I do think Lt had it right in the first paragraph though if he had cited it properly this confusion wouldn t have arisen If his reference 1 in this version a note actually wasn t OR he must have seen the Hull document or something else that came to the same conclusion because what he says in that note is not mentioned in the paper edition Unfortunate readers like me assuming that it would be in the paper edition of Thorn because that s the only cited ref that appears to cover this material were set to be disappointed leading in my case to a waste of my time in finding where it did come from