As I noted in comments in Fury: if you can harm, you need consent., I am trying to identify possibly ethics issues with shallow fact patterns. I’m doing this because there seem to be scads of possibly ethics issues, but many are complicated and require understanding the timing of multiple facts and the interlacing of many rules. Today, I think I uncovered an possible ethics issue that predates the deep fact pattern related possible ethics problem related to “active concealment or explicit deception” that affects “Fury” which has been discussed by Steve McIntyre.
This possible ethics issue discussed in today’s post is this:
Concealment of Lewandowsky’s identity on the online survey in ‘Moonhoax’ may have violated provision 2.3.2(c) of Australia’s “National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research”, which is as follows:
2.3.2 Where limited disclosure involves active concealment or explicit deception, and the research does not aim to expose illegal activity, researchers should in addition demonstrate that:
a) participants will not be exposed to an increased risk of harm as a result of the concealment or deception
b) a full explanation, both of the real aims and/or methods of the research, and also of why the concealment or deception was necessary, will subsequently be made available to participants
c) there is no known or likely reason for thinking that participants would not have consented if they had been fully aware of what the research involved.
Let’s now being to consider the following question: Did “Moonhoax” involve concealment? To answer that, we need to learn what information needs to be disclosed
2.2.6 Information on the following matters should also be communicated to participants. Except where the information in specific sub-paragraphs below is also deemed necessary for a person’s
voluntary decision to participate, it should be kept distinct from the information described in paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.2.2:
[…]
(e) contact details of the researchers;
[…]
The lead researcher involved in “Moonhoax” is Lewindowsky. I am no expert and so could be mistaken. But I think 2.2.6(e) indicates that informed consent ordinarily requires them to include contact details for the researcher or at least one of researchers, not some other person. If this is not so, the ethics issue whose existence I am suggesting exists vanishes.
It appears Lewandowsky may have believed so because he evidently made this request of Kate Kirk,
One question: would it be possible to mention only my assistant’s name, Charles Hanich, on the online survey? The reason for this is that I have been writing on the climate issue in public e.g. [here] and my name alone routinely elicits frothing at the mouth by various people, not to mention the hate mail I receive.
Because I am interested in soliciting opinions also from those folks, I would like to withhold my name from the survey as I fear it might contaminate responding.
In the request, Lewandowsky refers to Hanich as an “assistant” — not a researcher. Hanich is not a named coauthor; it appears he may be a lab manager. So, it appears Hanich was probably not considered to be acting in a ‘research’ capacity with respect to “Moonhoax”. If he was, them possibly that would justify giving his name.
The reason provided reason for concealing Lewandowsky’s name is that he fears receiving hate mail from people who he hopes will participate.
At this point: unless giving the Lewandowsky’s assistants name is not concealment, then the request should have been declined because concealment is not required if there is a “no known or likely reason for thinking that participants would not have consented if they had been fully aware of what the research involved”.
The request for deception says he would like people who hate enough to send hate mail to participate, but he fears their knowing he is the lead researcher would “contaminate” the results (in some unspecified way). I would suggest that participants who disliked Lewandowsky enough to send him hate mail would not have consented to participate in his survey if they had know it involved participating in a survey whose data would later be processed, accessed or reported by Lewandowsky.
So: it appears permission for concealment was granted even though there was a likely reason why some participants who the researchers wished to invite and who may have participated would not have participated willingly had they been aware the concealed information. This is a violation of 2.3.2(c). .
I do see a caveat here: There is no violation of 2.3.2(c) if the requirements of 2.2.6(e) are met when researchers substitute their contact details with that of an assistant or if Hanich is somehow seen as a researcher and substituting his name is seen as apppropriate. If so, Lewandowsky’s request to Kate Kirk was superfluous as in that case, substituting “Hanich” for “Lewandowsky” would not be seen as “concealment” and 2.3.2 would not apply.
But assuming the substitution of Hanich for Lewandowsky was concealment, if we end the narrative here, this ethics violation realted to 2.3.2 affects “Moonhoax” the paper that precedes “Fury”.
