of a 1e tournament module is analogous to the setup of a 3e non-tournament module, or is representative of the norm for ongoing campaign play.

At least for the early days I'd suggest those modules may well have represented the campaign norm, as that's all there was to go by either to run them direct or to use as a framework for writing your own.

Sure. And that extra material takes time to accomplish, which is the point. Especially if you are making up for losing two levels of XP from a vampire's touch.

Time is not the issue here, to me at least. The issue is simply levels per adventure. Levels per session of play or per x-period-of-time in the game world are entirely different and probably unquantifyable beasts.

1e is not a rocket to 20th level if you follow the RAW, and the B/Q analysis doesn't actually demonstrate what the norms of 1e levelling were.

I think the original data showed that 1e could easily be a rocket from 1 to about 11 using RAW and if played with that in mind. After that it was designed to slow down, or to end, again depending on the play group.

Conversely, 3e was explicitly designed so that characters could level at the same rate throughout their adventuring career.

Again on a rocket from about 1 to 12, where it slows down slightly; only in 3e it is much harder than it is in 1e to drastically slow down the advancement and not break other parts of the game (wealth-by-level, some long adventure modules, etc.).

As the Lareth the Beautiful example demonstrates, it isn't always that easy by 1e RAW. In some cases, having the gold to train means taking it without getting XP for it (because you already have the XP to need it!). And it is not necessarily easy to go train and assume that the treasure will still be there for you afterwards.

If a party in my game ever tried that stunt there is no way on the Goddess' green Earth that treasure would still be there when they got back, if they got back.

Lan-"I'm a rocket man"-efan

 

[Bullgrit]

At least for the early days I'd suggest those modules may well have represented the campaign norm, as that's all there was to go by either to run them direct or to use as a framework for writing your own.

Note that the Temple of Elemental Evil was never a tournament module. Neither was the Drow series or Demonweb Pits. And the Giants series, though once used as a tournament module, was first designed for campaign play and was then published for campaign play.

I don't see how tournament complaints even enter into the discussion.

And since the argument about how much treasure and xp should the PCs get is still being debated, I guess *half* is still too much?

On the subject of training rules: here's something that I just discovered -- the Giants modules were published the year *before* the AD&D1 DMG. That is, these modules were written and produced before the training rules existed.

Bullgrit

 

[Raven Crowking]

Look at it this way. IF you agree that reasonable people may disagree about how easy or difficult it is to find the treasure, as Bullgrit agrees, and if you agree that Bullgrit's analysis "Pretty much can't" take into account training rules and similar mitigations to XP gained; i.e., that if you take training rules into account then "figuring the leveling rate is impossible" as Bullgrit contends, THEN you must decide if (A) it is reasonable to believe that factors like training rules, etc., must be taken into account to gain an accurate measure of expected levelling or (B) it is not reasonable to believe so.

IF, only IF, you believe that (B) is correct, does it make any sense to claim that (A) is, in effect, the visceral reaction of someone who is simply unwilling to face "facts".

You can accept that Bullgrit's conclusions are accurate without accepting that (B) is correct; suggesting that Bullgrit's conclusions are proven data requires that (A) be objectively untrue.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

On the subject of training rules: here's something that I just discovered -- the Giants modules were published the year *before* the AD&D1 DMG. That is, these modules were written and produced before the training rules existed.

The original printing and the reprint (G1-3 Against the Giants) both say:

Each lime they return to this base camp they may receive experience points benefits, if any, accruing to them because of the previous adventure. It may likewise be assumed that magic-users have their spell books hidden there.​

Because G1 was published before the DMG, it is not necessarily true that the training rules didn't exist...only that they were unpublished.

In any event, TSR didn't see a need to change Gary's wording from one printing to the next.


RC

 

[Lanefan]

Look at it this way. IF you agree that reasonable people may disagree about how easy or difficult it is to find the treasure, as Bullgrit agrees, and if you agree that Bullgrit's analysis "Pretty much can't" take into account training rules and similar mitigations to XP gained; i.e., that if you take training rules into account then "figuring the leveling rate is impossible" as Bullgrit contends, THEN you must decide if (A) it is reasonable to believe that factors like training rules, etc., must be taken into account to gain an accurate measure of expected levelling or (B) it is not reasonable to believe so.

