[Jnana]

This started out as an interview but turned into a debate. I think if Kerry wants to present her view of things, she should do that when she is being interviewed. Otherwise, I would prefer to see insightful questions, even challenging questions, that get to the root of the point of view being presented. The danger of taking an advocacy position as interviewers, as others have pointed out, is that it may convince other potential interviewees that they will not get a fair hearing. Few are as confident as Dr. Greer about putting themselves in a position like that. There is a danger that the truth will be buried under a preconceived point of view and only interviewees who agree with that point of view will speak up. I think there was a lot of vehement agreement going on while refusing to listen long enough to get the gist of the nuanced arguments being presented on both sides. The debate needed a proper referee. Nonetheless, I think many will find it informative and it was a worthwhile exercise.