It turns out your friend John Modrow hit the nail on the head for virtually all skeptic websites on the net.... "a bunch of intellectual cowards who spend their time beating up fringe beliefs and marginal crackpots." Easy targets. I haven't seen skeptics look deeply into controversies between scientists about poor quality evidence for whatever theory is currently in vogue. Most skeptics seem to be the kind of fluffy-headed bimbos who say if it's orthodox among "real" scientists it must be correct. Anyone who's not ignorant of the history of science knows that orthodoxies come and go....
Thanks for the invitation, but the idea of doing frustrating work for no pay doesn't appeal. You've linked to your "little wars" at least twice before.... they make Wikipedia look like a place where battles could go on from now until doomsday. Biological psychiatry.... no doubt the controversy could fill volumes.
Actually, I was dragged to a long, time-consuming (1 month plus 20 days), wiki-trial for pushing my antipsych point of view in that article, a gallant fight. But finally I was acquitted as you can see here
To be on the arena fighting against the whole psych establishment was fun...