IF, only IF, you believe that (B) is correct, does it make any sense to claim that (A) is, in effect, the visceral reaction of someone who is simply unwilling to face "facts".

You can accept that Bullgrit's conclusions are accurate without accepting that (B) is correct; suggesting that Bullgrit's conclusions are proven data requires that (A) be objectively untrue.

Which, at face value, puts us right back where this all started about 3 or 4 years ago: does by-RAW 1e level up as fast per adventure as by-RAW 3e (and-or by-RAW 4e now, it wasn't around then)?

I still think it does, or close, when compared to 3e. 4e beats them all sideways; the three H-series adventures, for example, are supposed to take you from 1-10 and no previous edition has expected characters to advance 3 or 4 levels in a single (non-mega) adventure.

Lan-"welcome to the church of fast-tracking level bumps"-efan

 

[Beginning of the End]

It is also possible, as Melan has done, to analyse the potential paths available in a module, and one can quickly see that the module can be completed while only recovering a fraction of the treasure.

So you're assuming that the 1E players will always skip content and the 3E players will always clear out the entire dungeon?

It is obviously true that WotC noted that some 3e players were not getting all of the treasure that was their due, so they changed things even further in 4e to ensure that this would not be the case.

I find it honestly disappointing that when someone asks about a specific, questionable claim that you're making that your response is to simply start talking about something else. That kind of shell-game is just a waste of everyone's time.

On the gaining of XPs:
For a 3e party to gain pretty much all the XPs in the offering, they have to overcome all of the encounter challenges. In 1e, they must do that and then find all of the loot as well.

But, as we've already established, varying these factors by any reasonable degree doesn't seem to have any truly meaningful effect on the general conclusions Bullgrit is making.

On the finding of loot:
3e parties, given enough time, can take 20 on their searches. With a good search score and time, nearly all treasure should be findable. The DCs would have to be very high for a group of PCs not to find it with taking 20. 1e had been criticized here for requiring a 'pixel-bitching' style of searching to find everything.

Ironically, this actually ends up correcting the numbers back towards matching Bullgrit's conclusions regarding PC wealth at a given level.

We can see from Bullgrit's data that roughly 75% of the AD&D XP available in these modules takes the form of treasure. Bearing that in mind...

If we assume that a 3E group faces 100% of the combat encounters and 100% of the treasure, then the numbers basically match Bullgrit's conclusions for 3E characters. (This, of course, is absurd. Characters playing through these modules typically won't achieve a 100% clear on a complex, I don't care what edition we're playing. But let's go with it.)

Now, let's assume that a 1E group does a 60% clear on treasure with a 100% clear on combat encounters. That means the 1st Edition group will net 70% of the available XP. This means that the group will be advancing slower than Bullgrit's "perfect clear" data indicates; but notice that instead of lagging 40% behind on treasure at a given level, the gap is actually much smaller.

Although, honestly, this is all pretty much . I've actually had the experience of running the same modules in both OD&D and D&D3 within mere days of each other. (And I've done it both ways: D&D3 modules run in OD&D; classic modules run in D&D3.) My experiences with AD&D are older than that, but I'm not really convinced that AD&D is so radically different from OD&D that it's going to make a huge difference here.

The paths taken through the adventure are simply not radically different between editions.

The reality is that there are not vast secret areas in most AD&D modules that are unlikely to be discovered by AD&D players. And the vast majority of the available treasure (particularly magic items) are either carried by the NPCs or laying out in plain sight.

There are exceptions to this. But, by the same token, I've had plenty of D&D3 groups fail to discover or recover major treasure hauls for all sorts of reasons (failing to search the right room, failing to recognize the value of the treasure, etc.).

There is also a lot about training times and gold that must be spent -- things that cannot usually be done in the middle of an adventure. Gygax also writes "Just because Neil Nimblefingers. Rogue of the Thieves' Guild, has managed to aqquire 1,251 experience points does NOT mean that she suddenly becomes Neil Nimblefingers the Footpad. The gaining of sufficient experience points is necessary to indicate that a character is eligible to gain a level of experience, but the actual award is a matter for you, the DM, to decide."

In the case of level draining monsters and effects, not only was there no saving throw (!), but the effect was permanent.