Update: April 10. I need to remember to look at the glossary. These definitions seem to apply to terms of art in rules that govern whether limited disclosure is permitted.
community
A collection of individuals, which may extend from the whole population to a smaller grouping associated by cultural, ethnic, geographical, social or political factors or some other commonality.
consent
A person’s or group’s agreement, based on adequate knowledge and understanding of relevant material, to participate in research
deception
Where relevant material is withheld from research participants. and/or they are intentionally misled about procedures and/or purposes of research
harm
That which adversely affects the interests or welfare of an individual or a group. Harm includes physical harm, anxiety, pain, psychological disturbance, devaluation of personal worth and social disadvantage.
I believe it is ‘infuriating’ not ‘enfuriating’. I don’t normally care about spelling — I find blogging to not be greatly affected by the occasional finger slip — but errors in titles do tend to jump out.
people who care about speling tend to be religious
Steve Mosher,
Really? Is there a reference or two to point us toward? I have always been a terrible speller, and I have never been a believer either (OK, not since I was 7 or 8).
@ SteveF
Chain, yanked, qty 1
of course there is a reference.
odds are 2:1
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-best-questions-for-first-dates/
Mosher –
You’ve reversed the correlation .
@ Mosher,
You read that exactly the wrong way around.
Lucia,
You are clear in your focus on ‘consent’ issues.
I suggest there is a need for simple applied reasoning about the issue of surveyor anonymity as a prerequisite before we can parse and interpret the written words of the codes of ethical and academic conduct of either the UWA, the Australian gov’t or the publishing journal ‘Psychological Science’. We need, in other words, the basic rational of the spirit of the issue involved in surveyor anonymity.
For the “Moon Hoax’ paper, Lewandowsky was unquestionably the academic leader and main architect of the survey’s purpose, premises, execution and design.
Given that undisputable role of Lewandowsky, how could a reasonable person deciding to take the survey not want to have the choice to accept the lead academics’s anonymity in conducting the survey? Simply, how could they reasonably not be given the choice to decline knowing who was conducting the survey? This is especially so given Lewandowky’s well-known highly antagonistic participation in the public dialog online with the very skeptics he was surveying gives a rational person cause to reasonably expect it would influence the survey’s intent, design and interpretation. It is simply common basic reasoning that survey takers should be given the choice to have the identity of the main academic involved because the surveyor might not be trusted by the survey taker to have integrity in using the surveyed person’s input.
The university, gov’t and journal intellectually are in a very weak position if they avoid simple reasoning and, through complex and obscure parsing of their codes of conduct, authorize his anonymity to survey takers without asking the survey taker’s consent for the anonymity first.
John
Tiljander to you
Mosher
You are becoming as cryptic as “the bunny”!
Haha
Lucia, Mosher is referring to upside down odds.
I would consider Lew’s mocking and derogatory remarks made about those bloggers who initially couldn’t locate the request to participate as an attempt to publicly harm them.
Lucia, is this one of the posts where you will move off-topic comments?
No. It’s just that it started with a spelling error and (almost) no one has posted any on topic comments. So… it’s the goal of staying on topic is hopeless.
No
After establishing she liked beer, I would have thought the obvious long term predictor question was whether her father owned a brewery.
“this ethics violation realted”
“I think I uncovered an possible ethics issue”
“possibly ethics issues” or “possible ethics problem”
“Let’s now being to consider”
“or at least one of researchers”
“If he was, them possibly”
“The reason provided reason for concealing Lewandowsky’s name is”
“if they had know it involved”
“this ethics violation realted”
Sorry.
I didn’t have the courage to say that, Tim.
Back on topic.
I think this is a good one. I would second John W comments.
The other thing you see of course is that people do warn each other when it comes to participating in polls. “dont answer their questions, they will twist it” etc.
It seems to me some Australians (preferably from Perth or the surrounding regions) should file a complaint about Lewandowsky’s ethics violation and the duplicitous way he was abetted by the UWA bureaucracy. They’re unlikely to do anything about it but it would at least put them on notice that rules are rules.
Was Lew’s desire to hide his identity an admission that he had history with sceptics? He was probably far more aware of his negative opinions of sceptics than sceptics. I don’t remember his name before LOG12, though I’m sure if he’d been upfront about things, someone would have looked him up. If he’d been honest and balanced in his views of sceptics previously, we’d not have had a problem filling out his survey. Other than thinking surveys are a waste of time and the questions reflect the limited thoughts of the survey designer.
