In regard to my misunderstanding Dave Perry First off given the overall polarization it is unlikely any researcher is going to support anything from the other side, so that should have been a big hello for me The second point is he starts his page few paragraphs with statements from Radenmacher or Vernon Then has a new bracketed section below that does not state who is now speaking. So when I read it I assumed it to be be Perry's critique since it included the subject I over and over I can see people can blame me for being dense in not understanding, but it would not have killed Perry to have stated who was speaking in this new bracket I am including these whiny details to at least show I make attempts to see the viewpoints from the the other side even though I cannot understand them