my "case" amounts to nothing more than putting the data up for review. scroll back to my first post on this and you'll find me say exactly that. you're the one forcing the issue into a conclusive verdict long before doing so is warranted. "retarded" indeed.
And I merely questioned the value of that data.

it is extremely complicated. you have clearly not read anything on this topic.
Indeed I have, but if you know better, by all means -- enlighten me.

i don't find this issue sufficiently pressing to call on the favors of someone who is no more than an acquaintance of mine.
Fair enough.