Can we ignore magnetic fields in studies of PN formation, shaping and interaction with the ISM?

In a quest for better understanding the shaping mechanism of planetary nebulae (PNs) I published many papers in the past (e.g., Soker 2004a) all of which came to the same conclusion: For the formation of non-spherical PNs a companion is required, wether stellar or substellar. This results from the basic assumption that angular momentum is a conserved physics quantity. As trivial as this may sound, some published models for the shaping of PNs seem to have ignored this basic physical law. Most recently I discussed this in a paper that was accepted by astro-ph (Soker 2005b), but was rejected by MNRAS and the ApJ. Both referees (a third referee in ApJ can be ignored for a non-scientific report) were either confused, or purposely tried to mess up the definition of magnetic shaping to save their own usage of magnetic fields. For that, in Section 2 I repeat the classification from Soker (2005b), which is central for any discussion to follow. I then elaborate on several key points regarding the failure of models for shaping PNs where dynamically important magnetic fields are the main ingredient.