If these effects were sufficient to significantly affect the pace at which levels were acquired, however, you're then forced to acknowledge that AD&D characters were much more wealthy than their D&D3 counterparts and usually had access to far more magic than D&D3 characters.

But I'm guessing you're not willing to concede that, either.

::blink::

I never said anything about tournaments. My frame of reference (which may not have been obvious) was and is ongoing campaign play, where level advancement matters.

This seems to be Crowking's M.O. in these discussions. If talking about actual play isn't working he'll swap the conversation to tournament play; if tournament play isn't convenient he'll talk RAW; if RAW isn't convenient he'll talk about how things hypothetically played at Gygax's table. There might be something valid in all that if his point was that YMMV is the rule of the land when it comes to AD&D; but he doesn't seem to like it when people reach that conclusion, either. He has a deep, vested, and highly prejudiced need to dispute that D&D3 basically plays like pre-3E versions of the game.

In general, what I've seen here and in skimming over the older threads tends to confirm that Bullgrit's methodology is basically sound and the conclusion that leveling and wealth-by-level were basically pretty similar between AD&D and D&D3 appears to be generally accurate.

Bearing in mind, of course, that:

(1) Individual results may vary considerably.
(2) Using the training rules will tend to slow advancement (but lots of people ignored them).
(3) Using the XP-for-treasure rules will greatly speed up advancement (but lots of people ignored them).

I know that my actual play experience with pre-3E featured much slower advancement. But that's because I ignored the XP-for-treasure rules. (My desire for that slower pace of advancement has also led me to consciously modify the 3E XP rules, albeit in different ways.)

 

[pemerton]

Since you're mentioning the G series here, Bullgrit's analysis does show a notable difference appearing between 1e and 3e leveling... and that's even with the assumptions of getting out with all of the filthy lucre and leveling on time. Some of the characters will be as many as 6 levels higher at the end of the G series in 3e than 1e characters.

Just asking for clarity - is this because of the name level XP bump I mentioned upthread?

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] What is this? I've never heard of it.

What I'll add to what others have said is that it bases the XP value of a monster on the number of rounds it would take a 1st level fighter to kill it (so is a function of monster AC, hit dice and damage). There is a somewhat arbitrary multiplier applied to allow for non-damage-inflicting monster special abilities.

it should be noted that (in the case of G1 at least), when it was first presented in tournament form in GenCon those who won the scenario (i.e., those who got the farthest/were judged to have done the best) didn't find the treasure.

It is also perhaps apropros to mention that, within the tournament structure, there is a strict real-world timeline that needs to be followed.

<snip>

Not taking this into account is going to skew results, when extrapolating to regular campaign play, considerably.

Is your point here that experience of levelling rates with the G modules can't be extrapolated to generic AD&D campaign play? Others have said upthread that your discussion of tournaments is a red herring, and in giving you the benefit of the doubt this is the only obvious non-red herring interpretation I can come up with.

If so I agree, if by AD&D campaign play we mean something like classic megadungeon exploration. But as I posted upthread, I think a lot of AD&D campaign play was closer to playing through homebrew versions of the G modules (or other published modules, whether D&D or AD&D). For that sort of play, extrapolations from the G-series may be more valid.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Which, at face value, puts us right back where this all started about 3 or 4 years ago: does by-RAW 1e level up as fast per adventure as by-RAW 3e (and-or by-RAW 4e now, it wasn't around then)?

I still think it does, or close, when compared to 3e.

And you are free to think so. Especially as it may be the case in your experience. However, that does not make it the norm, nor does that make it fact.

I find it honestly disappointing that when someone asks about a specific, questionable claim that you're making that your response is to simply start talking about something else. That kind of shell-game is just a waste of everyone's time.

I find it honestly disappointing that you are making claims about a supposed specific, questionable claim that I am making, and that when I correct your misstatement of my claim, you consider it a shell game.

I am not "assuming that the 1E players will always skip content and the 3E players will always clear out the entire dungeon" -- this is a straw man. And obviously so.

My specific claim is now, as it has always been, that B/Q's analysis is too shallow to supply meaningful information. Saying "It is also possible, as Melan has done, to analyse the potential paths available in a module, and one can quickly see that the module can be completed while only recovering a fraction of the treasure." =/= "1E players will always skip content and the 3E players will always clear out the entire dungeon".

