From: William Gunn <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 08:54:12 -0700

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:19 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 04:10:30 +0000
> positive and negative effects ‹ despite the fact that its advocates will
> try to shout down any discussion of the negative ones. And every


If we're at the point where we assume that advocates for one position
will shout down any discussion of the negatives, we're in a pretty
bad, shall I say even congressional, place with the debate. I'm not
totally certain things are quite so polarized among most folks, but if
you've arrived at that conclusion, there must be a reason for it. How
do we get to a place where you feel people are participating in good
faith, as opposed to just shouting down opposition? Generally I
suggest bringing in evidence - my scientific background coming into
play there.

Best,