It’s only useful if you stop to examine why there’s an exception. Then, it can be useful in determining where that’s exception may apply again. Using your piano example, pianos aren’t delivered because they’re large, unwieldy, expensive, and heavy. You might use that logic to get to the conclusion that other similarly large, unwieldy, expensive, and heavy items may not be delivered either. You might even be able to conclude that certain specific items may not be available for delivery. See how that can be useful?
But you didn’t stop to figure out why ARNA was the exception. You simply threw out an idiom that - regardless of how old it is or what its pedigree - means nothing in and of itself, and assumed prima facie (I can use Latin too...) that it supported your opinion.
So if you actually want to do due diligence - which I don’t believe that you do - why don’t you research why ARNA was an exception and then tell us how that doesn’t apply to CYDY? Although it would be far from a complete argument that a R/S would not be beneficial for CYDY, it would be a lot closer than simply saying that the exception proves the rule and moving on as if that closes the case.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
