"What do you think the outcome of said interview and article might be?"

The outcome will be the same it always is. A one-sided, very biased piece of journalism. The only reason mainstream journalists ever interview those who don't share their opinion is to have someone to vilify. They use "interviews" the same way Michael Manure does in his "documentaries". They have the last word, and they control what and how much of what you say reaches their audience.

You can expect to have sections of the "interview" and the points you raised not even printed if the journalist can't refute them in her article. It's not a case where it's a "point vs. counterpoint" series of articles. Even if it were, if it's being printed in "her" paper you could count on the editor letting her have an advance look at your article so hers perfectly "rebuts" yours.

But it's not even that. *sigh*

Record and transcribe it. That way, we can see the whole thing. Heck, post it before they do. Heh.

That why, articles should be like mywesttexas.com or erisiegmund.com/fireant/ where right below the article, people can answer back so the same readers can compare. NOT LIKE ODESSA AMERICAN WHERE PEOPLE CANNOT ANSWER BACK but have to secretly e-mail the webmaster or go way out there in the chat forum .

BUT mywesttexas.com and ericsiegmund.com/fireant/ will do even better if commenters can put workable website addresses AS REFERENCES that readers can simply click to link.

ERIC's problem with spammers CAN BE EXPERIMENTALLY SOLVED BY MAKING A PROGRAM WHICH COMPARES KNOWN REGULAR COMMENTERS WITH OTHER COMMENTERS. THE REGULAR COMMENTERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO POST LINKS THAT CAN BE CLICKED. THOSE OF THE OTHERS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO POST LINKS THAT CAN BE CLICKED BUT ONLY LINKS THAT HAVE TO BE TYPED.

THIS WILL BE LIKE A PERIOD FOR TESTING NEW COMMENTERS TO TEST WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF REGULAR COMMENTERS OR NOT.

But it is good when commenters can answer back, as can be seen in the Oct. 21 post below, where it was proposed that names of blogs be italicized. As you can see, SCOTT CHAFFIN STOPPED POSTING HIS COMMENTS.

I don't want to let Eric off the hook too easily here, but I kinda didn't have anything more to say. It was a joke, and any humor that might have been in it had done been milked and drank, chief.

Scott, don't mind him. Just when I think I've finally figured out what's he's saying, I realize that I haven't.

I don't -- it's just a kind of light workout for my lousy sense of humor. I just pray he never finds my blog.

Oh, actually, you and the other Scott were trying to improve the Internet, and who knows, you may be right.

Just wanted to stimulate some conversation, because certainly, other people can contribute too in making the Internet better. You don't even have to be a software or computer engineer. Besides, you guys are bloggers, with your own websites , and good writing skills.

But I really believe that LINKS that Lazy READERS CAN SIMPLY CLICK ARE EXCELLENT FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES AND SHOULD NOT BE SABOTAGED BY BLOGS AND WEBSITES. In the Oct. 21 post, for example, if readers would only link, then they will see government hijacking at a later date an experimental solution proposed by another. To blog is not simply to CHATTER. Blogging can be an avenue to solving problems that have eluded even the experts!!! And if that happens, especially if it happens on your blog, you should be glad that your blog was put to good use, not just blah blah blah.