Yes, Ebbie, they are citing those whom they are already inclined to agree with. Which is my point. We can all find highly informed and qualified people whom we agree with about such contentious matters. People who sound very plausible. And we do.

Those highly informed and qualified people do not necessarily all agree with each other. And they never will. That's what always happens around these kind of issues. Furthermore, informed and highly qualified people are sometimes bought, or otherwise persuaded to be spokesmen for this special interest group or that one. The inducements to do that can be considerable, depending on how powerful the backers of the interest group are. Have deceitful governments throughout history EVER failed to provide expert testimony which appears to support an official line? That is standard procedure. That is the game. The game is played not to achieve justice or freedom, it is played to win.

So just pick the "qualified" person(s) whose opinion most nearly matches your own (which is what we ALL do), and you will then feel peachy keen, exonerated, and very secure in your opinion, right? ;-)

That's what I see people doing. We all do it. People have been doing it since the first Pharoah, for heaven's sake, and probably long before that.

********

Bill, everyone here is emotionally committed to the line they are following. On the basis of their emotional committment they will give credence to one source of information and deny another, without so much as the blink of an eye.

I just shrug and smile, cos I know there's not a damn thing I can do about it, and it wouldn't make any difference anyway.

I talk here just because it's something to do, not for any other reason, really. It's a way of occupying the time. I might just as well be staining the deck or something.

Matter of fact, I think I'll watch that movie I rented. See you somewhat later, when I check in again.