I made it quite clear that 40% over three years was something I felt people could agree was a *minimum*. And I said that 50% if the default position when a harm appears to be equally caused by both sides. And I also argued that the 50% default position could be adjusted if one side expected to get a greater share of the profits because it's reasonable to make it bear a greater share of the harm.

But you're clearly much more interested in turning this into an insulting match or questioning my integrity than in ever facing the possibility that maybe, just maybe, some of this is your fault.