Okay here's my take.

I have been pretty much absent from this board, mainly because I have developed other interests. One of the hobbies I have picked up is watching debates about religion on YouTube while I get some excercise (another time consuming hobby). I'm a nonbeliever so I'm familiar with all the arguments against the existence of a god and those in favour of a scientific explanation for the origin of life, matter, etc. I recognized that I should be equally familiar with the other half of the debate. My favourite participants are Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens (and Dawkins, but I took many Uni courses on genetics and evolution so it's not so enlightening). My favourite on the other side of the debate is William Lane Craig because he's frustratingly good at debating and he's prepared (priests & ministers can be stunningly bad).

The point of mentioning all of this is that all beliefs should pass the test of honest discourse. If you believe something you should be able to say why and supply evidence about the truth of the matter. This is the power of discussion.

In terms of POET, we clearly have a confidence issue among the shareholder base. I'm confident that the reason for this insecurity stems from the inability of most of us to participate in the discussion on the merits and weaknesses of the technology. Being shut out of the discussion, due to lack of technical understanding, leads to unease about the investment. And I'm not talking about fear of asking the questions (although there are many, I would say false claims, that hub leaders censor difficult questions). I'm talking about not even knowing what to ask!

In terms of the more general discussion, I think it's essential to vigorously present both sides of every issue. I agree with those who say that fairchij's dismissal of the options issue was all the more impressive with the previous discussion intact. He was able to correct a mistake and remind us about the value of DD in one stroke.

I will continue to post here and Stockhouse (when not on vacation) as long as the debate continues. I need to challenge my understanding to remain interested. For these reasons I favour the use of hub leader privilege as a last resort.

***

Interestingly, Sam Harris - whose ideas resemble mine on many (but not all) issues - is now debating less frequently. He has noted that admitting that your opponent has convinced you to change your view is tantamount to losing the debate. For discussion to even have the possibility of changing an opinion, the participants must be allowed to do so freely based on input from the other side of the table. I'm looking forward to reading a book he has coauthored with Maajid Nawaz on Islam. When released it promises to be an example of how discussion can lead to genuine concession and growth in ones belief system from debating, but with an open mind.