d2634464   
   From: mikko.levanto@outlook.com   
      
   In article ,   
    SEKI  wrote:   
      
   > This question is, however, about assumptions (2) and (3).   
   > If these assumptions are correct, Bell's arguments are to lose their   
   > meaning completely.   
      
   No, they don't. You have not shown any connection from your assumptions   
   to Bell's arguments.   
      
   > In fact, I wrote "Maybe, it will make more sense for you to forget Bell"   
   > in my 5th posting on this topic.   
      
   You could try. Post your assumptions without mentioning Bell in subject   
   line or elsewhere in the message. But you should show some calculation   
   of some numbers. Otherwise nobody will care whether it makes sense.   
      
   Mikko   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)