subspark, when you PMed me with a link to this thread, I thought you'd finally produced a demonstration of your method, so we could judge first-hand whether it works. Instead you're just misreading a comment from CJ and taking it as support for your claims. Frankly, that's a bit insulting.
You keep saying that we should be open to new ideas or that we don't understand your proposal. In fact, it's not a new idea. It has been suggested at least twice before. And I was all for it the first time I heard about it, until someone explained why it wouldn't work. We're not naysayers out of conservatism or fear of new ideas, but because you've failed to provide a convincing justification that you have a working method. If you could convince us of that, I'm sure you'd have the wholehearted support of everybody in this thread.
The ball is in your court. If what you've said is true, it should be trivial for you to answer the challenge that Ali just quoted. As long as you don't, I'll take that as evidence that you're wrong.
Edit: As subspark said, we've resolved any hostility, and agreed to disagree for the time being. I look forward to seeing his ideas demonstrated in a form where we can evaluate them.