re-thinking this, I think it can be argued both ways. I mean somebody can explain the method of fridrich or roux and not explain how to exactly perform the method and somebody can intuitively figure out the method by the guidelines laid out. So I can see that point. I just don't think it's right to say that it's 100% intuitive to solve a cube using your method, as 100% intuition would also be coming up with the method for themselves. It's the 100% part that I have a problem with. The people that invented the solving strategies that we all know these days are the people that solved it 100% intuitively in my opinion, like the person that invented Fridrich, Roux, etc etc. Again, I think when looking at it this way, it can be argued from both sides that it could be named 100% and could not. Both have valid points, and if you can't agree with this at least, then lets agree to disagree.You very well said! I agree with you!