You start off by saying that the editors in homoepathy do not act in good faith or act tendentiously. We have user-policies to address blocking users who do not act in good faith, or act tendentiously. The situation at homeopathy is that the two extreme sides are so deeply entrenched that they cannot see each other's position. And those who aren't deeply entrenched are just trying to keep the bloodshed contained. I don't think the position of having a strong opinion on the issue is bad faith, or tendentious. I'm an inclusionist, I don't believe that we are here to document the "Truth", but rather "What people believe" as part of our sociological purpose. We document what they think, what they say, what they write, what they publish. What we document is verifiable, that doesn't mean it has veracity. So we get a busload of "scientists" who want articles on herbs to not mention anything about their homeopathic use, and we get homeopathy practicioners who want that included in those articles. The scientists want to censor in the name of science and truth. We still have this entire idea of "true" that is so deeply embedded that we cannot shake it. That's the ultimate underlying problem in my opinion. Will Johnson **************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)