Afraid? Hardly. You have been presented with several criticisms. You have ignored them.
I'll repeat one of them: Your claimed universal invariant, that Achilles position is always behind the tortoise's position, is bogus. You've made the same error Moshe made with his claims regarding his rather disappointing @-operator.
Let us expose your Straw Man techniques, which their aims is to avoid detailed and direct arguments about the content of
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 .
It goes like this:
X: "Tom solved the A\T Race Paradox by show that ((A wins T) OR (A does not win T)) is valid. As a result the ((A wins T) AND (A does not win T)) is not the only one possibility and the paradox is avoided. Furthermore Tom did it without using the Limit concept."
Y: "It can't be, because Tom does not know what Straw Man is"
X: "Do you mean that Tom uses a Straw Man at the basis of his solution, and therefore his solution does not hold?"
Y: "Yes"
X: "Can you show me in details how exactly Tom uses a Straw Man at the basis of his solution of A\T Race Paradox?"
Y: "I don't have to show you, it is a fact and that's it"
X: " Y, If you can't show it, you have nothing in your hand against ((A wins T) OR (A does not win T)) Tom's solution".
Y: "You are wrong. Furthermore, I showed that Tom does not understand the concept of Straw Man and as a result he uses it at the basis of his ((A wins T) OR (A does not win T)) solution. Moreover his inability to get Straw Man concept shows that he has no ability to solve the A\T Race Paradox without the need of Limits.
X: "Y, you did not show in details how Tom uses Straw Man at the basis of his solution. As long as you do not do that, you have exactly nothing to say about the validity of Tom's solution."
Y: "I don't have to show anything in details, you simply have to trust me".
X: "No Y, I can't agree with you as long as you do not have a detailed evidence against Tom's solution."
Y: "But I showed that Tom does not understand what Straw Man is"
X: "You know what Y? Let us say that Tom really does not understand what Straw Man is. But also in this case:
1) You have to show in details that Tom's solution fails because he uses Straw Man at the basis of his solution.
OR
2) You have to show that the ability of Tom to understand Straw Man is essential to the validity of his solution."
Until now you did not show (1) OR (2) .
What you did until know is this:
1) You did not provide any detailed evidence (which is clearly related to Tom's solution) that clearly supports your argument against Tom's solution. All you have is "trust me" argument, which is not acceptable.
2) You did not show how the inability of Tom to understand Straw Man has anything to do with the validity of Tom's solution.
As long as you don't support at least (2) there is no problem to exchange "Straw Man" by any arbitrary thing like:
"Tom did not solve A\T Race Paradox because he does not know how to play on a guitar"
"Tom did not solve A\T Race Paradox because he does not know how to sing"
"Tom did not solve A\T Race Paradox because he does not know how to dance"
Etc…
Y: "Tom's solution does not hold exactly as @-operator does not hold".
X: "Y, you continue to write not to the point, and until this very moment you have nothing in your hand (accept "trust me") against Tom's solution.
Furthermore Y. You are the one that uses Straw Man all along our discussion exactly because you try to weakness Tom's argument by irrelevant arguments against his solution, for example:
Tom: "The egg comes before the hen, since dinosaurs laid eggs before hens were around."
Jsfisher: "What? dinosaurs laid hen's eggs? This is rediculus !!"
