> You're being pretty dishonest in your replies here. All I'm doing is responding to your (incorrect) numerical assertions. I really don't see how that can be

> You're being pretty dishonest in your replies here. All I'm doing is responding to your (incorrect) numerical assertions. I really don't see how that can be "dishonest". If you don't like the direction of the conversation, I strongly recommend you counter with numbers of your own showing where the problem you think you see lies. That's how we get to a policy discussion on which we can agree. All you're doing right now is shouting at me because I don't see the same reality you do. Let's discuss the reality, no?