rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Finally you admit your arguments are based on assumptions. Baby steps.
Didn't we establish the assumptions, at the top of this very page (if I post fast)? First, you got my assumptions wrong, despite including them in your quoted post, and I pointed out that they were explicitly stated in the statement you quoted, and we talked about them for a few iterations.
And earlier you also said I "didn't make" an argument. This was also true -- I laid out the assumptions, and juxtaposed them with 35 years of historical 10000m results. From that, you drew your own conclusion.
And it can hardly form the basis if the assumptions are contradicted by historical performances, and the conclusion -- your conclusion -- is an apparent contradiction between historical reality and the assumptions.
Your meaningless self-absorbed waffle never ends.