Another thing to consider – what was the justification for the original study? Even if you took the results at face value, that sceptics are minutely more likely to believe in conspiracies than warmists (studies of general populations show much more evidence of conspiracy belief than either), then what would be done with the information? Other than to try and smear sceptics, I can think of no way the study can have been used.
Knowing he had deliberately set a trap for sceptics, he then recorded the anger at the trick.
Derek H,
People outside Australia can file complaints on ethics violations. I plan to file one. What I think I need is to state each “count” separately, and explain the fact pattern and rules for that count clearly and a way that proves that “count”.
That’s why you are seeing what amount to ‘counts’ getting posted.
TinyCO2,
That may be, but it doesn’t have anything to do with this ‘count’. I need to do something to alert people that I would like comments to be ‘tightly’ ‘on-topic’ on these and that they should go to the miscenllaneous thread for other issues.
Obviously, given the huge ‘OT’ discourse, due to my spelling error, I can’t really lecture anyone on OT on this thread. But for the time being, I’m going to be asking people to be tightly “OT” and address the specific ‘count’ the post discusses.
John/Steve
I think that reasoning involve invoking “respect”, “beneficence” and possibly ‘justice’.
The NS includes stuff like
I think not naming the name violates “respect”.
In this situation where the researcher should know that people he wishes to convert into participants might not wish to participate if they knew he was the lead researcher interfered their ability to “determine one’s own life and make one’s own decisions”. In this case, they were deprived of information they would consider important when making their own decision. In particular the information was withheld in an attempt to sway them to participate– not Lew hopes to get their participation.
The reason he gave for not disclosing his name suggest he does know this because he thought disclosing his name might somehow “contaminate responding”. So he knows this information would affect their decision.
Oh– I should also note: The reason the ‘hatemail writing’ participants (or even any skeptics) would not voluntarily participate in the study conducted by Lew specifically is they believe that by doing so, they risk “reputational harm” for their group or themselves. Under Australian’s “National Statement” this is an actual harm which researchers are mandated to avoid.
So here we have a group of potential partipants (some of whom might have become actual participants) who were deprived of information on which to base their own decisions. The researcher knew this information would be of interest to the participants and those participants would base decisions on that information. He requested permission for concealment based on the knowledge that it would affect their decision. His stated reason was “hatemail” but it foreseeable that at least some participants might elect to fill out the survey had they known the lead researchers identity.
Further to replying to whitman and mosher
Here we have the justification for concealment.
If we examine the justification, we see that the goal of concealment as expressed to Kirk was to avoid getting ‘hatemail’. As bad as hatemail might be, recieving would never prevent Lew from achieving the aims of the research. So, here the researchers most obvious stated reason for concealment is to minimize discomfort or harm to himself. This is not indicated as a valid reason for concealment.
BTW: this is looking “worse than I thought”. And thanks John Whitman for suggesting I look for underlying ‘reasons’. The NS is full of ‘reasons” for the rules, so they tend to be easy to find.
“…the aims of the research cannot be achieved if those aims and/or the research method are fully disclosed to participants.”
Especially if the aim of the research is to discredit (a subset of) the participants. 😉
The ostensible purpose of the Moonhoax survey was to examine correlation of opinions on different subjects. There seems to be little reason why *that* aim would require deception.
However, in discussions at the (anti-skeptic) forums, many persons there believed the purpose was to paint skeptics as conspiracy freaks.
HaroldW,
I can see one: it’s that invited participants would refuse to participate if fully informed of the totality of the research. But this is absolutely, totally, completely, (insert more adjectives here) not a permissible reason for concealment because it interferes with participants ability to make their own decisions about participating.
It is my understanding that the name Lewandowsky was not consistently concealed with respect to survey promotion attempts.
If concealment of the lead author’s name was important to the “aims of the study”, then that concealment should have been universal. Otherwise, it is not important to the overall study and there was no need for it other than to deceive some (not all) potential participants.
When conducting research, is it ethical to fully disclose to some participants and not others?
Jan,
Lewandowsky’s name was not concealed at all blogs or from all bloggers invited to make the annoucement. At Deltoid, the identity was clearly not concealed, the invitation reads
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/29/survey-on-attitudes-towards-cl/
At bickmore (also not-skeptic) it reads
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/take-a-survey/
So, those who read Deltoid knew the identity of the Lead researcher, others might not have.