My response, "It is obviously true that WotC noted that some 3e players were not getting all of the treasure that was their due, so they changed things even further in 4e to ensure that this would not be the case." is an indication that this is a factor that may be considered, and that WotC certainly did consider. It points to the shallowness of B/Q's analysis, and that the things B/Q failed to take into account were certainly important to the designers of 4e, if not to B/Q or you.

When someone says, "X does not prove Y", it is incumbent, perhaps, upon that person to show areas where X is deficient of proof. It is not incumbent upon that person to prove that Y is false (in this case, I believe it is somewhat inaccurate, as indicated at the conclusion of the previous thread, but it is not even a necessity to believe that Y is wrong to believe that X does not prove it). It is not incumbent upon that person to prove a different value of Y.

"X does not prove Y" is a statement that what is offered as proof fails to meet the mark. That is my specific claim, and everything else is, as you say, a shell game. While I am willing to expand on why X does not prove Y -- why I think B/Q's analysis is insufficient -- I do not even go as far as Bullgrit and claim that a sufficient analysis is impossible. Indeed, I gave him some specific ideas in the previous thread.

So, no, if you wish to engage in a straw man, and I do not, not engaging your straw man is not a shell game.

But, as we've already established, varying these factors by any reasonable degree doesn't seem to have any truly meaningful effect on the general conclusions Bullgrit is making.

No, it has not, because a deeper analysis of the scenario is required to determine what a reasonable degree is.

A deeper analysis may well demonstrate Bullgrit's conclusion to be correct. Bullgrit's analysis does not.

I don't know how much clearer I can be.

The reality is that there are not vast secret areas in most AD&D modules that are unlikely to be discovered by AD&D players.

Dungeon Mapping

Here's an example of a deeper analysis.

This seems to be Crowking's M.O. in these discussions. If talking about actual play isn't working he'll swap the conversation to tournament play; if tournament play isn't convenient he'll talk RAW; if RAW isn't convenient he'll talk about how things hypothetically played at Gygax's table.

Mr. Crowking's M.O. is to discuss things that are relevant to flaws in B/Q's analysis. What those things are may vary based upon context. Level-draining is not always relevant, obviously. Equally obviously, as Mr. Crowking has been making the same argument repeatedly -- B/Q's analysis is too shallow to allow us to know what is relevant -- more than one possible factor is going to come up.

Again, a deeper analysis may well demonstrate Bullgrit's conclusion to be correct. Bullgrit's analysis does not.

He has a deep, vested, and highly prejudiced need to dispute that D&D3 basically plays like pre-3E versions of the game.

Please, spare me the armchair psychology.

And, preferably, don't base your conclusions on "skimming over the older threads" coupled with a straw man of the position you think you are disproving.

I know that my actual play experience with pre-3E featured much slower advancement. But that's because I ignored the XP-for-treasure rules. (My desire for that slower pace of advancement has also led me to consciously modify the 3E XP rules, albeit in different ways.)

Is your point here that experience of levelling rates with the G modules can't be extrapolated to generic AD&D campaign play?

I'm going to give you a careful answer, because I know that you'll read it.

I'll agree with Bullgrit that the presence of the modules is useful when trying to discover some form of norm. It is not the only useful factor; the statements of the game designers are also useful.

In the event of extrapolating from a module -- any module, any system, any edition -- a track of "all that is possible", even modified by any arbitrary % of "what is likely to be gained" results in an arbitrary result. It is reasonable to suspect that there are factors not present in such an analysis that must be taken into account to gain worthwhile results from the module. These factors may not be present in all modules; where they are present, they may not always be the same factors. Only a deeper analysis can determine this.

Although I have great respect for the design, and for Mr. Gygax, I don't play 1e. The game that I do play, RCFG, has as many design elements in common with 3e as with 1e. I don't think of RCFG as "old school", but rather a fusion of new school and old school elements.

I do have a vested interest in what is portrayed as "fact".

I do not think that Mr. Gygax is wrong about what rate of levelling he expected in AD&D 1e, or that Mr. Cook is wrong about what rate of levelling he expected in D&D 3e. The disparity between their statements and Bullgrit's analysis, I believe, could easily be explained by the mitigating factors described previously.

