Lest anyone accuse me of abandoning the discussion, I did want to stop in and offer a final thought here. What it "would have taken" and what it actually took, is the same thing I called for repeatedly. A disagreement arose in this thread. About a series of issues that, if not purely factual, were certainly moored to factually provable elements: How reliable was the reported deficit reduction? How reliable is AFP? Etc. My response, like others, challenged you on that basis. A number of posters thought your questions about the reliability of the reports were unfounded. You could have responded immediately as you eventually did, with discussion defending your characterization of AFP. Alternatively, you could have done as I suggested, and used the GAO report you requested to build a case that the report was or was not substantial. Instead, you veered off into an odd territory of speculation about the inner lives of other posters. Things became exemplary of our "pack mentality," actions were attributed to my need to "automatically defend" people, and references were made to what "keeps us up at night." All of which was, besides being unknowable, stupid, unnecessary, grossly irrelevant to the topic at hand. Why you persisted in this manner is beyond me. In the future, though, please be advised that continuing to discuss the topic is more productive than attempting amateurish psychoanalysis.