Well, goodbye, then Kent. I'm glad to hear you've learnt some things; as I admitted some posts ago, the stuff on Chief Mountain was new to me. I don't see that it causes any difficulty, but nevertheless it is new to me and I'm grateful to you for that.

Round about post 50 someone asked what the point of this discussion is, as we doubt if you expected to convince us and I, for one, didn't expect to convince you. My answer to that question is that it is worth demonstrating to the undecided that there is a good answer to all the points you raise, as indeed I assume you felt the same about our points. LH or Chongo suggested what seems an age ago that we should both admit we don't know and we should admit this to the undecided. I disagree; I think we should present the evidence of why we believe what we do, try to show flaws in each others and make the best case we can. Then the 'undecideds' are in the best possible position to make an informed choice. You have given a sort of 'closing speech' above. I will finish mine - except in response to anything Pete may still have to say, to draw the 'juries' attention to the number of direct questions still lying in your and pete's in-tray and invite them to draw their own conclusions.