ok so should we start ?

What about a method that solves Cross, then LL, then F2L...
Weird...

another idea ? :D

Gilles


2007/1/19, Brent Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

   think out of the box?....
Nah.  We need to think out of the cube.  :D

yeh i agree.
-bm

*Gilles van den Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* wrote:

 Yes I agree with you.
Present results show that the pure CFOP method yields incredible results.
Any change to this method will probably make it slower I think.

Therefore we need to "think out of the box" and look for new ways of
solving the cube.

Gilles


2007/1/12, richy_jr_2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>   The group has been relatively mute for a while. The reasons why are
> many and varied, and I won't invest any time explaining as such.
> The problem in the inactivity is that it screams failure not only
> for the ZBmethod. It represents something far more important. This
> group represents a group of people that are willing to explore
> something new and innovative.
>
> I propose that we rename the group to relate the desire to explore
> new methods. I'm fairly certain this will raise the activity in
> this group, as well as giving cubers a good platform to discuss new
> things. No offense to anyone but the normal speedcubing group is
> quite possibly the worst medium available for discussing new
> approaches.
>
> I have talked to several people with method ideas that could inspire
> a major shift in traditional cubing -- Surely someone wants to play
> a role in this.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Richard
>
>
>




:)
--Brent

------------------------------
Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for 
Mobile<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43909/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail>and
always stay 
connected<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43909/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail>to 
friends.



Reply via email to