>> Seems to me to be another one of those: "guilty until proven
>> innocent" type articles.

> Doesn't sound bad in this context :-)

The problem, as we have so clearly illustrated here again and again, is 
that various people require various levels of proof.

If the distribution from gullible to completely cynical is a normal
distribution, we can predict that a portion of the population will
accept anything and a portion will accept nothing.  We hear from both 
sides regularly and don't expect there top be an epiphany for either 
extreme soon.

In the middle here, we are weighing the facts and the effects of acting 
and not acting.

What is an acceptable level of proof that allows progress to occur?  I 
should think that it should be a level somewhere in the middle -- 
assuming that all making the decision are educated in the facts, and not 
simply swayed by rhetoric.

Where is the mid-point?

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm