"Yes, I understand, Kenneth. But really, we should be careful
   when going after spokespeople that we don't unintentionally drag
   their profession into the dirt as well."

   Their professions will do fine. There are plenty of spokespeople
   for Science Positivity out there, they don't need me. It's not
   my Mission.

   If someone gets a wrong impression that I believe there's
   something wrong with Science because I criticize Neil deGrasse
   Tyson's *woefully inaccurate* history lessons on the Science
   channel and his Twitter and such...
   ...if they can't see that I'm criticizing people stepping OUT of
   their element...
   ..if they can't see that I'm trying to _help_ Science by holding
   the spokespeople accountable for their screwups...

   Then perhaps I'm not communicating well. Perhaps they can't be
   taught or don't want to be.

   I want the science promoters to be accurate when they speak in
   areas they're not familiar with. They make Science as a whole
   *LOOK BAD* when they say ridiculous things about religion or
   politics or other areas outside of their fields of expertise.

   Think about it: Why would I try to give the impression that
   they're blameless and perfect?

   They're not my Jesus. I don't even know if Jesus is my Jesus,
   but Tyson certainly isn't my Jesus. He's an astronomer (if I
   remember right) who is very entertaining and promotes Science
   for children and adults alike.

   He's a man. If he does good, I congratulate him. If he screws up
   as a representative of SCIENCE, then I'm going to criticize him
   because inaccuracies about non-science things taints the entire
   message they're trying to bring across.

   Again, they can speak for themselves. I don't have to speak for
   them. It's not my mission to convert anybody of anything.
   Perhaps proper historical accuracy (insomuch as that's possible
   of course). I'd like more of that.