Regarding spelling error and religion, and Tiljander, I submit to you that it is not possible to get things backwards. Unlike with Tiljander, if group A is more likely to be a member of group B, then group B is also more likely to be a member of group A.
MikeN:
Not really. Look at this simple example:
#(A and B) = 10
#(A and not-B) = 0
#(not-A and B) = 90
#(not-A and not-B) = 100 (or any other number you like)
Calculate the conditional probabilities for randomly selecting one of the 200 individuals:
P(B | A) = 10 / 10 = 1
P(not-B | A ) = 0
P(A | B ) = 10 / 100 = .1
P(not-A | B) = 90 / 100 = .9
All A’s are also B’s, however a B is much less likely to be an A than a not-A.
Lucia,
Your focus on consent is relevant. You and other blog owners are keeping it visible. Thank you.
The Lewandowsky ‘Moon Hoax’ ‘consent’ context makes good material for formal case studies authored by interested individuals. Formal case studies of ‘consent’ in the Lewandowsky ‘Moon Hoax’ research could feasibly be published in open / transparent MSM and internet venues. Copies feasibly could also be sent to the ethic and academic committees of; the UWA, the appropriate department of the Australian gov’t, and the publishing journal ‘Psychological Science’. Good luck.
John
Lucia
As I mentioned on CA there may actually be a paper that demonstrates how lack of consent and researcher bias make a hash
of speech analysis..
there is a reason for approvals and protocals.
“If we examine the justification, we see that the goal of concealment as expressed to Kirk was to avoid getting ‘hatemail’. As bad as hatemail might be, recieving would never prevent Lew from achieving the aims of the research.”
This may not be relevant to the ethics guidelines, which as you point out don’t serve to protect the researcher from offense, but I must also ask: was engaging in deception the only means available to Lew, to avoid getting “hatemail”? It seems to me that to justify this action, Lew would have to establish that there was no viable alternative that would be less mendacious.
Brad R,
You have a point. But the way I see it: since ‘Lew doesn’t want to get hatemail’ doesn’t justify concealment of his identity from participants, as far as an ethics discussion goes, I don’t need to worry about what else he might do to reduce ‘hatemail’.
There are tons of ways he could reduce hatemail. So, might permit him to do the research, some might require him to bow out. In the ethics guidelines, it sometimes tells researchers they might have to bow out of doing certain research that might be permissible to other researchers if they can’t do within the guidelines of the ethics document. Stated reasons why a particular researcher might need to recuse himself from a particular investigation include at least their relationship with participants and conflict of interest. So sometimes this is required of the researcher.
The solution to the researcher’s relationship with participants interfering with his ability to do the study is not to strip away the participants access to information the participants might consider important when making their decision to participate. The solution can be for the researcher to recuse himself.
This need to recuse isn’t unique to Lew, it’s a general rule. If academics want to change this, they are going to have to get legilators or rulemakers in their countries to change this.
Mosher,
It is my view that many of the ethics rules would also be good rules if one merely wants to do good research in many areas. It should be obvious that ‘speech analysis’ of quotes by a subject who is referred to as “ilk” by the researcher is going to be pretty pathetic.
“Mosher,
It is my view that many of the ethics rules would also be good rules if one merely wants to do good research in many areas. It should be obvious that ‘speech analysis’ of quotes by a subject who is referred to as “ilk†by the researcher is going to be pretty pathetic.”
yes. someday someone may write a paper and get it peer reviewed.
Dr. lew would enjoy being singled out as a biased researcher in a peer reviewed case study.
@ Steve Mosher #128315
“Dr. lew would enjoy being singled out as a biased researcher in a peer reviewed case study.”
He would probably sue up a storm, lol.
hunter.
The protocal would be easy.
1. Select statements and comments from real conspiracy nuts
at truther sites, moon hoax sites etc.
2. Train your “readers” on subsample of these quotes.. teaching them to spot
NI, and the other modes of ideation.
3. Then mix lucia’s comments in with real live nutters.
mix in some nutter comments from SKs forums
4. have your readers classify.
When you find out that no trained reader interprets as dr. Lew does, then you have A fun paper to write explaining the importnace of following ethical guidelines when doing something as seemingly mundane as content analysis of speech.
