[Ted Craven]

Tim, it suits you to believe that your posts are being censored or deleted because you dare to hold different views than the moderators, e.g. that using trainer or jockey or breeding or workout information adds no extra useful clarity on net balance to the handicapping process, and that this assertion is backed up by valid statistics.

This is not correct, no matter how repetitively you proclaim it so. In fact these views are the same views expressed many times by Doc Sartin and by Jim Bradshaw, by Pizzolla and Schmidt and likely many, many other respected writers over decades worth of Follow Ups and other Methodology writings. I hold the same views, more or less, myself (as, I believe do Bill V and Richie - the other moderators) and I advise those whom I teach to not focus on that - rather, focus on the horse, the matchup, incremental energy disbursement - use the software.

No one gets censored because they disagree with the moderators, or with anyone else. Your posts get deleted, edited and suspensions issued ONLY because of your communication style which has a tendancy to be pedantic, repetitious, over-bearing, intimidating and sometimes insulting to others - did I mention repetitious? Continuing like that is an excellent way to get banned for good.

In many ways I would regret that as I do get many interesting things from some of your posts and you are clearly a strong user of Sartin software who has valuable things to teach, and we need good teachers. But you scare as many people as you help, sort of like the diminishing returns from adding in extra variables like breeding or trainer angles to handicapping. I know this because some of the ones you scare write to me explaining why they don't want to post in public, which in turns serves to prevent (some of) them from learning and enjoying this game, contrary to the reasons for existence of this Forum (and the Code of Conduct).

So don't moan and complain that you are among the few (or the only one) 'challenging dogma' or conventional thinking or substantiating your views with solid science: it has all been said before and is mainstream in the Sartin Methodology. And, Tim, even if you are the 'smartest guy in the room', it is unseemly to be constantly proclaiming it so (per the underlying 'tone of voice' in many of your posts). Human nature (I think) tends to gravitate more towards those who teach and relate to others with grace, patience and humility, and shrinks from bombast.

Jeff - as for Stalinist - in Stalin's time you got a knock at the door then either a bullet or a show-trial then a one-way ticket to Siberia - no 2nd or 3rd or 4th warnings and no debate. Lose the hyperbole. We're trying to grow a garden here, not referee a brawl.

And just to be clear - to those folks here who profit from and have done their own work which proves to themselves the usefulness of ANY particular handicapping factor, from breeding, to trainer intent or angles, to jockey stats, to workout or toteboard patterns - any factor which is not generally a part of the core Sartin concepts of pace, matchup, incremental energy disbursement, form: use these other factors at your pleasure and profit, post about them if you wish (in the Handicapping Forum). Civil (and preferably concise) discussion is always welcomed.

I am speaking for myself here.

Ted