>>>>What youroptic article are you talking about? The collected statistics? Sure the numbers were heavily biased and cherrypicked in all of the 40+ categories. They can't be trusted. Everyone knows there are no reliable statistics on US, nobody has the money to pay for properly sized sampling.
>>>
>>>Not the statistics - this one: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/86More.htm
>>
>>Ah, good for you. You have found one footnote where there's something that looks like an opinion, so you have something to shoot at and discard the whole bunch of hard data because of it. Good thinking.
>
>What on earth are you talking about? What hard data?

This: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

> Methinks you aren't reading this discussion in its entirety. Or is it ok for Walter to fob opinions off as facts, while dismissing articles I link as opinion pieces not worthy of consideration? 'Cause that's what's happening here.

The opinion you mention is just a footnote in the above comparison. You can always choose to ignore the numbers and play with footnotes.