Funny story.
Long ago I used to make money by reading freshman entrace exams. All freshmen had to write an essay.
We were trained and normed and read every essay for every UCLA freshman. Brutal. any way. there was this whole protocol.
There was one case and one case only where I felt I could not score a paper.
Basically most kids did ‘what I did this summer’ types of essays.
you score for organization, sentence structure, vocab, etc.
And they fell into roughly three classes
1. remedial
2. needs to take freshman english
3. passes out
So I get this essay. The kid was an olympic athlete. I knew who they were ( I had watched them perform). Even with no name in the essays I knew who it was.
Nobody needed to tell me that I could not judge her paper.
I just went to the monitor handed him the paper and said; I cannot score this.
It wasnt that I could identify any specific thing that made me biased. it was a good paper. but I could recognize how any number of different emotions ( in some case contradictory) could impact my scoring..
Same thing happened as an undergrad. I was on the committee for teacher awards. basically the 3 top seniors got to look at all the prof reviews and select teacher of the year.
There was no rule about recusing yourself if you knew the prof.
No one needed to tell me to do that. I just did.
While I do enjoy this exercise of hanging an academic with their own rope, one should not overplay their hand as Lew did when he trashed the journal.
Any formal complaints will be dissected by the other side just as is done here, and likely won’t be reviewed by a sympathetic administrator. It might be wisest to concentrate solely on what Frontiers retracted the paper for, being named in a research paper without informed consent.
It now has precedent and it is hard to crawl out from under this accusation, particularly in light of them having produced an anonymous version of the paper, proving that it was in fact possible.
Diluting it with other technical violations may actually weaken the overall impact.
Given that most (all?) inquiries never bothered asking Phil if he deleted any e-mails, it might be more useful to keep them focused on answering the hardest questions.
I have no special expertise here, and this advice was worth ever dollar you paid for it.
Steven Mosher:
As I recall, when the Moonhoax survey was announced at one (or more?) of the anti-skeptic sites, there were comments to the effect that “skeptics will never fall for that. It’s obviously intended to show that skeptics are conspiracy nuts.”
Does that qualify as NI?
Tom Scharf makes a great point about human nature. The Crucifixion of Lew has transformed him into the second coming, the Son of Mann.
Thanks Lucia, you’ve confirmed what I understood to be the case. I’ve since discovered that Deltoid was not the only blog to mention Lewandowsky by name. This blog also connects the survey to him:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/questionnaire/
Not only does this *concealment for some but not for all* potentially compromise the survey responses (making the original supporting paper junk), it seems to me it compromises the rationale behind requesting concealment and thus the basis for subsequent approval. So for me, it isn’t just an ethical failure on the part of the researchers (who, in my opinion, were already and self-admittedly compromised as trusted researchers), it is an ethics failure on the part of those charged with ensuring that publicly funded research complies with ethical standards.
Lucia,
I think you are a little misguided with the whole, “If he doesn’t want to get hate mail” thing. His stated reason for not wanting to include his name was that he thought it might contaminate the results. I think the hate mail thing was with a wink and a nod, trying to be funny or something, I assume he wears his hate mail as a badge of honor in his circles, his way of saying, look how important I am in fighting on the front lines of the climate wars, but the deniers won’t stop me, I’m not afraid…
Of course his stated reason make even less sense, If he thought it might contaminate the results why not apply the same thing for all blogs, why treat any of the samples differently. And he expects to find skeptics and non-skeptics at all blog, just in different proportions. So if he reveals his name at Deltiod, isn’t he going to contaminate the few skeptics left at Deltiod?
And of course his bias is even deeper. Why would knowing the author only contaminate skeptics. Did it not occur to him that a non-skeptic might see his name, know his game and make a fake response to paint skeptics in a bad light?
Of course it didn’t occur to him, because he knew before he did the study that non-skeptics are all thoughtful, rational, clear thinking folks with keen scientific brains and hearts of gold. And the bad guys are the nutso.
Dick Hertz (Comment #128345)
This is the most direct stated reason:
Note it mentions “frothing at the mouth” and “hate mail” not contaminating results.
Later, in passing he mentions contaminating results. But the fact is even if mentioning his name would contaminate results, that doesn’t help his cause because the concealment is not permitted at all if the people he withholds his information would not have consented had they known.
