Well, maybe. We had discussed Tom's "breakpoint" findings on Wattage and ST (and via email) before that in part because we weren't sure that he hadn't made a mistake and perhaps there was something screwy with his data or procedures or something. Eventually I was convinced it was real. That was an early example of sharing methods and data to convince people what you were doing was right. But I was never sure how widespread something got on Wattage. There was an awful lot of arguing going on at the same time, so I was never sure who was listening and how much effect it was having. People could agree with you on three things and disagree with you on seven so it was hard to keep track. It was the Wild, Wild, West and it was great.