On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 10:21:28 -0500, "Ron Ritzman" <ritzman(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> If you have a foolproof objective way of
identifying the difference
> between the good and the bad tenacious advocates, I'd be grateful if
> you'd share it.
They're "good" if they are using it to
fight "real" injustice in "real
life". They're "bad" if they are using it to push a POV or get their
way on a website. I'm not saying that people with alternative
positions on issues shouldn't state their case. I'm saying that they
should state it in a civil manner, see if it flies, and if it doesn't
then go do something else.
OK, so let's take this test and try it on an article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons
Here we have a case where some very sincere people are campaigning
to get the medical establishment to recognise a disease. The
medical establishment refuses, saying this is just symptoms of
already known diseases.
Read
www.morgellonswatch.com if you have the time; the top two or
three posts are a very balanced statement of the medical
establishment's POV here.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG