Yeah Patrick, I was wondering about that number, whether you'd bored it or what, but I guess either you typed a 9 instead of a 0 or my eyes are going - don't know, 'cause the email's been deleted now! :-)
Twl, I'm actually starting to become glad I've delayed now - some more time to try and digest the implications of the technical appendix at the bottom of the article (which is frankly over my head) has got me beginning to think that maybe the particular inconsistency or incompleteness I thought I detected in the body of the article is answered or addressed in the appendix. I don't know yet, I'm trying to do further research to educate myself some more, but I'm holding off on any accusations of a "smoking gun" for the moment. I haven't gotten a reply from De Lima yet; he's the one I'd really like to chat with right about now, and I don't think I'm gonna turn myself into an EE overnight. :-) But I will say that further consideration has me thinking that one of my assumptions is probably incorrect, and I'm modifying my approach. When I've got some things settled in my mind, I will certainly be happy to discuss both my thought process and my ultimate conclusions with you, but am begging off at present - still thinking, still researching. Regardless, there are still some aspects and implications of both the theory and some statements in the article that I will post about later, independent of whether I decide the theory is likely to be valid or not. Sorry, that's the best I can do right now. :-( But like the song says, we've got all the time in the world, and I'm taking some of it.
