Of course not its just a hypothesis Im am just documenting the previous editors refusal to include Maddens fairly definitive and dramatic PNAS article and results into the primary reference list as compared to your zeal and bias to include another far less dramatic primary PNAS reference as a definitive refutation of an already refuted hypothesis that has changed dramatically since it was first proposed many years ago When any of you can come to grips with the nanodiamond in terrestrial sediments problem get back to me Ill be glad to assist Until then good luck Ill be watching you with amusement