I do believe that a deeper analysis of the G series modules would be more helpful than Bullgrit's shallow analysis. Obviously, a deeper analysis of a wider range of modules would be more helpful still.

So, no, the levelling rates in the G modules, as per Bullgrit's analysis, cannot provide levelling rates in AD&D 1e by their extrapolation alone. They can, however, be useful as part of a larger picture.

Again, a deeper analysis may well demonstrate Bullgrit's conclusion to be correct. Bullgrit's analysis does not.

Simply put, Bullgrit does not provide a strong enough analysis to regard his conclusions as "fact".

(Each of us has the right to set the bar of his own skepticism, and if you believe Bullgrit/Q has done enough to meet the bar of your skepticism, that's fine and dandy. Until you then also claim that it is irrational for me to set the bar of skepticism higher we have no problem. It is only when one declares that B/Q has determined "fact", that anyone unwilling to agree with him is simply refusing to accept "facts", or "has a deep, vested, and highly prejudiced need to dispute that D&D3 basically plays like pre-3E versions of the game" that I have a problem. Bullgrit has not established "fact".)

Now, let us drop back to the beginning of this "round" of the argument.

Bullgrit says, in post 51

his prompted me to go through the Tomb of Horrors like I did for other classic adventure modules.

You can see my data here: Treasure and Experience in Classic D&D Adventures Total Bullgrit -- ToH is the last entry at the bottom of the page.

The short version is: 305,790 gp total haul. Relatively low in comparison to other published modules of the same level.​

I respond, in post 53

Bullgrit also misses that, in the other published modules, it is not expected that the PCs can recover all of the treasure. (It is actually stated in module B1 that the PCs will not get all the treasure in a good dungeon.) In ToH, though, the majority of the treasure is found in one area; if the PCs succeed, they should get it all.

The difference is not an illustration of how stingy the ToH is; it is an illustration of how off-base Bullgrit/Quasqueton's assumptions were about treasure recovery in other modules.​

IOW, I am making a specific claim as to the relationship between the treasure hauls in various modules. Specifically, I am claiming that the analysis B/Q does on ToH, esp. in light of the deeper context supplied by other thread, paints a "truer" picture of the expectations of the designer. It also, I believe, highlights the problem with the shallower analysis of other modules B/Q has done.

And, mind you, I am not arguing that Bullgrit's actual analysis is deeper here; I am arguing that the deeper analysis done by others allows us to put Bullgrit's data into a clearer context. Not a perfect context, because the analysis of the module is not yet complete, but a much better one already.

In post 70, Bullgrit says

No matter how many times Raven Crowking says things like this, no matter how badly he mischaracterizes the data and my commentary, and no matter how many times he spams the same flat-out lies regarding my position, I hope people can see that he is only throwing a tantrum at having FACTS – directly from the source material -- presented that apparently contradict his personal beliefs about what classic D&D adventures contained.

I have never assumed or expected that adventurers in the classic adventures would kill all the monsters and loot all the treasure. I challenge him to find one time where I’ve said that was my assumption or the expectation for the data I collected from the classic modules.​

and

I have Raven Crowking on my ignore list because I got very tired of seeing his propaganda, spammed throughout several discussion threads. But when I see his lies about me and my posts and my presentation repeated in quotes by others, I have to speak up in my own defense. Else I run the risk of having his misrepresentation growing roots and becoming the accepted truth.​

Note, on the other hand, post 272 of the original thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4871883-post271.html

As far as the numbers go, Q is spot on.

As far as the conclusions some draw from it, I have asked them to explain why, and thus far their responses have been entirely unconvincing.

The problem is that this is like the moon landing. I was there, and involved in playing 1e. I know what leveling was like at my table. I played 1e in several US States, with over 100 individual players and DMs. I know what leveling was like at those tables. By extension, since those players were involved with other games, I know what they said about those other games as well.

My experience is that, at least within that dataset, approximately 1/3 of all treasure in a module was missed within the areas explored and that, most frequently, some portion of a module was not explored. Even recently, running KotB using 3e Search rules, we had the same rough ratio. The group explored less than 1/6th of the caverns, and left 1/3 of the treasure unfound in the areas they did explore.

