Thread: New Soup
View Single Post
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

peril wrote:
<...>
>>>I see you're still insane Usual.

>
> Mad as a hatter!


Pretty rich coming from someone who believes in or promotes:
"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucers
Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals)
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth
Sun gazing
Drinking urine as a cure-all
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
she's sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
she participates in the skinhead subculture
she accepts the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts)
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news"
Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence

>>>Organic veggies are more nutritious

>>
>>You've been "researching" activist claims again, haven't you.

>
> You're going to post corporate propaganda and flawed 'research', aren't you.


I posted information including quotes from organic apologists:
Even the organic foods industry has been forced to admit that
their products offer no significant nutritional advantages.
Katherine DiMatteo, spokesperson for the U.S. Organic Trade
Association, was asked on ABC’s 20/20 (February 4, 2000) whether
organic foods were more nutritious than their conventional
counterparts. She twice responded that “organic foods are as
nutritious as any other product.” Not more nutritious, merely
“as nutritious.”

Etc.

>>Organic More Nutritious? Even the Organic Industry Doesn't Think So!
>>
>>by Alex Avery

>
> 'Monsanto and the Campaign to Undermine Organics
>
> Monsanto also partially funds the extreme anti-organic Center for
> Global Food Issues, a project of the right-wing Hudson Institute.
> It is run by Dennis Avery


And your point is what, that we should *only* consider activists from
the other side? The problem for you is that Avery and others rely on
science for their claims; your side rejects science for its own demented
axiom that organic is inherently better. Nice of you to try to make the
case that your side's own spokeswoman couldn't on national television,
though.

Snip of gibberish and propaganda.