Re: It isn't the motive I question, it is the effect

 I realize that you have a certain perspective due to your own messages being attacked in less than civil or reasonable form in many instances. Pehaps that makes you overly sympathetic to the point of clouded perception even  But I would point out that what I am talking about is not someone who disputes Korean Sub theories or the idea that the incident was plannned from the beginning and such, but rather the instances where he has clearly gone against the grain of credible scientific information and eye witnesses from unbiased sources not controlled by BP and where he has grasped at supposedly good news that obviously does come from BP and sources aligned with them in other instances.

For example, you say that benzene was not mentioned in the title of the post.  So?  It was the subject in the preceding post that started the thread and the body of the poster in question's message, titled "How would they know where it came from", spoke pointed out that benzene was a component of auto exhaust and cigarette smoke.  Forget the title, the message was clearly about doubting that the benzene necessarily came from the oil and corexit when the ONLY possible explanation for 3500 PPM compared to readings in the low to sub parts per billion throughout the US is the oil and dispersants.  Furthermore, nowhere have I said that the message was an attempt to cover over BP's liabilities or support BP. 

If you don't think such a message plays into those things, regardless of motive, then you and I will have to agree to disagree.