Can you explain this?

Is the appropriate action when you see ASW to come to a full stop to reduce CD time, and just stay stationary using CD like you're a yo-yo until they run out of HH ammo? People pointed out problems with your test conditions, that's not whining, that's actual valid criticism that requires an actual valid response if you don't want your test to be invalidated.

Dismissive responses to valid criticism just make you look like you don't have a leg to stand on. Things like "someone needs a sippy cup" (courtesy Obsessed) and "I can do another test, but at the end, I will know you guys will just find another excuse" are just code phrases for "I don't have a valid counter to your actual point."

When I am in a sub. I will know who's AAing, who's not aaing, who will probably ASW who is not.
I will gladly accept doing this test again, while moving and I will even give myself handicap by asking people to distract me.
I will just charge olive reward for using my time. Noted that, this is not to find excuse getting away.

I have spend too much time testing already. If you want me to spend my time again, make it worthwhile.


What people don't realize is they diversion their argument.
People said you can't avoid at close range. But then don't start off topic by saying gradual. This is the idea.
If you can't get the idea, then think again.

My test has proven that you can avoid HH firing at close range, it's the proof.

If you want to start off toppic related subject, then go on, but it will have no relation with avoiding at close range.


Next, what you must understand invinciblor.
SK bismarck say you can't get away HH firing at close range.
I have shown him proof.
He didn't accredited because he doesn't want to believe.
Now I put another test.
He doesn't want to believe it.
Now what's next.


I refuse to play that game, because at the end, everytime I will prove something, he will just making another off topic elaboration.


Edited.
Added more content.

I'm not interested in paying you to correct your flawed test. If you don't want to do the work, I understand that--it's a game and not a job.

Furthermore, I don't think you need to redo the test anyways. Testing gradual fire separately wouldn't add to our knowledge; we know how it works, and it doesn't change the timing of explosions or anything. Moreover, we all can guess what would happen if your CD was slower because of OH speeds.

My point is that your minimum-range HH test scenario is under optimal conditions, and while it provides evidence that minimum-range HH can be avoided under those conditions, it does not prove that HH can always be avoided from any range. If you presented your data objectively instead of embellishing the implications and throwing around words like "retarded," I would have no problem.

Rather then bash & shut people valid points down Richard why not just do a complete video if you know something we don't.... plz show us... i would like to see you crit from HH fired south at max anlge on gradual fire while moving....



Request a lock on this Post it is nothing but trying to start up a argument & is not providing complete data in regards to this topic...

How is this a flawed test?

This test was done specifically because a certain group of people made a point to say that minimum distance HHs could not be avoided.

He isn't attempting to prove that HH can always be avoided from any range. It also does not attempt to prove that you can avoid HHs fired on gradual.

As he states, that is a separate issue that was not brought up before this test was done.

Perhaps you missed that part of the discussion, but it has been explained several times. This test is done because, if I remember, three specific people said it was not possible.

Again, as Richard said, if there are other points that you wish to bring up...that's fine. However, those different points don't make this test flawed and you are building up a strawman argument if you are trying to say that this test doesn't prove other things...it isn't meant to prove other things.



I don't understand how you can claim that Richard did something that is incomplete when he has not claimed any thing that you believe he is claiming.

You ask that he do something completely different from what he set out to do, then when he says that he has no desire to do that...you admonish him and claim that this test is incomplete or wrong.

I don't understand that.

===============

To add, richard has pointed out how the goal posts have moved in an attempt to minimize or negate his proof.

The argument started with a false claim that HHs could not be avoided by a crit dive. richard proved that HHs could be avoided by a crit dive by showing a sub crit diving and the time it takes HH to explode. Then, it morphed in to a range argument. richard, again, proved that HHs could be avoided even if fired at minimum range.

Now, richard is admonished for a flawed or biased laboratory test because a certain group of people won't admit they were talking out of their ass. (In fact, that group of people hasn't even posted in this thread).

And, to top it off, there are people claiming that a) richard's test doesn't prove subs can avoid HH fired at graudal and b) richard's test doesn't prove subs can avoid HHs if they are moving or OH. Well, richard wasn't trying to prove those things to begin with.

Those are added conditions to the argument.

It is a common argumentative tactic. Make a claim. Watch the claim be proven false. Add additional points to the claim so that it becomes something different. Then, you can admonish the non-proof of the secondary claim as though that was what was originally intended. The only interesting point here is that different people are adding additional points to diminish the test for no apparent reason other than it is a negative to subs.

Perhaps I did miss part of the discussion. However, when Richard says something like this in regards to his detractors:



What is that supposed to mean? I already asked him and he went off on a "pay me olives to redo the test" rant. His test showed a stationary sub CDing under the HH. Now I don't think an intelligent person would mean to say I'm "retarded" if I don't slow to zero knots preemptively when I see ASW to avoid the predicted HH salvo, but that's along the lines of what was implied. What other action could I take to reduce my CD time to that of Richard's test's?

So to repeat myself, I wouldn't have a problem if the data was presented objectively and not embellished.

Point taken. I concede that the test is not flawed.

I am still of the opinion that it has been misrepresented and given a black eye because of the insults and accusations of intellectual dishonesty that have been made by its supporters. Maybe I'm just still not used to the icy culture of the NF forums. Both sides seem to be making the test into something it is not. For the record, I do not think the test needs to be repeated either way. It shows clearly enough how close that CD time is to not being able to avoid the HH blasts, and I don't think there is much judgement required in extrapolating the results to cover the other pertinent cases. Despite what it may seem, I do appreciate the time that was taken to do this test and I don't mean to dismiss Richard's time as useless.

I am content to agree that the test did not prove what it did not set out to prove.

Edit: I had already written the above before reading your latest post:

I hope that my previous response has already answered your questions. Edit#2: actually let me expand on (b). Asking him to repeat the test is at the very least inconsiderate, though I must say I never asked him to do so. As far as wrongheaded, there is a hair to be split because of Richard's remarks regarding his test, though I will grant you that they were a response to inconsiderate demands.

I am of the opinion that it has been given a black eye because of the insults and accusations of bias and flaw that have been made by its detractors.



To me, it seems as though just the detractors are making the test in to something it is not. richard has stated multiple times that this test does not prove several things. He did the test to show that a sub can avoid HH when fired at minimum range.

He even states multiple times that bringing other points in to this test is not reasonable. It's in the same post where he asks that he be paid to do other tests.

I am not sure of anything else the "supporters" of this test are trying to claim. I'm not sure how one could be a supporter or a detractor of this test. It's just a test. There is nothing to support or not support.



That was the extent of my point.

I can see how richard's comments can rub someone the wrong way. They are abrasive. However, when looking at this issue from the beginning (both in this thread and others), his test was admonished from the very outset for no reason whatsoever. And, it was done purely because people didn't like the result.

It has been called flawed and biased (I don't mean to direct this just at you.). And, that is unfair.