Your comments in quotes:

"There is a caveat, though, and that is that you are associated via your associations with certain broad categories, such as the Mars Society, and when broad generalizations are made (Mars First, Mars en Directe, Zubrinistas and others I won't mention), you can be unfortunately painted with the same brush intended for others, be you guilty of whatever bad behaviour is being deplored or not. Consequently, when I use such terms, I hope you can distinguish whether you're intended to be incorporated or not."

So just being a member of the Mars Society is bad in your view? Shame on folks for being dedicated to the cause of colonizing space! This is the only section my title applies to. Remember my comment about entering the debate with an axe to grind?

"By the same token, I can see why folks may try to associate me in some way with EPG. Neither of us is too hip on Mars, we've both got reasons to go back to the Moon (though not all the same)."

You've got a lot better reasons than Grondine, but I still think they aren't top priority.

"Most folks don't realize that there's enough "bio" chemicals in a cubic meter of lunar regolith to make two ham sandwiches and sodas. It's kinda tough to get to, but it's there. Establish a base of operations at a strategic site like the South Pole, near the Peak (actually more a crater rim) of Eternal Light, and energy and temperature become much less of an issue. Battery storage and temperature swings are much easier to deal with."

Why don't you compare the degree of difficulty with sucking in CO2 gas? Your use of the term bio I assume applies to carbon compounds on the Moon, but elemental carbon, CO/CO2 and their related ions are by definition not considered organic compounds.

Much of the other stuff is good reasons why the Moon is still an interesting and useful scientific target, but unfortunately you have driven the debate far afield from there by including much other questionable content in your posts.

see ya