Maybe I didn't word it carefully enough for you, Jim, but I thought that is exactly what I said you wrote (ok, I forgot to include high denomination chips). But, thank you for the rude response.

As I said, I have read both of your posts, and fail to understand why they seem a bit antagonistic, when your real dispute is not with the thrust of David's article, but the existence of certain chips which are not featured in David's article (a point which I believe David has been willing to concede). Nothing you just wrote changes my reading of either your posts or David's. And from my perspective (purely as a reader), your criticisms so far seem minor.

That being said, I do find your substantive posts to be fascinating when presenting facts (not demeaning David's article). I do not mean to discourage them, or to criticize them. I just don't understand why you have taken such an adversarial tone.

Michael Siskin