Well, thank you, that's very welcome and I feel bad for making you apologise. I'm glad you see things this way!
So, I'm looking at my comment again and I think I should have omitted the following two sentences:
>> I don't get the feeling it was setup to demonstrate _weakness_ though. I think it was meant to demonstrate strngths.
>> I suppose it's just advertising for the BYU Perception, Control and Cognition Lab, but it sounds awfuly expensive for advertising for an academic group.
The first one does sound as if I'm taking a swipe at the research team. This was not my intention but it came out all wrong.
The second one makes assumptions about the motivation of the BYU research team, and I should have kept those to myself.
My original question, what justifies the high cost of the product, I feel is valid so I wouldn't change it. But, clearly, I took it farther than I should have. I apologise that I didn't think my comment through enough so as to avoid having it come across as an attack on the BYU team and I'm sorry it upset you.
So, I'm looking at my comment again and I think I should have omitted the following two sentences:
>> I don't get the feeling it was setup to demonstrate _weakness_ though. I think it was meant to demonstrate strngths.
>> I suppose it's just advertising for the BYU Perception, Control and Cognition Lab, but it sounds awfuly expensive for advertising for an academic group.
The first one does sound as if I'm taking a swipe at the research team. This was not my intention but it came out all wrong.
The second one makes assumptions about the motivation of the BYU research team, and I should have kept those to myself.
My original question, what justifies the high cost of the product, I feel is valid so I wouldn't change it. But, clearly, I took it farther than I should have. I apologise that I didn't think my comment through enough so as to avoid having it come across as an attack on the BYU team and I'm sorry it upset you.