re: It's not science if you ignore data inconvenient to your conclusions
Buster said:
"Look at Hoffman. He argues a radically different view than most yet wrestles with the issues that are at first glance detrimental to his case. When asked he usually responds and admits those are good reasons to doubt at first glance then goes on to tell you how he can explain it."
I like your description here. This is what I have found about Gil Levin's writings: he presents the opposing views and discusses why, in his opinion, they are not sufficient prove no life on Mars.
In the debates on this bbs with Barry, there are frequent insults on both sides, causing the discussion to deteriorate outside of the scientific realm. Both sides have been guilty of this.
Bob Clark