Let me remind you that the discussion in this vein started with your comment: "All these arguments are crap, in my opinion." Yes, before that, there was my phrase: "So the idea is crap; we've been through this before." But the difference between them is that my phrase is 1) true, 2) theoretically justified, and 3) practically justified. Your phrase, on the other hand, is supported only by vague arguments like: "As far as I can see, most games are decided either by a rush or by whoever gets more ducks/angels. It's not serious when, in the 2nd week, someone shows up with 7-9 angels; how can you possibly have a double-build strategy against that?" And they are vague because if there are no ducks and angels, you get almost the same thing, with the difference that the rush will be a little later, but it will be unstoppable (because they got a lot of hidden units/native castles).