Hey folks....reprising my case for the "12 factor" in the T206 structure

[abothebear]

Hey Ted,

I enjoy your posts. And I know almost nothing about T206s, especially compared to you. But I don't understand your tone in your replies. You keep using "proof" for your 12 theory, and if you merely mean that there is proof that the subjects are in multiples of 12, then there is no problem... and no drama, because no one would deny that. But several of your claims sound like you should be using "evidence" instead of "proof." As in - evidence that seems to support your theory.

I think that other guy (sorry other guy for forgetting your name while typing this) is merely pointing out that your claims using "proof" (if I am reading your claim correctly) are bigger than the logic supports. I don't see what the big deal is. Following different lines of speculation can only help the quest to find out something more definitive in the long run.

(In my best Rodney King voice) "Can't we all just get along?"

George