thank you anon. I actually participated in that discussion, but the questions I'm now concerned about weren't addressed at the time. What concerns me now is that it's a self-published paper that relies heavily on hearsay, and makes no attempt to source things that are now being extracted from it as if they're facts. The one example I used is of great concern to me, but there are others on the Mason Remey and BUPC pages that are also contentious. I'm curious if it's merits are defendable beyond what's been cited above already, because it appears to only be a self-published paper and should only be used as such IMO.