As I monitor this thread, I still have an uneasy feeling about the chicken and egg logic of the argument. To quote myself.
Quote:
How sure are they, that the FP's input was not increasing because of an already developing structural failure?
The feedback may have been so modified, that he was reaching further and further for a familiar response.
This still nags at my thinking on the subject.
Exactly my theory, which will also be discussed at the picnic.
