> So, you don't have evidence for it If by "it" you mean "O > R always", then no, I don't have evidence for it nor do I believe it. What I do believe and have

> So, you don't have evidence for it If by "it" you mean "O > R always", then no, I don't have evidence for it nor do I believe it. What I do believe and have a whole book of evidence for is "not (R > O always)". That is what I am arguing for, and have been from my very first message. My opinion of "not (R > O always)" would only be controversial if you believe that "R > O always". But "R > O always" has no evidence supporting it (at least none that anyone has presented or that I am aware of).