FishingRod,

With regard to the debate on (preference/successful encounter), I find it refreshing to see well thought disagreement on the matter. IMWOT, both are good enough ideas to be relevant. I am reminded of a paper I read about predation where curves were described involving probability of success and the energy content of prey. The combination of these curves reflected a hypothesized probability of capture (the realization of prey consumed) and is a curve closely approximating actual consumption as recorded in wild fish samples. The author proposed that the inverse relationships were both relevant resulting in prey frequency peaking at optimum balance of these two factors. The point is ... neither idea is sufficient on its own to adequately describe what is observed to naturally happen ... and yet ... each may be relevant (especially in combination). An environment that allows the free expression of dissenting ideas is always superior to one of rigid consensus. The world is often more complicated that we would like and it works in ways that are not always black and white. It is often only predictable probabilistically where allowance must be incorporated for uncertainty.