It seems you have misunderstood the article entirely, perhaps intentionally. Hard to tell.

My whole point is that science has failed to inform the public. All you did is restate what I said. The rest of what you said about science crawling toward the truth is clearly stated in my piece.

And if you think that I, a typical non-scientist do not understand such things as the details of nutrition science, that is MY point, not your criticism of my point.

First, try to understand what I wrote. Then criticize. Works better that way. I didn’t see anything you said that wasn’t what I said that you misunderstood or took out of context.

Or are you just an outragist? See: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/109482303301/outragists-are-the-new-awful

Scott Adams

It's fascinating to watch strangers debating what they imagine is in my head.

On the wife/girlfriend beating/shooting questions, there's no credible evidence that Sheen did those things. In the "normal" world, a guy who has been accused of the same sort of crime several times is probably guilty. In the celebrity world, it doesn't mean the same thing.

I say that as a person who has often been accused of being a holocaust denier, creationist, misogynist, and racist. That's just the starter list.

I can't say Sheen didn't do any of the things he has been accused of. But the evidence against him is as credible as the evidence that Osama used his wife as a human shield.