Fatwollit's description of my attitude is "exactly right". I plead for an argument on 20+ "clues", but am "underwhelmed" - specifically by the people Kramisman chooses to believe. 20+ opportunities to argue me down, which I would welcome, and they opt out. One exception - the explanation for the MOU. I argue it down with little problem, and don't know whether to characterize it as "laughable" or "pathetic".

Please note that in Ron's explanation, he indirectly acknowledges that MOUs are used primarily (always?) for contingency planning. But, unfortunately, his vision is so weak as to be unable to see beyond one possible contingency, HIS, that makes so little sense.

So, now, Kramisman, please identify all the times that my conjecture has been proven wrong. There have been plenty.... Now identify all the times I did not openly acknowledge my error in reasoning (probably never). Now go a step further, and identify all the times when it was I who stepped up to point out the error in my own reasoning, for all to see.

It's called integrity.

And you talk of egos.

An ego that freely acknowledges error?

Or an ego that proclaims a vision of reality when the reality is unknown, and refuses to acknowledge alternative views backed up with some measure of reason, let alone argue the alternative view or supporting "clues". And these are the egos of supposed lawyers - "professional arguers". What's wrong with THAT picture?

Believe as you wish..... And be sure to keep that mind closed up real tight.

SGE