Within my own games, the highest level PCs (earned legitimately) were 16th and 14th level....and they both belonged to the same player. One of those PCs (the 14th level fighter) is now a deity in my campaign setting (Julius Invincible), while the other was his father, a magic user. Examining the back of the 1e Rogues Gallery further demonstrates the comparatively low level of the game's "Big Names". If everyone leveled in 1e as in 3e, surely Gary Gygax would have gotten at least one character to 20th level by the time that book came out.......

Now, I know a guy who thinks that the moon landing was faked. He'll bring up photographic evidence, and he'll claim that this shadow or that reflection "proves" his assertation. When I point out that there are other potential interpretations of that same data -- and ones that much better gibe with my experience -- he acccuses me of being unwilling to accept the evidence.

"Daniel has determined the answer," he says, "and shall not be moved from it."

And, when we reach that point in the discussion, he, too, starts with the insults: "Your argument gets sillier and sillier.", "One wonder why you think your argument could ever be considered convincing.", "That's just ridiculous."

But here is the thing. Maybe the moon landing was faked. It is not impossible that the moon landing was faked. However, it is irrational to believe that the moon landing was faked unless the weight of evidence -- including how that evidence is interpretted -- is greater than the evidence against. And personal experience can and does count as evidence against. Just as Neil Armstrong would be harder to convince that the moon landing was faked.

When the evidence presented is insufficient to convince someone, merely repeating "Yes it is" is unlikely to change their mind.

OTOH, if you look upthread, I have described exactly what kind of analysis would change my mind. If you wanted to convince me, you would just have to supply the (correct) numbers.​

See also post 167 http://www.enworld.org/forum/4869031-post167.html

B/Q's conclusions that are being questioned are in post 11 http://www.enworld.org/forum/4869031-post167.html

Other posts of interest (and certainly not all of them, just a couple snagged at random):

http://www.enworld.org/forum/2930958-post36.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/2931050-post40.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/2931118-post42.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/2940697-post62.html (I think this one shows my position well)

In this post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/2932105-post45.html) Q says to T Foster

No offense intended, but I’m not going to massage the data to get it to show what you expect it to show, or to reflect your personal experiences with the adventures. We have no evidence that your personal expectations or experience is the norm or intention for the adventures. You can consider the levels calculated with the data to be the maximum potential of these adventures.​

And I think that actually contains two important points.

(1) "We have no evidence that your personal expectations or experience is the norm or intention for the adventures." Indeed; we have no evidence what the norm or intention is for the adventure at all....at least not through the data presented.

(2) "You can consider the levels calculated with the data to be the maximum potential of these adventures." This is a fair point, but it then follows that you cannot assume that the levels calculated with the date are "the norm or the intention for the adventures".

Together, these two lead back to the beginning:

"I’m not going to massage the data to get it to show what you expect it to show, or to reflect your personal experiences with the adventures."

If there is no way to determine the norm or intention of the adventures, any % you choose, from the maximum, to 75%, to 2% -- it doesn't matter -- perforce will "massage the data".

The rational conclusion I draw is that a deeper analysis may well demonstrate Bullgrit's conclusion to be correct. Bullgrit's analysis does not. And, as an obvious corollary, therefore, presenting Bullgrit's conclusions as fact is an error in rational thinking. Presenting them as something you accept is not an error; presenting them as established fact is.



RC

 

[Lanefan]

"It is obviously true that WotC noted that some 3e players were not getting all of the treasure that was their due, so they changed things even further in 4e to ensure that this would not be the case."

A sad commentary in and of itself.

I do believe that a deeper analysis of the G series modules would be more helpful than Bullgrit's shallow analysis. Obviously, a deeper analysis of a wider range of modules would be more helpful still.

Well, Raven, it looks like you've set your homework for the week. I'll be interested in seeing what your conclusions are.

Lanefan

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, Raven, it looks like you've set your homework for the week. I'll be interested in seeing what your conclusions are.

Nonsense.

When someone says, "X does not prove Y", it is incumbent, perhaps, upon that person to show areas where X is deficient of proof. It is not incumbent upon that person to prove that Y is false. It is not incumbent upon that person to prove a different value of Y.

Because I point out that Bullgrit's analysis is too shallow to be of use, it does not follow that I must produce a deeper one. If you do not believe the earth is flat, it is only incumbent upon you to explain why. You do not need to circumnavigate the globe.


RC