Cole, no offense intended. But you do seem to have a very narrow view. If something suits your way of thinking, you applaud it and--as Greeney suggests in this one example--don't seem bothered at all as to whether it is based in fact or not. Photoshopped pictures? Not a problem, as long as they support your view.
What I would be very refreshed to see, and I'm sure others as well, is for you to take the same die-hard approach toward getting to the bottom of something, whether it supports your view or doesn't support your view.
Until I(we) see that kind of fairness and impartiality, we are left with no choice but to conclude you do indeed, have an agenda.
Now then. With all that said, at1 has a valid point. Who doesn't have an agenda? I sure do. But we could all stand to be a little more fair and impartial in our debates.
What I dig about you Cole is you say what you think and think what you say. I'm the same way and I've learned the hard way that this will rub people the wrong way and at least in my case, prevent someone from rising to the top in their place of employment. It seems that once you start knocking on the Corporate door to be let in, the first prerequisite is, "Are you willing to be a yes man and a kool aid drinker? If so, the job is yours. If not, you will never get past a certain level."
I digress (that issue has been burning with me lately so it came out) but again, I really do identify with and appreciate your "say it like it is with no sugarcoating" way of doing things. I wanted to get that out so you don't walk away from this message thinking I'm just piling on or trying to be a jerk. Thanks.
Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man. - Albert Einstein