That seems to be a sane way to go about it; but that is what you would do. Question is: would others. The broader argument that Bertil makes (I think) is that t

That seems to be a sane way to go about it; but that is what you would do. Question is: would others. The broader argument that Bertil makes (I think) is that these decisions aren't being made based on aversion to your individual choice of behavior but based on aversion of a sort of media/public opinion war where one group isn't acting in good conscience and where the battlefield is not level (because the "opposite side" is well-financed and avoids peer review). I am not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with that, but if you accept that premise, for the level on which the debate would be pursued to strongly increase, it would be necessary that someone held up both sides to the same standard.