Openings against e4 that are Open (except e5)

Spongy.  When you quote people, please include their full quotes.  Otherwise, you are simply quoting out of context, leaving out vital information from  the whole quote.Also theory about thriller fans experience has nothing to do with this subject.  Let everyone who wants to help the op present his viewpoint.  Your nuanced approach does nothing to help the beginner.  In other words, let us stick to the op's topic.

Name any post of yours in this entire thread that was written after my first one in this thread.

Learn how to take an answer at face value and kill the what-ifs.  For example, when I give the hypothesis that after 9 months, person X understands the Advance Variation and that is all he needs because he only plays the White side of the French, who the f**k cares what his level is at 5 months?  Take a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle or Lego set.  What do you have when 500 pieces are put together?  You have an incomplete product!  Are you going to glue the 500 jigsaw pieces together and hang it up on the wall with 500 pieces missing?  Again, you know it or you don't.  There is no half-a$$ing it.

Jesus Christ!  Come-on Man!  If you have a legit question, I will answer, but from here on out, I am answering no more "what if" questions or where things are at the quarter or half way points.  I gave you Blackjack, Jigsaw Puzzles, and Lego Sets to compare to.  If you don't get the point by now, or if you do and continue to try to split every hair on your head, then you are either stupid or just a complete a$$.

I was not asking for you tell me what your exact results were after one year of French-defense-fixing. The idea was for you to tell me whether or not there had been any results improvement.

The complete originals are nearby and easy to look up. I am often reacting to a specific comment, and I believe that my approach is better for communication.

Don't know what you are referring to.

Clearly kindaspongey is William Barr.  He only gives redacted reports of what people say to make it sound like something completely different!

My impression is that HolyCrusader5 was thinking in terms of understanding between beginner and GM.

So you don't want to try to identify a specific fact-twisting sentence?

Well, if he didn't have a beginner's grasp and he didn't have a GM-grasp doesn't that suggest that grasp is not a yes-or-no-thing?

Holycrusader's topic is about avoiding cramped positions without playing e5.  Let's stick to the topic.How does one avoid cramped positions without playing e5?

And I answered that a while back that Black's position is cramped if he does not play 1...e5 and White chooses specifically a space grabbing variation.  That would be the advance against the French or Caro-Kann, a lot of the early f4 lines in the open Sicilian, Austrian Attack against the Pirc or Modern, and 2...e5 lines against the Alekhine.  Against 1...d5, White can grab space with 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nf3 intending c4.

White does not HAVE TO play these space-grabbing lines, but the only way to truly avoid them is 1...e5.  Play 1...e5 or risk getting a cramped position.  I do not mind playing a cramped position and that is why I play 1...e6.

A jigsaw puzzle can be partially finished. Instead of claiming the non-existence of "half-a$$ing", are you now expressing disapproval of it? For many, GM-level understanding is a long way off (if it is ever likely to come at all). Using an opening with gradually improving understanding seems to me to be generally recognized as appropriate behavior. Perhaps the sort of thing that you yourself did with the French for a couple years?

"The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line." - GM Nigel Davies (2005)

"... I think people tend to be afraid of the main lines. They think: ... sure, I'm going to take up (say) 5 Bg5 against the Semi-Slav, once I've got time and learned it properly. ... My advice is - don't bother. The more you learn anyway, the more you'll recognize how little you know. ... 5 Bg5 is a good move - get it on the board, get ready to fight, and see what happens.
Sure, there will come a time, whether on move two or move twenty, when your knowledge of theory runs out and you have to decide what to do on your own. ... sometimes you will leave theory first, sometimes your opponent. Nothing will stop this happening. It happens in every well-contested GM game at some point, usually a very significant point. This is a part of the game: an important part, something you have to get better at. ... to improve you have to challenge yourself; ..." - IM John Cox (2006)

So I think we can answer Holycrusader's question now.  It does not seem possible to avoid a cramped game if e5 is not played.  I would add that, I think, that e5 can also produce a cramped game.  Just use the tools to navigate your cramped game.

 Notice I give the whole quote.

Whether a jigsaw puzzle or painting or whatever else.  How much is a Mona Lisa painting worth?  $2000? (Hypothetically).  If I paint you half a Mona Lisa, you giving me $1000 for that?  If so, give me your email so we can talk out a contract.

Are you trying to indicate that a player can't benefit from less-than-GM understanding of an opening? Did you benefit from your first year of work on French-fixing?

"... I think that HolyCrusader5 is trying to think in terms of what is most likely." - kindaspongey (~3 days ago)

"Nobody should remotely care about what is likely. ..." - ThrillerFan (~3 days ago)

The likely opponents for a 1400 player are, for example, vastly different from the likely opponents for an IM. I see nothing wrong with a 1400 player thinking in terms of likely current and near future opponents.

Understand, Spongy, that when you quote an authority, you are doing two things.  First, you are giving his opinion; second, the way you are using it is at best employing the fallacy of an appeal to authority.  No human has the final say on any subject.  The one great lesson chess has taught me is that I should question things, especially that which comes from authorities.

No claim of final say was made.

A good idea to question ThrillerFan?

When you use an authority to bolster your argument, the implication is that it is the final word, that the authority has spoken.  

It is a good idea to question anyone.