PG's response here is in itself a great example of how one will defend an entity at any cost. Reading comprehension problem? Pot meet kettle! Carl just made an excellent point, and rather than acknowledge it or let it pass, PG doubles down with even more evidence of not understanding the written word in this case. Some must think as long as you're attacking and talking you haven't lost the point. Maybe for some, but the readers of this forum whether for or against the status quo can see through the obfuscation here. And as was pointed out, BB, in large bold font, corrected his point. But yet that's not good enough for PG. Normally, I'd watch this go back and forth without comment, but the chutzpah this took was deserving of a comment. I mean, when you were typing out that response you had to be thinking, "Well, he makes a darn good point. But we can't have that. And this doesn't address his point, and is intellectually dishonest, but I have to say something!"