No need to take it personally and neither did I know who originally posted it to tag them, not do I have saved a link for reference. All I remember was, that you, assuming we are even talking about the same post here, made a point reaching the conclusion that it would take a Dragon longer to kill a Rhino than vice versa, which, as I stated above might not be entirely untrue, but a missleading and incorrect way to look at it. I also remember something being odd about the whole thing, like operating under the assumption that you place the second FB after the first one detonated or something? (Because, from the top of my head I dont know, how you would reach the original conclusion in the first place, considering both parties have to wait for the detonation of the first bomb before a kill can happen) Whether it was your primary goal or not and regardless of any conclusions reached after, the 'math' I am referring to involved a lot of illogical steps in order to frame a specific result. It would, however, be possible that you were deliberately extremising the case for the sake of an argument, as in Reductio ad Absurdum.