Linda, Hi first I'm not certain which thread your are interpreting I down graded. My intention when I went back into the list was to post a question and then began reading through the other discussions. My objection to some aspects of these discussions are the apparent personal attacks made on individuals who have spent a considerable amount of time, research, and effort to develop utilities and models to look at data resulting from the genetic genealogy testing with hope that the results produced by the computerized looks at the data may indeed shed some clarifying light on a whole host of things from TMRCA to narrowing the time scale for mutations and spread of those mutations. It is one thing to post a question for clarification, results explanations, discuss informed disagreement of results, further need for research and how that could be implemented, whether or not this or that genetic test is worth the money, whether or not enough data has been collected and/or analyzed, and even the analytical models -- pros and cons -- all of that; however these discussions very often degrade on their own and depending on the posters begin to involve personalities rather than the subject at hand. All opinions are valid particularly to each poster; however some of these posts have teetered into crossing the line of civility. In regard to my comments about the sand box, I think my credentials aren't an issue; however you pose a fair question. In addition to an MA/Ed with further post graduate work, 40 years of genealogy research, a business owner of 33 years, a volunteer research member of an active project with-in YDNA , and a member of this group I cannot attest to any lofty credentials; however, I will not follow suit and ask what yours are or why my credentials are important or necessary to comment and/or question; or why my post is erroneously interpreted to down grade which discussion are you referring to? In regard to the various utilities and models, the research I have undertaken has employed as many as are available to have a run on the data sets I'm researching with out a bias or preconceived notion as to which is best. They all look at the data differently, using different parameters, and seeking some somewhat different information and possible conclusions. In terms of establishing some TMRCA understandings in regard to the data looked at, it is interesting for me to note that they all actually compliment one another quite nicely -- results aren't exact among them, but one would not expect there to be, and the margin of error either implicit and/or inferred in the understandings of interpreting the results yielded by each would explain part of that. In regard to the question I asked, there has been discussion both on this list and in the news regarding R1b results from certain populations in the middle east which is being looked at with interest. This subject also interests me. Of consideration is migration of Europeans into those areas back into antiquity whose presence alone would have introduced their own R1b genetic material. I simply asked the question of whether or not anyone knew what impact those introductions may have had on those populations with extrapolated theories which would be of note in regard to the current testing underway now. I hope this answered your question and if you have further don't hesitate contacting me off list so as not to bore and/or distract the list from the business at hand. Susan