"::::::Enric, you simply haven't grasped the method, though I outlined it for you to read. It's no secret that I only analysed the Google result pages, and the text that Google shows there. I said all that. And it's not relevant that some of those are not reliable sources, or that 4 of the 107 hits are reprints. What I presented was a well-defined, well-focused, enriched but unbiased sample. That's one good use of Google. Anyone who wants to can, as I have made clear, replicate precisely what I did and analyse further than I did. Never mind what scattered individual finds you make among those hits: I asked, directly, what your count was from the data retrieved in my search, not what statistically irrelevant nits you can pick. There is a difference between a systematic scan of the whole set and a selection that ignores the method used to generate it. Did you even use exactly the same search, as I linked it above? Your mention of so many pages leaves me in doubt. Try again. Noetica  

 "