[daniel_solano]

Perhaps, and I accept that it is possible that the facts as stated in the article are wrong. However, if we accept them as true, the speaker:

1. Hired a PR firm in an attempt to threaten TED into publishing his talk. 2. When that failed, he misrepresented TED (by selectively quoting private correspondence) to the media in order to create the subsequent firestorm.

I will accept that the speaker may be passionate about his views. However, he is not interested in open discussion, at least not if you mean honest by open. The ends does not justify the means.

[daenz]

> However, he is not interested in open discussion, at least not if you mean honest by open.

How do you conclude that? The only possible dishonesty I've seen is about how the talk was handled, not the content of the talk. He seems all for open discussion of the content of the talk.

[daniel_solano]

Well, it's not something that I have definitely concluded, but in my opinion, the speaker has lost significant credibility. If someone is willing to lie and bully in order to voice a particular opinion, why should I not expect them to lie or bully in trying persuade me to that opinion? No, it isn't a given, but that's the way I see it.