It is important to point out that I have not made any kind of claim that my statements are factual; nor have I stated, or implied, that I believe any
information I have offered is accurate or proof of anything.
What I have done however is offer observations on the postings and reactions of participants in this thread and then presented that information
complete with the reasoning that led to a result that I displayed.
Originally posted by Implosion
I'm not arguing, I'm trying to illustrate exactly how laughable that connection is.
illustrate:
1. The act of clarifying or explaining, the state of being clarified or explained.
2. Material used to clarify or explain.
It is curious that you consider a Google link of numerous results for "DNA TTTATTTT" to be clarification of your statement that the connection is
laughable. Especially when your search data is considerably different.
I have no desire to defend anything I have posted as they are just observations, not opinions or beliefs. However I do feel it worth pointing out that
it is rather haughty to be so dismissive.
Originally posted by Implosion
Lies from a "government whistle blower" to H5N1 in three easy steps? You can find anything you like if you look hard enough.
Consider me nothing more than a devil's advocate, or indeed someone that just wants to hold the same standard to all information presented here
irrespective of source.
You categorically state lies when all we have in the form of an admission is a piece of text presented by Springer that was it not for the fact that
he was the site administrator would not stand up to the scrutiny others are put under when they present information.
Was any other member to post a cut and paste of text as proof of anything the furore, scoffing and debunking that would follow would be considerable
and perfectly reasonable.
Trust, by its very nature, can only ever be earned. If it is demanded or enforced then by the very nature of trust is contradictory.
Otherwise, thank you for the compliment that what I have presented is so understandable that you describe its workings as "three easy steps".
Originally posted by Implosion
I guess people haven't quite satisfied their escapeism fix just yet.
That's a little accusatory isn't it?
I didn't realize that being curious, presenting observations and trying to maintain an equitable standard in regard to the presentation of evidence
be so easily dismissed as escapism.
Pokey Oats