Yes. And possibly with people who applaud too. In fact, contamination of results is one of the criticism his critics discussed.
I very much appreciate your thinking on this whole Lew affair, mostly because when I read what you write, I see clear thinking and an open mind. That is what really makes Lew’s action all the more disgusting.
That is also why I offer my opinion on this small point, because I know you will at least consider it, thus solidifying the foundation of your thinking, even if we end up disagreeing on the point.
Lew is acknowledging that the very mention of his name is so powerful, that it may cause frothing of the mouth and potentially hate mail, in other words, a very negative emotional response.
The very next sentence says (and I personally would not describe it as “in passing”) “I would like to withhold my name from the survey as I fear it might contaminate responding.”
To be fair Lew gives two reasons to withhold his name, a negative emotional response and contaminate responding. As I read it, he takes the contaminate responding more seriously because he seems so flippant when he describes frothing at the mouth and hate mail. Not a serious way to describe a negative emotional response that a researcher is inflicting on his subjects. Obviously he does not care about this because of his personal feelings about his subjects. I doubt he would be so glib if he were studying children or nice people.
He gives no reason to treat different subjects differently. This is a junior high science fair project level mistake.
Take it for what its worth and keep up the great work.
Another statement from Frontiers
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_Papers/830
Re: http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_Papers/830
It would be difficult to make a clearer statement of the principal problem.
j ferguson,
That’s the problem they perceive. Others that exist may not be obvious from merely reading the manuscript. Frontiers normal method of dectecing issues is to have the universities organization report whether an ethics review was done and what the organization found. However, in this case, even the Journal can tell that whatever the University said, the ethics problem is evident when you read the paper. Since a reader– like one employed by Frontiers– can detect it, the fact that AWU says the ethics are sound doesn’t matter.
The new Frontiers statement is needed for folks like Eli to understand the reason the paper was retracted; for most people the explanation is needed about as much as an explanation for why driving with a 0.2% blood alcohol level is illegal. It appears mainly a statement of explanation for the terminally thick-headed, who, unsurprisingly, seem disproportionally represented in academia.
All they need is one. No?
“Since a reader– like one employed by Frontiers– can detect it, the fact that AWU says the ethics are sound doesn’t matter.”
Did AWU do an ethics review of the paper, or just of the study? We may never know without seeing the top-secret correspondence that went back and forth, but I’ll hazard a guess that AWU reviewed only the study. And has already been noted, it’s possible for the study to be ethical, but the paper reporting the study to be unethical.
Ack. UWA, not AWU.
RomanM, in your example, 100% of A are B, while <50% of not A are B. 10% of B are A, and 0% of not B are A.
B is more likely to be A.
MikeN, this is off topic in this thread so this is my last comment on this.
What we are talking about here is conditional probability.
If you select someone randomly from this set of individuals AND you know that they are an A, then with probability 1 they are also a B.
If you select someone randomly from this set of individuals AND you know that they are an B, then the probability that they are also a A is 1/10 which is substantially less than the probability that they are not an A.
To interpret this: If you find someone who believes in Lewandowsky’s Moon conspiracy and find out that they also are skeptical of CAGW, it does not necessarily mean that someone who is a skeptic of global warming catastrophe is likely to be a conspiracy nut.
I agree this is topic is off topic, but I want to point out I don’t think RomanM’s response isn’t right. I don’t think it’s wrong either. I just think there’s no real answer here. MikeN says:
Notice, both statements are missing an object of comparison. It’s common for people to just say something is “more likely,” but there’s always an implicit object. You should always be able to answer the question, “More likely than what?”
In MikeN’s case, I don’t think you can. “B is more likely to be A” than… what, for meatballs to rain from the sky? Than “not B” to be “A”? Than for “B” to be “not A”? I think MikeN intends for the second of these while RomanM is thinking in terms of the third, but I’m not sure. I don’t even see anything that makes it clear the first option isn’t viable.
I don’t see the relevance of any of this to the topic, but if MikeN wants people to understand what he says, he needs to say it more clearly. And before RomanM gets sure MikeN is wrong, he should make sure he hasn’t been confused by MikeN’s vagueness.
Or maybe I’m just confused. Maybe this all made sense to someone else.