When I wrote that reply I thought he was referring to the edge argument. It looks like that thread still exists.
I don’t recall the exact words but as for explaining the CTE system in 2D. I can explain the EDGEs used in 2D but it won’t matter to pundits because it doesn’t translate to protractor angles in 2D. The system has been described in plenty of detail to execute it. No bad horses here.
Monty,
Thank you for acknowledging you error. Yet we have to ask why was Duckie's Paper Challenge & Beiber's Subjectivity threads removed? They asked reasonable questions.
The shadow over "IT" just gets made darker & wider.
Some of us like Duckie & now even Beiber, a former CTE user, simply want to throw the light of day onto it. Once that has been properly done. Then any beneficial aspect can be honestly talked about.
"IT" CAN be put onto paper &/or a 3D model CAN be made. imHo it is not necessary for many of us. However, perhaps "for some" it would help THEM to understand the NON-workings of "IT". Balls do NOT 'present' themselves differently depending on where they are & there is no "phenomena". I would put other words in there, but those words have basically been forbidden. That too darkens & widens the shadow. Why should words or topics regarding it basically be forbidden. That too simply makes the shadow over it darker & wider.
"IT" was sent into the Realm of Sub Forum for it to be 'argued' out. If that is no longer the case the subject of "IT" should simply be forbidden altogether & 'the problem' is then completely solved.
Mike has said, 'It works for some & for some it does NOT".
THAT is not what it was 'originally' said to be. I'll just stop there, but I have what I think is a rather good example for you to consider that I will probably place in "your" thread.
A Tennessee Walker IS a bad horse to put into a 1/4 mile sprint... yet in a walking race it might "appear" to be a fast horse.
Best Wishes.