[raattgift]

> So you really seem to be missing my point

Yes, I was. I got it now, thanks for the clarification; I think we're in closer agreement than I thought.

Essentially where I think we now differ is in the motivation of Brouwer et al. -- they don't seem interested in contrasting with other approaches as much as showing that Verlinde's EG (or at least the claim at the start of their section 4) survives contact with observational data. Additionally, I think we differ on whether that's enough to make the paper worth writing in the first place.

(Where we probably most strongly agree is that there is a lot of breathless hype from Leiden, Amsterdam and Groningen lately.)