Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
more attempts at cleverness, from a buffoon.lol oh doc its hard to know where to begin because your arguments are like that of one who has not read the thread.
First though what is all your talk of 'sock-puppets' etc...not sure what you mean? I can only guess that your trying to say that anyone who disagrees with you is apparently my 'sock-puppet'? That could be the weakest thing you've put forward to date...ok well its right up there with your par lets say.
Also why would you assume that I am a lawyer?
I never claimed such.
Finally, doni says it all doc, even you should be able to grasp what he's saying, it ends the 'debate' if there ever was one...your reaction to being dispatched with such prejudice is not unlike if the head of a snake is severed, the head can and will still bite and the body can continue to strike out in reflex even into the next day...so once again here is the blade that severs your head doc no matter what reflexive responses still remain lingering in your nerves system of disconnected logic:
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
Donald Rumsfeld
I understand how degrading it must feel to be finally slayed by a Rumsfeld quote of all things, but as I have stated before everything is relative and relevant, even that which you have put forward in irrelevance to the 'debate' still holds relevant in the challenge of this thread as I have also explained in the conclusions page #70...but at least you did respond to me doc, thats progress...first admitting you have a flawed analysis (like in aa) is the first step to a healthier perspective
all of the "evidence" you have put forth in this thread is based on the same plan, from start to finish, and your sockpuppet fake farm manager ""diversesanctuary" follows the same ineffective tactic.
step 1: Make broad sweeping claims of "harm" from GMO's
step 2: dump a shitload of links from the eco-loon press, all leading to opinion pieces which make even more wild claims.
step 3: declare victory
step 4: accuse those who disagree with your wild claims of working for monsanto.
step 5: when pressed on a specific claim,, change the subject
step 6 when that doesnt work, post the same links again, and call the questioner names
step 7: post clip from 70's sitcom, and make oblique references to your own post
step 8: declare victory again.
step 9: make sock puppet account, support your claims though sock puppet account with the same links and wild claims as proof of wild claims.
step 10: declare victory again
the ONE claim you defended in specific (UC Davis, and monsanto GM fusarium fungus conspiracy) turned out to be NOTHING AT ALL but a proposal from a DEA agent that went nowhere, did not involve UC Davis, or monsanto, and had NOTHING to do with GM fusdarium fungus, or GM cannabis.
as a result i can say with absolute certainty that your claim of UC Davis and monsanto teaming up to make a pot killing pathogen in a lab is a LIE.
your related claim that Monsanto and UC Davis (or anyone else) are using that NON EXISTENT research to map and claim the cannabis genome is a LIE
your related claim that Monsanto and UC Davis (or anyone else) are attempting to make GM dope to force underground pot growers to grow their GM strains is RIDONKULOUS!
your related claim that Monsanto and UC Davis (or anyone else) are plotting the extermination of all cannabis, so that they may replace it with NON EXISTENT GM dope is also a LIE
yet you persist by claiming it's true because its so super secret.
like the "Fact" that the moon landing was faked, or the "Fact" that alien bodies are stored in the nevada desert, you attempt to prove the conspiracy by pointing at all the evidence that does NOT exist, then smugly declaring victory.
your claims are as baseless as the insane birthers who claim obama was born in kenya, and as proof of their claim they present evidence that ONE government document had the wrong social security number attached to his name.
you really arent half as clever as you believe, and NONE of the links you have posted have gotten anywhere near scientific proof of your HIGHLY IMPROBABLE claims.
your "proof" does not prove your claims, your "proof" has nothing at all to do with your claims, all of your "proof" is dubious in itself, and in most cases is outright false.
defend your claims in specific or stuff it Mister Furley.