I think for this to be interesting to an outside observer, it should at least address the bulk of the debate around the topic. If the GP is right and it's missi

I think for this to be interesting to an outside observer, it should at least address the bulk of the debate around the topic. If the GP is right and it's missing the key points of the anti-abudance critique, then I'm afraid it's missing the forest for the trees and misleading to a general audience.