I don't think 'newspaper' (figure of speech today) comment logs are much of a forum. I don't have a problem with critical comment. I think we'd all be better off focusing on the hard science, as best we can. Some of us are limited in that way, but can encourage it as a more pure approach.
Part of dealing with criticism is to know why you look where you look and don't apologize for that. I say that because if you look carefully, a lot of criticism carries an undertone, if not direct commentary, that 'they're crazy for looking out at Niku anyway' - and I'd say the Gardner Arrival is as likely as some other things, if not more so... blah-blah-blah.
I've grown up a lot here. What has come to mean the most is integrity of process - when we're doing our dead-level best to seek real answers to that which we hypothesize, and stand prepared to see it through in the case of a positive or negative. If we work short of that, then we're not serious. I'm sure we've been less than perfect at times, but maybe we're not that bad all the time either - and maybe we learn more about keeping these things between the rails of scientific sanity. Much of the criticism can be worthy to sharpen that process, but some of it will always be noise - it's human nature. But as to newspaper commentary... well, I can go be a self-imagined assistant Secretary of State if I want to be, for 8 seconds, by beating my chest on a major outlet somewhere as to world hunger and peace I suppose.
Don't know what else to say...
Good work on the cover plate, Monty. It would be cool to nail that down, whatever it is. At some prodding that I need to answer, I also need to look for an Airwheel manual / catalogue - would like to know more about the 'dust cover', however much I doubt a tie to Earhart's airplane.