Stilly -

I did say which occasionally reports minor items like this correctly. I guess this wasn't an occasion.

Unfortunately, they placed it on about page 12F, just in front of the comics, so I probably scanned past it to get to the good stuff, but I don't believe they mentioned a result for the other company.

A later TV report (almost as reliable?) was discussing some limitations on use of the other one, but I didn't catch the whole thing. It sounded like they may have limited it to reconstructive use only?? Or not.

My "extensive studies" of representations of "feminine beauty" over the period from about 1240 thru 1940 indicates that very little has changed in that time. There are quite evident differences in "total body mass(?)" probably reflecting the availability of food and amount of foraging required in different eras, but the proportions of one body part to another seem to reflect a very consistent "standard gorgeous" concept in art. Natural is best, in any quantity - except when Mother Nature plays a really dirty trick on you.

(I need to get my "study" printed, but my current printing facilities just won't handle the Braille edition properly, and I know that's the one that would be most in demand.)

John