Tim's analysis in Forbes _is_ the source of the misleading "480%" statistic -- and the Forbes headline trumpeted the equally-misleading 60% statistic. So, whil

Tim's analysis in Forbes _is_ the source of the misleading "480%" statistic -- and the Forbes headline trumpeted the equally-misleading 60% statistic. So, while I think that Forbes' blogs are frequently quite insightful, this wasn't one of your better moments.