If I may add:



That was the original reason to name him (as was the case for all those named, of course), but the larger point for me right now, which also made me vote for him, is that he did not participate in our discussion of the plan proposed by you (which has it flaws, but it was moving the game forward), professed his ignorance about being asked ("Oh, you meant that I needed to answer the question? I just thought you were asking me to answer the question." "Euhm. Well. Yes. Yes, I was." ) and instead proposed a new line of reasoning which could be a genuine attempt at moving the game forward, but could just as easily have the intention of slowing us down and sidetracking us.