So I’m required to become fluently educated in game theory in order to bolster your argument for which you’ve provided no evidence. I’m sure you can understand that it doesn’t work like that.
If you want to understand game theory then yes, you should be required to become educated about it, not take the word of a documentary polemicist as gospel. And I have provided evidence.
So in other words it’s an ad-hominem argument and has no basis on critiquing his work.
No, that part of my post had nothing to do with the objective quality of his work. You’re being really obtuse here.
You haven’t actually provided any details as to why you think he’s a fraud.
Feel free to open up a new topic though if you manage to come across any, other than you don’t like his editing style.
Yes I have. If you want to see more you’re welcome to open up a thread yourself. And I actually like his editing style, he’s a talented film maker. It’s the content, or lack thereof, that I have the problem with.
