Very true Tom.... but this is the first case I've heard about where a Corporation via a PR company went to a BBS and wrecked the careers of scientists by poseing as disinterested members of the public, ie " Fake" Citizens.

You seem so certain that you can, and would, safely disregard the source of a message by considering only it's contents.... on what criteria do you judge conflicting views\opinions?

Do they have to fit in with your own opinions or what?

I'm really interested because you are clearly far from stupid.

Far as I'm concerned... if I hear an opinion or something presented as fact.... and I disover that it came from an entity acting as a front for another party with a strong interest in the debate..... I'm damn suspicious.

I've seen plenty of horse exhaust presented very plausibely.... The Advertiseing and PR industries are built on it. Even been known to use it myself when sending someone up..... So Yes... I consider it very important to know the source... and yes... since a corporation successfully used such tactics to ruin the careers of scientists who pointed out that the corporations products may well be dangerous to
thier customers. and influenced public opinion... and persuaded politicians to frame laws in that corporations favour... I do consider it a problem