Sounds pretty anti-iIFT to me. Maybe I’m “mis-reading” it. BTW: I am fine with him having that view, but I don’t want to be told that my way is dumb jsut because it's different AND an official variant. My opponent and I get to pick the table that we want to use.
Pward and many others have said time and again, that they do not care one bit what table you choose to use, that is your decision and yours alone (with opponent agreement). Your post was contrary to that and accusatory in nature, with the only basis...your own reading of his unspoken intent.
[/QUOTE]In addition, how do you "know me" well enough to define me based on one or two emails? Defining me as an empathe or "intent reader" as such, rather than a rational responder to what I saw/read is an attempt to negate my argument or view, without confronting the argument itself.[/QUOTE]
I don't know you, I can only speak to the exact words you used to attribute Pward with intent that was not spoken. And as to confronting the argument...pward and others have printed volumes on the IFT v IIFt debate. AS WELL AS having no intent to force you or anyone else to use one table over the other in private play. Your view that you can play whatever table you want in private is sacrosanct as far as i am concerned. Your reasoning that the tables are fundamentally equal is very wrong...and can be proven, as it has over and over again. You can continue to ignore the evidence presented, i'm fine with that, but slinging aspersions to attempt to discredit Pward's work and inserting assumptions is not something I'll let slip past.
[/QUOTE]I have read the 80+ pages of the iIFT vs the IFT, plus the other 5 or 6 threads on this topic. (as we all have) Do you
really want me to go through and find virulent anti-iIFT comments and post them here to "prove" this sentiment (that they are not just my "feelings") to you? I am not sure that I want to take the time, though that doesn't make what I said less true.[/QUOTE]
knock yourself out, but it's all in the eye of the beholder as to intent...the logic and math are true no matter. If one chooses to see/read/feel hostility where it's not intended that's on the reader.
[/QUOTE]If, in this instance Pward did not say this or if he was specifically not putting forth this philosophy, then I apologize. (Though I think that this is the point of his signature.) My point is still valid, however. Those who are anti-iIFT, are extensively so, even hostile. There are a few who are as zealous for the iIFT (you know who they are), but when push comes to shove the iIFTer's
have to play the IFT, if requested. This puts those who prefer the iIFT at a disadvantage...which is fine. I’m just trying to say, that I like the iIFT. I play the IFT (when I have to) and I’m ok with that. [/QUOTE]
Again you're reading intent where none (I can only speak for myself) is intended. You play the table you want between yourself and others, i will always be ok with that.
[/QUOTE]And thanks for the answer. I really didn't know why one would hold fire with an MG.[/QUOTE]
You're welcome.