your actual conclusion should have been that your post was silly on a fundamental level, not merely that it needed some tinkering in the figures? You mention "tongue in cheek" in your reply to Ghav, but then you seem to be defending your post quite seriously here - and in any case I'm not sure how the original post would work as "tongue in cheek". I'll readily believe you don't actually hold to the simplistic worldview implied by your post, but then what's the point of acting as if you do?