What's the point--lemme see--perhaps that in a technical/scientific discussion one references one's sources so that they may be verified ??
Of course, then again, if one has filled one's mouth with not so tasty foot, one might make a petulant excuse for not disclosing one's sources--either because they are imaginary, non-existent, or incompetent ??
And, of course, to distract attention from the above, one might consider making an implied slur of the opponent--'You MEANIE !!! You just wanted to win , and thus FEEL better !'
(Typical debate tactic of the incompetent, uneducated, immoral, and/or traitorous -- attack the messenger when you have a faulty message !!!)
BTW--since you clearly demonstrated that you didn't know the answer to the quiz, I will share it with the others here---
Well atomized (NOT evaporated yet !!!) fuel mixed with air once inside a closed cylinder acts as an interal coolant. It's latent heat of vaporization absorbs some of the heat generated during the compression stroke--thus bringing the compression process toward iso-thermal and away from adiabatic. This lowers the peak pressure in the cylinder, lowers peak temps, reduces bearing and side thrust loadings, and increases detonation resistance. Net effect is positive, even though the lower peak temp reduces cycle efficiency to a small degree.
NOTE: spraying injected fuel on the back of closed intake valves does NOT provide the above benefits, as the fuel is already EVAPORATED before it gets inside the cylinder. You need good carbys--such as DCOE's--to get the above benefits--or injectors that use compressed air atomization and only squirt atomized fuel into the port air stream when it is MOVING, or directly into the chambers. Hence--the fuel economy and power gains from direct injection. Not to mention the bsfc superiority of DCOE's over conventional port injection !!