Wed Sep 7, 2016, 01:06 PM
17 replies, 1502 views
 17 replies |
Author | Time | Post |
 Science Moms Trailer #1 (Original post) |
HuckleB | Sep 2016 | OP |
| immoderate | Sep 2016 | #1 | |
| HuckleB | Sep 2016 | #2 | |
| immoderate | Sep 2016 | #3 | |
| HuckleB | Sep 2016 | #4 | |
| immoderate | Sep 2016 | #5 | |
| HuckleB | Sep 2016 | #6 | |
| immoderate | Sep 2016 | #7 | |
| HuckleB | Sep 2016 | #8 | |
| immoderate | Sep 2016 | #9 | |
| HuckleB | Sep 2016 | #10 | |
| immoderate | Sep 2016 | #11 | |
| HuckleB | Sep 2016 | #12 | |
| immoderate | Sep 2016 | #13 | |
| HuckleB | Sep 2016 | #14 | |
| immoderate | Sep 2016 | #15 | |
| HuckleB | Sep 2016 | #16 | |
| immoderate | Sep 2016 | #17 |
Response to HuckleB (Original post)
Wed Sep 7, 2016, 01:38 PM
1. I wonder if the"science moms" have a comment on Monsanto's addition of dicamba to its
|
pesticide cocktail. Apparently, the glyphosate is becoming ineffective (as predicted) so the highly volatile dicamba is being employed to wipe out all forms of life that aren't Monsanto soybeans.
--imm |
Response to immoderate (Reply #1)
Wed Sep 7, 2016, 01:41 PM
2. Ah, so you came by to display the usual anti-glyphosate routine.
It's too bad you can't respond to the actual content of the video, much less offer up a post that shows any actual understanding of the products in question, how they're used, or why, but that's par for the course. |
Response to HuckleB (Reply #2)
Wed Sep 7, 2016, 02:11 PM
3. My response was to the content of the video. They appear to have an agenda.
|
The trailers are most adamant about promoting GMOs. They make slight mention of other issues like homeopathy, thimerisol, etc. Does the film tackle teaching creationism in science classes? I guess we'll find out.
Don't you think that the addition of dicamba indicates that Monsanto's approach is unsustainable? 
--imm |
Response to HuckleB (Reply #2)
Wed Sep 7, 2016, 02:20 PM
5. These people are also known as the #Moms4GMOs!
|
Quelle surprise!
https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/moms4gmos?source=feed_text&story_id=1200959096603092 --imm |
Response to immoderate (Reply #5)
Wed Sep 7, 2016, 02:22 PM
6. We already know you don't like science.
Response to HuckleB (Reply #6)
Wed Sep 7, 2016, 02:27 PM
7. Has glyphosate lost effectiveness?
|
--imm |
Response to immoderate (Reply #7)
Wed Sep 7, 2016, 02:32 PM
8. Thank you for showing that you don't understand the topic.
|
Of course, you already showed us that. Why show it again?
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/category/herbicide-resistance-2/ |
Response to HuckleB (Reply #8)
Wed Sep 7, 2016, 02:44 PM
9. What am I not understanding about 'glyphosate effectiveness?'
|
You, OTOH, are tap dancing.
--imm |
Response to immoderate (Reply #9)
Wed Sep 7, 2016, 02:45 PM
10. Hmm. Giving you links to help you begin to understand is "tap dancing."
Response to HuckleB (Reply #10)
Wed Sep 7, 2016, 02:52 PM
11. I said glyphosate would become ineffective. The addition of dicamba validates it.
|
Don't you agree?
--imm |
Response to immoderate (Reply #13)
Wed Sep 7, 2016, 04:30 PM
14. And you continue to show that you don't understand the topic by using a quote out of context.
|
When you decide to confess that you don't understand something, you really go all out!
 |
Response to HuckleB (Reply #14)
Wed Sep 7, 2016, 04:52 PM
15. Your attempts at rhetoric are pitiful. What have we established?
You didn't present anything to refute these statements. The article I quoted from certainly didn't contradict me. I don't understand what it is you say I don't understand. Why don't you answer questions?
--imm |
Response to immoderate (Reply #15)
Fri Sep 9, 2016, 01:19 PM
16. You have made baseless claims, repeatedly.
Response to HuckleB (Reply #16)
Sat Sep 10, 2016, 11:01 AM
17. I claim dicamba was added because glyphosate was becoming ineffective.
|
Why else?
--imm |
