[Aquattro]

Steve, my interpretation, for what it's worth, is that we tend to place too much value on hype. We worry about color of light, micro-einsteins, and a bevy of other details that our corals just don't care about. We often don't explore other contributing factors in the growth of corals, such as food, current, etc. Perhaps stronger light increases the available plankton in a tank, thus providing more food for them (the corals). Perhaps an alternating current provides for better respiration and this in turn contributes to growth.
Lighting may only be a small part of what a coral really needs. Look at Shane's tank; it has beautiful corals and he hasn't bought the bigger badder light hype.
We tend to choose lighting based on what we like, or perhaps what we (erroneously) perceive the corals to need. To be truthful, we don't have a clue!!
We tend to lose sight of what our intent is with this hobby. We set out to grow beautiful, healthy corals. It turns out, however, that our actions are possibly detrimental to these very same corals. It is documented that captive corals have a lower skeletal density than wild corals. It is hypothesized that our attempts at accelerating growth are directly attributable to this. So do we then require excessive light? Should we not go for lower light levels and slower growth? We are, after all, trying to replicate nature. Also, some of my nicest corals are brown. Should I ethically try to artificially induce some other color? Who knows?

I think the main point of Eric's comments is that just because Dana or Sanjay say it's so, doesn't mean it is. More is not always better and there are many more factors involved in the husbandry of corals.
I'm tired of typing now....bye-