I believe you've completely missed John's point. First, this latest response is completely off point in that it doesn't address the part of your argument that John referred to. Second, I believe John is saying that your argument is difficult to read and is difficult to make sense of because of the way it's worded, put together, or whatever. It's certainly not clear, concise, or easily understandable. It doesn't communicate well. For instance, you make the statement that the "...the force on the pulling spoke is therefore more "complete" rather than vectored (for want of a better description)." That statement is completely nonsensical. What is it supposed to mean? You are aware, aren't you, that a vector quantity is just a directed quantity, right? Force is a vector quantity. Full stop. What does completeness have to do with it? What is completeness with respect to forces? Are you attempting to use
set theory to prove your point? "Complete" is completely out of place here.
The problem with arguments that have no scientific or engineering foundation, background, or whatever is that they fail when put into a scientific or engineering context. In the case of your argument, you appear to go further and insinuate that John and others are somewhow lacking something special, something telling about physical processes, something that can't be found in a science text or engineering book. Your words:
..."I hear the words" ... but, the logic, en toto, just isn't there ... nonetheless, there are those amongst you who have chosen to religiously follow the beliefs that a double-butted spoke is stronger ... hey, it was printed in a book!
Nice. Before that you try to wield "recalcitrant" as if it gives credence to your "logic."
It seems the biggest evidence you have to support your "logic" is all of the hand waving you're doing.