It is true that my intention was not to be rude. My "I suggest you read up on" comment was in response to your claim: >You just can't effectively watermark dat

It is true that my intention was not to be rude. My "I suggest you read up on" comment was in response to your claim: >You just can't effectively watermark data intended for human consumption, our tolerance for intentionally induced noise is too high. Which is simply not true! That kind of misunderstanding suggests that you are unfamiliar with the kinds of digital watermarking that are used TODAY, hence my suggestion that you read up on it. If the comment came off as rude, I certainly apologize, but I stand by the point I was trying to make. >If you tell an opponent: here is the decode technique and here is where the message is likely to be, you've basically defeated your own stenography. I agree with you on this point 100%. I also made a post to that effect elsewhere. But that is not the same argument you made in your previous post!