It doesn't strike me as very sporting to edit a post to make it sound like I didn't address your point.

My reply to what used to be here was one of clear agreement with you and I marked the edit explicitly.

For the record, the edit was a remove "No, taw is trying to figure out a different kind of arbitrage". A more correct statement would perhaps be "No, taw is trying to figure out a different kind of thing than what you are talking about and which isn't really arbitrage at all". But that is a distraction from the gist of your post, which I disagree with for the reason stated.

I will, of course, take more care to acknowledge contributions by name when I add edit notes. I erred too far on the side of brevity here.