Look I said that 5:1 never looked very likely, loads of people grapsed that and said so as soon as it was proclaimed.Jamesac wrote:Back peddling
To be fair I don't think it was even fully belieived by the person who originally predicted that statistic, I read it as a bit of op ed to get people to read wotr.
You've now shifted your position from "looked likely" to "looked likely in my opinion" qualified by "best facts I had available to me at the time"
If that's what you wanted to get across in the first place, fair enough.
However it just doesn't read like that, your post reads like a justification of the original 5:1 claims by implication that it was the received wisdom when the claim was originall made. It wasn't, it was a minority view.
That's what I took issue with.





