From the country that brought us crop circles…

At any rate, any estimate of the number of extremists is going to depend on a number of factors, one of those factors being how you define extremists. Looking back at the NewScientist article, the police say that there are only 20 to 30 people responsible for the “most extreme” of the acts, which I’ll admit doesn’t necessarily translate into there being only 20 to 30 extremists. What it does mean, however, is that (if you accept the police’s estimation) there are only 20 to 30 people directly responsible for the most clearly criminal acts, other people doubtless being indirectly involved.

Additionally, my rather cursory analysis—again, not based on a whole lot of personal experience, but on the articles cited—gives the issue much less than is due. The main point I was trying to make, which I could have done much better given more time and thought, was that both sides, the extremists and the scientists, could ease matters by abandoning their hardcore stance (or at least agreeing to some kind of ‘cease fire’) and entering into civil debate. (Although it’s my understanding that the majority of actors on both sides are moving toward this kind of civil debate.)

Moreover, your analysis that blames the victim (”as long as VARE and its kin continue with the presumtion [sic] that vivisection . . . is de facto ethically legitimate and good … there are doubtless going to be problems with extremism….”)