Yeah, I'd say you do.
What would you say is the qualitative difference between people who consistently express skepticism about what government officials say and those who consistently accept official statements at face value (or worse, consitently criticize those who express skepticism)?
As for the issue at hand, I'll await the results. But then, that would make me a dupe, right?
Well, that would depend on who is expressing skepticism,(i.e. do they seem to be literate, do they seem to have any knowledge of or expertise in the subject(s) under discussion, and finally, do they have an excessive fondness for CAPITAL LETTERS and exclamation points!!!!!) I would also want to know how consistently they expressed skepticism- i.e. are they skeptical of oh, say, the claim that we landed on the moon, or do they focus their skepticism on areas where reasonable people might disagree about the truth of the matters at hand.
Regarding those who criticize inveterate skeptics, if I were to describe a qualitative difference between them and the ALLCAPS, I would like to whether they (skeptics) criticize them (ALLCAPS) merely for daring to disbelieve the government, or do they criticize them for a procrustean determination to stretch and twist any governmental statement into evidence of a vast and nefarious conspiracy that is everywhere, but somehow only visible to a select few who don't spell very well.
regarding a qualitative difference, I would suggest the skeptics prefer to apply Occam's Razor to these sorts of questions- the indefatiguable (sp?) ALLCAPS played with Occam's Razor once, but it cut them, and so they dropped it, and said "OWW- SHINY TOOTH THINGIE CUT BONGO!!!!!" and never touched it again.