Sorry, I was referring to the person who said "well said" to Joe Offer. I did not agree with him that uninvestigated premises (as he might put it, premises not judged) can be a good starting point for a debate. Two climate-change deniers having a debate with each other about future energy policy are not having an honest conversation because they have refused to investigate their initial premise, which evidence shows to be almost certainly fallacious. By accident they may well come up with some good policies, perhaps concerning energy conservation, but that will be in spite of their premises, and most of their conclusions would be more likely to be dangerous. The implication has been made that premises to do with religious belief should not be "judged" ( forensically investigated would be my preferred term). Well I can't go along with that kind of protectionism I'm afraid. Now I didn't bring religion into this thread and I'm not bothered if we don't discuss it. "We're not going there," however, did appear to have a bit more than cotton wool intended protection. The only valid criterion for a sound open debate is that it's predicated on objectively-sound premises as far as is humanly possible, not simply cosily-agreed ones.