Christophe wrote:What a memory !! Did you take lessons at Obamot?
The 1st I remember, not the 2nd ... it wasn't mine!
Do you want another one? Because slander is in the middle of your words about moderation ...
...
I presented facts. I found these warning messages weeks after they were sent, I hardly look at the PMs, and I kept them because they are truly pearls of moderation. As for the messages much worse but accepted because coming from contributors devoted to the cause, I can also present them if you really continue to speak of slander when I present the facts. I hope not because they have no interest and no one has time to waste.
You could have apologized, however, because everyone understood how harmless my posts were, however repressed.
But no.
At least it is clear, we can see it in your answer, it is the fact that I want to discuss the received ideas of ecologism, which are worth remarks to me. Presenting scientific studies on the greening of the planet, on counterproductive ecological measures, on the harmlessness of glyphosate, or on the falsity of past forecasts of the IPCC, that can surely sow doubt in the minds of the flocks of the ecologism who still have a bit of a critical mind.
If in addition there is a little humor, we find ourselves in the problematic of Umberto Eco in The Name of the Rose: laughter can destabilize the Church and weaken faith in God. In his book, this laughter was fought by the assassination. Fortunately, we are not there with moderation, the methods are softer, but the motives have not changed much. Guillaupe de Baskerville! With me !
