Originally Posted by
Gargoyle
Total. I haven't read the article, but it sounds like either RA's wording was poor or the editing wasn't clear.
+1 I just read it and have to say it is poorly written and the math is hard to follow. I am sure "someone" authored this on his behalf.
Having met Richard and engaged in both verbal and written conversations, it is easy to determine that he clearly has an excellence command of facts and details that is very impressive. I am sure that includes good math skills.
Perhaps he should more closely review these editorials before they get published.
