The part in bold is why I asked the question.
Stan, I realize that under these circumstances, you don't have much of an incentive to answer my question. But why don't you just say "Given your attitude toward the whole thing, I don't wish to answer any of your queries" or "I really don't understand the question, could you rephrase it" or "For the sake of sales of my second DVD, I'd rather withhold that information for now, even though it probably should have been made clear on the first DVD." I could understand and accept any of those, but this supposed 2D limitation is just, well, lame. And it's old lame, not new lame. Not that I'm a math wizard, but I doubt that you have much of an idea of what can or can't be done in that arena.
I might also point out that for years the CTE advocates referred to some fabled post or thread that was supposed to fill in all the obvious gaps in the method. Instead, at best, we got what Patrick labeled as "Hal's numerology post." Then Dave S. promised us a mathematical treatment that never came about. Next, you indicated that your first DVD would provide such mathematical justification. Not only was it absent, but then there was the glaring omission of just where one's cue should be pointed after "acquiring the visuals," the question I just asked. At this point, could you blame us for doubting that DVD #2 will offer up any real answers (which I'll likely never see anyway)?
Jim