Then I'm not sure why you don't see them as consistent, Steve. I started out saying that the numbers seemed high, and said that might be due to a difference in definition. Then, when I repeated that (in different wording) later, you referred to it as internal inconsistency. I'm being consistent, just allowing that my definition might not be consistent with what was used by the studies and/or participants. Heck, it's possible most people have a different definition than I do - I don't recall having many discussions at a depth that would have brought up the definition.