[felson]

David, you're just rehashing the story that you have told four times already. I suppose that is your way to avoid responding to the claims that your challenge was ill-conceived and misleading at best. I don't need to explain why: you've cited some (but far from all) flaws yourself in this thread.

Perhaps the challenge was plus-EV for you, but as you acknowledge, it was more "publicity stunt" than a teaching device. To be explicit, we are talking about a challenge where the outcome settles nothing. (A DS loss is dismissed as an outlier. And even you now acknowledge that a DS win would most likely be caused by a rash challenger. But of course you didn't say anything about that until you decided to withdraw the challenge!) This challenge reveals you to be more hustler than teacher. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't appropriate the other title.

Regarding your repeated story, if my posts have somehow led you to believe that I didn't grasp all your points already, then your reading comprehension is poor.

My mind boggles that you still think I have some challenger for you. I don't, and I have already recounted the many reasons why this would not be worth my time. Even if I had someone to challenge you with, I would hardly go about it in this roundabout fashion. Finally, in case there is any confusion, I will repeat for the record that I am not a fundamentalist.

And I find it insulting and revealing that you thought 2p2ers are so dumb as not to consider (and openly discuss) the likelihood that you would offer a challenge on which you did not have a virtual lock. If you are a hustler, you are a poor one.

[ QUOTE ]
So I would have been wrong to offer the challenge to Chinese Americans, for instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say that you are 98% to score perfectly! In addition, you wished you could open the challenge to all women. So offering the challenge to anyone doesn't mean much.

I asked you twice to comment on my points A and B above. This is so typical of you, David.