Colm,Wow! There's someone who's upset. We spoke to the CBI about a number of aspects, one of the key ones being the back-testing which showed a 1,304/1,304 success rate and a worst back-testing result of +40%. That was Series 4 (and all other series, I think). Series 5, which is essentially the same product, shows a 1779/2609 success rate and a worst result of -16%. I hope that our intervention contributed to the change in presentation of back-testing results. A change in the right direction.
If you took the time to consider properly what I wrote, you would realise that I was addressing the specific and systemic issues involved in all of this. Otherwise, the issue that you are supposedly so exercised about will continue to recur.
I was disappointed that, not for the first time, you misrepresented what I said - so I was obliged to go to the trouble to explain my viewpoint. Admittedly, the very definition of futility! Anyway, as I said, it was my mistake for engaging with you. Fool me once, past performance, etc., etc....
So this will be my last post on this thread - life really is too short.
Your latest reply is characteristic in two respects of my sense of your typical responses to me:
1. There is no denial that you misrepresented me. Instead, we get a silly "Wow! There's someone who's upset." Crucially, no apology; and
2. The non-addressing, as predicted, of specific questions - I told you I wouldn't be holding my souffle.