You make some good points and a bit of hopeful ones, which is fine. So, why is it then you don't concede when he's made a few missteps? It seems very hard for you, mental, mr. sqatz, and bm, to name the main ones, that defend those missteps? Seriously dude. You just made a Michaelmesk quality post, but I can't say that's the norm. I think if we just recognize when it happens, call it, then move on, it would just remain a minor hick-up. Instead, the resistance to the obvious becomes overblown because of the insistence that it never happened, or it was misinterpreted, or whatever justification applies at the time. The double standard has become amusing to me. Especially when I get the desperate poster to defend their position which leads them to become flustered.