Ewest its all good on my end, and I do appreciate your response. I will most likely never see the relevance of describing Charlie's house/lifestyle in regards to his battle with the epa, no more than I would discussing his hair or eye color. To me, it speaks of at attempt to elicit an emotional response, ie little, modest Charlie, vs. giant epa. I have no doubt that it was unintentional on your part, I simply see it as an ingrained, unconscious act that we all do whether we realize it or not.

You answered the question, it was your choice of adjectives describing Charlie that I find fascinating. RAH tells us that scientists are trained to recognize, and discard, (to the best of their ability) emotional response, choosing to act on factual info only. Could some be trained to recognize, and utilize, emotional response instead?

Sunil asked about the media, and I offered up my thoughts. Those being it's all manipulative and agenda driven. That was the basis for how I got here. Your post seemed to fit the bill, so I commented. No disrespect intended, again I believe it has become unconscious to all of us.

"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"

If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1)
And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1)
Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT?
PB answer: It depends.