All I stated was proof that Benzene is a much bigger problem than just on the Gulf
No, your message was titled "How do we know where it came from", which was a clear indication that you were skeptical that the tremendous benzene levels which have been found in the gulf came from the oil and dispersants. Quite obviously, benzene levels could not have increased from parts per billion to very many parts per million for any other reason.
Insofar as having it both ways, I would say that is what you appear to be doing. While you repeadly agree that there are problems in the gulf, you nevertheless have also repeatedly grasped at false positives and doubted reports from very credible sources which have disputed the rosy reports from BP and their bought off scientists and complicit agencies.
As I said previously, your posts have gone far beyond merely disputing wild conspiracy theories.
I understand desiring to look for the positive and I understand a desire to not be too alarmist. However, when such a desire leads one to slant their perspective to such an extent that they end up downplaying and doubting the obvious, and frankly alarming, dangers in the Gulf that will persist for years, they may end up doing far more harm than good by creating a false sense of security and safety.
Covering up the truth and trying to create the perception that the danger is less than it is and has largely passed has been, and continues to be, a core strategy of BP as well as much of our current government. Looking at the gulf tragedy with rose-colored lenses and blinders plays right into that strategy, whether intended or not.
Nowhere have I ever stated that you said or implied that there were no problems in the gulf. What I have said is that you have overly downplayed those problems and done so beyond merely questioning or disputing the most extreme theories. Likewise, I have said that, while I understand a desire to look for the positive, you have also grasped at too many positives which are not borne out by closer scrutiny and unbiased reports.
Trust me, I am not reading what I want to see. I am reading what I don't want to see.
I have never accused the poster of trying to cover anything up. However, I will unequivocably state that he poster has posted doubts that go much farther than just challenging some of the most extreme theories and has also demonstrated a penchant for finding positives that simply are not supported by unbiased credible sources outside BP's hired legions and complicit Obama administration agency statements.
The poster may have good motives and I agree that we need to look for positives and ways to cope with the problem. However, I also strongly believe that we should not play into the hands of BPs agenda of limiting liability and creating an entirely and dangerously false perception with a cover up campaign of lies, distortions and BS propaganda commercials. If you don't think that some of the posters messages are the type that could play into such a campaing then you haven't read all of the same messages I have. There is no clearer example than the post questioning where all the benzene came from, and it is far from the only such post that either doubts credible expert and eyewitness reports or else finds false positives where they are not warranted.
I am not questioning the poster's motivations, but I have considerable concern about the effect they may have in some instances.
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.