OMG I was the only one who said Marcus wasn't winning!!!
Seriously though...
This has been an interesting thread the past day or so that's for sure. Allow me to address the congregation;
To those who have stopped in just to revel in the perceived failure of others, shame on you. Your parents should have raised you better (or maybe I ought to say should be raising). From here on out you are ignored, until you learn some manners.
To those who genuinely have come by to intellectually question the process of what goes on here, welcome. We would love to have a conversation about what works and doesn't about what we do, and what we get wrong and what we get right. In fact, this is a conversation that happens day in and day out here, indeed this is what science is; observation, hypothesis, test, repeat.
To my fellow edgicians, lest we forget, the elimination of our main suspect (notice I didn't say only) is not a new thing (Gary?) though it is a rare thing. There is plenty to learn from this (and the reaction we are receiving from others) and even though some of our critics aren't very nice, there is some truth to mine.
What can we learn?
1) Dogmatism is not attractive, humility is - There is a common thread among those who are respected here, they approach the process with a light touch and an acknowledgement that every season is a learning process. They embrace the journey and don't "have to be right".
2) Edgic is not a game - I take part of the blame for this one. In doing my annual winner post and creating the Edgies, I put an emphasis on who could call it the soonest. But that isn't the point. No one here gets extra credit for "calling it", because it's the foundational principles of edgic that do the work, not us.
3) Edgic is about elimination more than ascension - We must not get so bogged down in finding the one that we forget that the process is more about separating out the non. Sure Marcus was the best choice, but he was not the only choice, in fact, by my calculations, he and Ken were dead even mathematically heading into this episode. (Sorry CL, it's what I do)
The good news?
Edgic is not broken or disproved. Those who claim this just haven't spent enough time with us here. There are as many posts in the first 100 pages mentioning that others are still viable edgic candidates as there are that said that Marcus was the only one. If anyone other than Ken or Randy wins (maybe Matt) then we can talk, and it will lesson the validity of many of these principles. At that point we either say, "Well, they've changed how they do it, let's figure out what they are doing now." or "Maybe you can't ID the winner based on common editing principles, lets go eat some pie" But if Ken or Randy wins (maybe Matt) then the finger pointing and name calling is all for naught, because they both fit the basic principles that KQ set out at the start of this thing.
Whatever the case, there is no other group of people I'd rather do this with, and am glad every time a new season rolls around to come see where the dissection and dissension leads us.
Although I still might go looking for that pie.
Seriously though...
This has been an interesting thread the past day or so that's for sure. Allow me to address the congregation;
To those who have stopped in just to revel in the perceived failure of others, shame on you. Your parents should have raised you better (or maybe I ought to say should be raising). From here on out you are ignored, until you learn some manners.
To those who genuinely have come by to intellectually question the process of what goes on here, welcome. We would love to have a conversation about what works and doesn't about what we do, and what we get wrong and what we get right. In fact, this is a conversation that happens day in and day out here, indeed this is what science is; observation, hypothesis, test, repeat.
To my fellow edgicians, lest we forget, the elimination of our main suspect (notice I didn't say only) is not a new thing (Gary?) though it is a rare thing. There is plenty to learn from this (and the reaction we are receiving from others) and even though some of our critics aren't very nice, there is some truth to mine.
What can we learn?
1) Dogmatism is not attractive, humility is - There is a common thread among those who are respected here, they approach the process with a light touch and an acknowledgement that every season is a learning process. They embrace the journey and don't "have to be right".
2) Edgic is not a game - I take part of the blame for this one. In doing my annual winner post and creating the Edgies, I put an emphasis on who could call it the soonest. But that isn't the point. No one here gets extra credit for "calling it", because it's the foundational principles of edgic that do the work, not us.
3) Edgic is about elimination more than ascension - We must not get so bogged down in finding the one that we forget that the process is more about separating out the non. Sure Marcus was the best choice, but he was not the only choice, in fact, by my calculations, he and Ken were dead even mathematically heading into this episode. (Sorry CL, it's what I do)
The good news?
Edgic is not broken or disproved. Those who claim this just haven't spent enough time with us here. There are as many posts in the first 100 pages mentioning that others are still viable edgic candidates as there are that said that Marcus was the only one. If anyone other than Ken or Randy wins (maybe Matt) then we can talk, and it will lesson the validity of many of these principles. At that point we either say, "Well, they've changed how they do it, let's figure out what they are doing now." or "Maybe you can't ID the winner based on common editing principles, lets go eat some pie" But if Ken or Randy wins (maybe Matt) then the finger pointing and name calling is all for naught, because they both fit the basic principles that KQ set out at the start of this thing.
Whatever the case, there is no other group of people I'd rather do this with, and am glad every time a new season rolls around to come see where the dissection and dissension leads us.
Although I still might go looking for that pie.
