I totally disagree with your analysis.

The quote from amirebram is:

And when challenged on this he said


No supporting evidence has been presented by amirebram for this assertion. I have presented counterarguments that,
1. Wikipedia recognizes the search "bell curve" to mean only the normal/Gaussian distribution.
2. A Google search for "bell curve" overwhelmingly returns the result that "bell curve" = normal/Gaussian distribution. (I would say it returns only that result since on the first page it returns only that result, but I haven't looked through other pages.) Specifically, a Google Images search results only in images of the normal/Gaussian distribution through the first five pages. (The first that shows something different comes up because the page references the book The Bell Curve.)
3. A search at Mathworld---mathworld.wolfram.com, the definitive mathematical resource on the Internet---for "bell curve" returns many entries. However, the only one of these entries on a statistical distribution is the normal/Gaussian distribution.
4. My weakest argument, that from personal experience: none of the other commenters in the previous thread besides amirebram (including myself) have once ever heard the term "bell curve" being used for any distribution other than the normal/Gaussian distribution.

With all these facts in play, we have the weight of all available resources converging to one answer: "bell curve" = normal/Gaussian distribution. Only one person, against the whole of the Internet reference world, disputes this usage. I am not saying he is wrong, just that his usage is different from the normal usage.

Still, given the anomaly that is not using "bell curve" in the way I have outlined, it is safe to say RJ used it in the way I use it, and every other poster on this board save one uses it, and every available reference material uses it.

The usage "bell curve" = normal/Gaussian distribution should be the null hypothesis. As in, any time a person says "bell curve" we can safely assume he or she means "normal/Gaussian distribution." If one wishes to claim that this person meant something else, then one must present evidence in favor of that proposition. In absence of this evidence we assume the null hypothesis.

So I do not agree when you say, "There is no evidence that RJ's bell curve is one of a pure gaussian distribution." As I have shown, this usage should be the default position, the null hypothesis. Any other hypothesis, such as 'RJ meant ____ distribution,' needs evidence in its favor. Until then, let us all agree that RJ meant that the levels of OP strength follow a normal/Gaussian distribution.