But I don't agree that the issue of artificial sweeteners should or can be the umbrella subject for any number of other issues related to misinformation or controversy.
You obviously don't agree with JFK then, when he states it a crime for any man to shrink from controversy?
As for misinformation,who is the one that decides if information presented, is misinformation?
Around and around we go. Okay, fine. Firstly (and lastly), I agree with the premise of JFK's so-called statement, but I'm just trying to be pragmatic in the context of this forum, i.e. I can understand why the subject of 'artificial sweeteners' might be relevant to this forum because of health issues, but when it takes off on a tangent into issues concerning the Twin Towers I just don't get the relevance or connection. For sure, I can stretch the imagination and see that loose connection if the subject is about falsifying information and the questioning of this, but really ... what next? UFOs? Majestic 12? The Loch Ness monster? My belly button fluff?
Regarding, 'who decides if information presented is misinformation', well, that can only be an individual choice, I suppose. For instance, I'm the type of person that tries to take nothing for granted. For example, if I visit a doctor and he/she suggests a diagnosis I'll bear it in mind, but I will certainly not place their assessment of my condition (or the condition, in general) as based on undeniable truth or evidence. In a case like this, I will give them due respect for having some mastery of this field of knowledge, but at the end of the day it is up to me to make the final analysis. Of course, this is not easy and it's often frightening to have to take this level of responsibility, especially when the subject matter is out of one's comfort zone. But many people do, and many people have contributed to the wealth of information about the subject.
Now, would you like to talk about Area 51 and how it's a depository for all future technologies?