Thanks, that's a much better article (and published on a site that, while slightly annoying on its own, is infested with fewer rudely intrusive and resource-con

Thanks, that's a much better article (and published on a site that, while slightly annoying on its own, is infested with fewer rudely intrusive and resource-consuming ads). Reading both, it's clear that (a) you are correct, and (b) the submitted link, besides being materially inaccurate, is shameless reblog spam and should be changed.