Actually, I seem to recall doing most of the questioning of your assertion that intelligent debate was impossible here. I believe that I even offered to discuss the science behind the CLC as soon as I saw something scientific to debate. All we have are testamonials, as you have stated yourself several times now. Testimonials aren't science - no matter where they come from (and, yes, that includes any testimonials I offer about any hardware, software, literature, or other what-not that I express positive or negative experience with). They can be useful input, but debating them isn't going to get anybody very far. It becomes a debate of volume - who can vouch for the testamonials they agree with the loudest and the longest - because all you have is individual opinions, and even that is based on Internet communication. If we actually set out to debate testamonials, we could go so far as to question the origin of such testamonials - after all, anybody can put anything on the 'net. I could post a fictitious testamonial complete with photos of the dissection of a CLC if I chose to, and spin it any way I wanted. Will I? Nope - but my morals don't negate the fact that it can be done, just as any simple brief testamonial (positive or negative) can be created in a heartbeat. Would that "debate of volume" be an "intelligent debate"? Not by my definition, which is why I haven't sought out such a debate. Does that indicate an absence of bravery on my part? Again, not by my definition, but you are free to define me however you wish so long as you recognize that I don't have any intention of adopting those definitions for myself.