Given that I'm one of the few people here who regularly brings sources, facts, numbers, and real information to the table rather than simply going by whatever is making the rounds on the news services, routinely blowing actual propaganda out of the water, I hope I'm not the only person you're directing this at.

And yet, you do all that in the service of advocating your point of view. You'd never present facts, numbers, and "real" information that contradict your argument.

Are you not a propagandist yourself, Tom?

And that paragraph is a well-done example. I won't parse it, since that seems to upset you unduly. But well done, Tom.

I'm on the horns of a dilemma, though. You're basically claiming scientific objectivity, yet when I dissect your posts and point out the bias--surely a legitimate part of any review of a scientific treatise--you fly off the handle and start growling accusations of "logorrhea!" and just generally not taking you seriously enough.

If you want to express political opinions couched as assertions of scientific truth, I think you should expect, and even welcome, an examination of your possible biases.