: Read your piece. It was decidedly slanted toward the left. I guess your intent, rather than give all the facts for people to decide for themselves, you would just give them your opinion.
: Specifically, you mentioned the creation of the web site/public forum as being an example of what Greenpeace has achieved. Unfortunately, you forgot to mention that a goodly percentage of the messages contained in the Debating Room are pro-McDonalds. You should also mention that one of the driving motivators for this so-called movement is anti-Americanism.
: You asked for my opinion and here it is. You should be more objective. If you are writing an opinion piece, you should identify it as such, up front.
In my opinion, your opinions are of two kinds. Firstly, in a literal sense, you identify those things you take to be a personal reaction to the piece you read.
Then you make tangential reference to an absolute centre of political opinion, citing as tacit fact that the article you replied to was slanted to the left. Well that's a matter of opinion, it all depends where you place the centre.
Further, since you've adopted one of the more insidious Orwellianisms of the current battle "for the minds of men", to quote public relations manuals derived ironically from accurate reading of Orwell on the function of the management of public opinion in indoctrination systems within free societies, I ask you: What the hell is anti-Americanism?
It seems to mean disagreeing that America ought to decide the valid range of expressible sentiment. That would clash with any freedom of speech conception I would credit to be worth of the term.