Cancer also seen by regenerates

[Obamot]

You really talk nonsense...
For example, this quote that you cannot deny, but which you nevertheless do not hesitate to call a "lie"!

bad faith and total bias

but last post because your goal is obviously to spoil the subject and trigger sanctions.
So without me, not concerned and in support of Janic (to be pitied, he doesn't deserve that) not really in the sense of "everyone must do their part"
(one lights the fire and the other blows on the embers)

[Ahmed]

...it must be said that the merit is slim, because the fuel is very flammable...

[Remundo]

do you want me to lock?

[Janic]

ahmed

As for Janic, I regret that he fell into a form of speech not always consistent where invective predominates (it is not the only one in this case, alas!); it is all the more regrettable that he is intelligent and able to grasp nuances that are impervious to other minds. Janic, pull yourself together!

Ahmed, thank you for your comments.
a) If my speech is considered incoherent, it would be wise to point out the part or parts in question, it would be more constructive.
b) Discourse where invective predominates? It is, and I have already expressed it widely, a response from the shepherd to the shepherdess AFTER their own invectives, which are intended to be polite, well cared for and from which it emerges that it is only a "social" facade. which collapses under these invectives (voluntary and calculated) in question.
c) The apostle Paul of Tarsus, of the supposed NT, says that he does everything to get his message across; Jew with the Jews, Greek with the Greeks, Roman with the Romans, without worrying about knowing if this one was well understood, but it had been definitively imprinted in their minds and that alone counted. After time does its work whatever the result.
This is called a technique of destabilizing his interlocutor[*] so that he finally spits out what his polite facade wants to hide, a typical example with the “funny ones”
d) If you observe my interventions carefully, since I post on this site, I have had heated discussions with speakers while remaining courteous like them. Even with Obamot at the start, he must remember that!
e) I have been constantly grabbing and pulling myself together for decades, otherwise I would be much more incisive, while remaining polite and courteous with those who are polite to me and to those who are implicated and who cannot defend themselves here, on this site… even in a limited scope.
The “if someone hits you on the right cheek turn the left” side is not my thing, which shows that I still have a long way to go!

[*] you certainly know, (to whom has this not happened?), that in anger, people tell each other their 4 truths and then regret having said them, claiming that their words have exceeded their thoughts . Which is of course false since these words only express this thought, but it is anger that precisely allows them to be expressed.

[Obamot]

Well said. Of course I remember, but it was temporary. I don't like to sinter myself, and even less with those who have something between the two ears.

[Janic]

30/03/23, 11:35
obamot

Well said. Of course I remember, but it was temporary. I don't like to sinter myself, and even less with those who have something between the two ears.

I understood it that way; it can be seen quickly, even if there are still a few points of difference and that's good because no one has an absolute truth.

with those who have something between the two ears

and between the legs, don't forget! because you have to have huge coucougnettes to dare to question all these dogmas, invented to keep individuals in a state of mental dependence, known as doxa!

doxa
feminine noun
DIDACTIC
All opinions received without discussion, as obvious, in a given civilization.

[Obamot]

I did not dare... You think well...

[izentrop]

The problem with charlatans is that exposing them gives them even more publicity.

[Obamot]

...When reality goes beyond fiction...

Rho! the jealous who dumps caustic tweets without verification...

[Janic]

04/04/23, 03:24
izmentrop

The problem with charlatans is that exposing them gives them even more publicity.

the problem with the clam frogs of BP is that they call charlatans those who precisely do not correspond to the dictionary definition and who support the real charlatans who are sponsored by these same BP and their "black shirts" naz' there facho conspiracy
Despite everything this accusation is not totally false since the lab having laid this pseudovaxx was condemned for transgression of the laws (and therefore of charlatanism) and that, in spite of these laws having condemned him, he finds idiots to make them The advert.
As for the zigoto author of this "article", he should account for all the billion shameful profits from his employers who do not and will never go to research on certain diseases, including cancer, but in the pocket of their wealthy shareholders who would not even bend down to pick up 68.000 Euros on the ground.