blah-blah-blah
izentrop wrote:Adrien (ex-nico239) wrote:It's like being in the GDR with the Stasi
In reality, this would be the case if we agreed with Peronne and Raoult. It would be the triumph of populism against established scientific facts.
How would it be relevant to challenge the reason?
Or the real science would be “
populist and against the established facts? Or would you like to say that in the well-oiled cogs of science, there would be eminent figures who would not meet the ambient criteria that you defend (the Galileo syndrome) those having the behavior of rhetoricians? But then in this case, it should be borne in mind that digressions are possible in both “camps” (which some see as such ...), only reason is lacking to sort the wheat from the chaff. Here is the problem, and it is very, very hard to do among the incompetent (exp-auto-proc)
izentrop wrote:It will likely come to this point when the global economy is on its knees with the debacle of resource depletion and CD.
This is what some defend here, while claiming to defend the opposite! (The exp-auto-proc)
izentrop wrote: The law of the most twisted, the strongest will once again be the rule.
Ah you believe that ... My poor man, that it is already there, this law, look at yourself in a mirror, (you exp-auto-proc) what you defend with blinders is to stack up, the arguments that you use, the twisted mind you put there ... it flies low.
The mirror has spoken! Monomaniac sophists, here is the truth, it is not from me ...
What are you doing in a forum green, like leeches, to defend - immature, head down and in a bag:
- chemistry (which certainly does not only do bad things, but it is on these that you insist);
- nuclear (fusion which sends us into a wall, while for your best arguments you should defend thermodynamic solar):
- the interests of industry (almost globally and systematically):
- GMOs (which are thwarted by nature's resistance to herbicides and disrupt diversity, ultra-well-known facts, but always with their heads in a bag, denial is always present in every sentence ...)
- the obvious bad faith of a good part of the medical world in conjunction with pharmas (which was known WELL BEFORE the situation of covid-19, again the denial, tenacious ...)
Against you the facts:
- statistics (which you go so far as to interpret to serve your purposes instead of making them a real tool for reflection (although these are sometimes unreliable photographs of the situation.)
- the economy is in distress (we talk about it until the WEF, but for you everything is fine ...)
- the explosion of degenerative diseases I gave a figure of 80% (in view of the mortality of these) but Myoper on Futura-Science, who is a visionary, evaluates them between 95 and 100%. While here the self-proclaimed experts (exp-auto-proc) continue to speak ...
The problem that almost all of you (the clan of the omniscient and omnipresent few) is that you have to prove yourself right at all costs, you are not capable of entering into a debate other than massively dependent ( with a high dose of copy-pasted and links wanting to “prove” je ne sais quoi ..) while we are close to caricature and massive recourse to “sources” (proving major shortcomings since the debate, you flee it and n 'do not try to make the difference) you never question yourself, it is the very nature of trolls, but here there is a nest, encrusted ... indecrottable. Without creating any illusion around anyone (in view of the endemic desertion of forum, and even “sizes”, and while I was away for a few years). But "
it's Google's SEO fault"