Thanks for the feedback. > suggesting a lack of credibility by suggesting press coverage should be in place is confrontational. You edited out the context I w

Thanks for the feedback. > suggesting a lack of credibility by suggesting press coverage should be in place is confrontational. You edited out the context I was responding to, there. As I recall, you were originally explaining the "six years" in terms of it just being hard to get academic results into the mainstream. That seemed extremely unlikely for such a well-known result. I'm not bothered by your invective or personal attacks, but editing your comments so that my responses are out of context is pretty disturbing.