Quoting myself (missed it the first time?): > You're again trying to change the subject to the distraction issue of original intent, not actual efficacy. We

Quoting myself (missed it the first time?): > You're again trying to change the subject to the distraction issue of original intent, not actual efficacy. We're spinning in circles now. You have no argument against the concept or against the results, only a vague disdain for the path taken. You don't enjoy the storybook, nothing more. Come back with a real argument please. Until then we have nothing to talk about.