I admit, the opening of my response was a bit of a gambit, to emotionally involve for the purpose of initial relevancy to the reader. That being said, Ben's piece is essentially a discussion of how the labels compare to each other and which one is right. To one who doesn't use group-think labels, the article contains vastly more words than ideas. I think it actually does do a bit of the 'producers' job while slightly 'souring the milk' to the consumers. In that way, it strikes just the balance I was proposing the 'merchant's role should.

Because I wrote about the process of Ben's article, rather than the purpose, I can see how that could be construed as missing the point. A good discussion should add detail to the topic, which I have done. If you understand the purpose of my reply, you realize it is to convey something more fundamental than Ben's point.