General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: You can't criticize one pseudoscience when supporting another. [View all]Chathamization
(1,638 posts)brought that up you said I was lying, and when I pointed out it was your very first link (which you apparently hadn't bothered to read) and provided you with the Nature article it was attacking, you said I was "blatantly lying" and "hoping that I don't respond, so other people will look at your headline and think you're being honest." What are you denying here? That weedcontrolfreaks.com is a blog (it says so on the front page)? That Nature peer reviews it's articles (it says so on Natures site)? That it's dismissive of the Nature article (the first two paragraphs seem to make that clear, and indeed, you seemed to provide the blog post as a counter-narrative)?
Which of these things do you disagree with? You like to talk a lot about facts, so maybe you can provide some for your accusations?
Seriously, do you have any evidence to back up any of these accusations? Or do you just throw around wild accusations when you've painted yourself into a corner?
-Because I pointed out that your first link was a blog post dismissing a peer reviewed article, I suddenly believe "there is no such thing as post publication peer review"?
-"You simply hang your hat on a study that has been debunked by every scientists around" What? The only thing I posted is an excerpt from a NYT article showing the increase in glyphosate use (which your first article agrees with). What are these phantom studies you think I'm hanging my hat on? Are you having some imaginary argument with me in your mind?
-I "ignore all the other studies" "while pretending all other research doesn't exist"? Again, are you having some imaginary conversation? Any evidence of this at all?
Again, you like to talk about facts. Are you able to provide any facts to back up all your accusations?
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):