Challege? How many times do need to beSweetwater14 wrote:So I gather you are unable to challenge the scientific integrity of what appears in my previous post.Bee Prepared wrote:Charitable? A better definition would
be retaliate.
Army Of Truth wrote:Sweetwater14 wrote:No, you don't understand. Your use of "quack from w-a-y back" is obviously NOT a position, but a PERSON. By the Latin definition meaning "to the man" or "to the person", my use of "Big Pharma" is NOT an ad hominem attack, nor have I ever said it was! You did - incorrectly.Army Of Truth wrote: You still don't understand. I was not engaged in a give-and-take with Wakefield, etc. I was, however, attacking their positions which are based on faulty research. By your lights, your use of "Big Pharma" is an ad hominem attack, which it isn't. ad hominem means, from the Latin, "to the man." As I said before, it is a device used in a debate when the losing side resorts to attacking the person rather than the person's argument.
Oh, my goodness; you're back for more. OK. In the post that concerns you, I set the condition for my use of ad hominem. I said "in a debate of this nature"—a direct reference to the "live" debate exchanges I was having with anti-vaccinators. As I say below, I wasn't having a "live" exchange with Dr. Mercola, nor Dr. Wakefield, nor the editor of Natural News, etc. I went on to say that when an actively participating debate opponent begins to lose ground, he/she often resorts to attacking the opponent personally. Do you understand that I could not have been referring to Mercola, Wakefield, et al. because I wasn't having "live" exchanges with them? I was criticizing them for their positions as voices for the anti-vaccine cabal.
To reconfirm YOUR OWN accepted definition, YOU used an ad hominem attack against Dr. Mercola- "quack from w-a-y back". Is it because you are on the losing side and resorting to "attacking the person rather than the person's argument"?
How did Dr. Mercola "earn" the pejorative term "quack"? Did someone just decide to be nasty and call him that? Or was the term applied to him because of the positions he has taken re. vaccination? Eh? Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you think re. my reference to Dr. Mercola, because—as I said at the outset of my post (sigh)— "in a debate of this nature." Dr. Mercola wasn't in that debate.
Suggestion: Go to the website Alternet and read the article "4 of the Biggest Quacks Plaguing America with False Claims About Science." First on the list is Dr. Joseph Mercola. Some excerpts from the article: 1) A typical "pitch" on his website "touts the wonders of yet another miracle cure supplement . . . {including] "13 Amazing Health Benefits of Himalayan Crystal Salt" and "Vitamin D is 'The Silver Bullet for Cancer.'" 2) "Mercola has been the subject of a number of FDA warning letters about his activities, including marketing products providing 'exceptional countermeasures' against cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and a host of other illnesses." 3) "Mercola has stated that HIV may not be the cause of AIDS. He believes that the manifestations of AIDS could result from 'psychological stress' brought on by the belief that HIV is harmful." 4)"Mercola has also stated that commercial sunscreens increase the likelihood of skin cancer instead of protecting from it. Of course, he sells his own natural sunscreens on his website."
I have read your concluding "points," and I find that I have already addressed them.
dconrad000 wrote:Governments Hire Web Trolls to Sway Public Opinion
Hiring paid shills to propagandize for the establishment is a common practice
http://www.infowars.com/governments-hir ... c-opinion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It’s an admitted fact that governments [and corporations] around the world hire armies of shills to troll comment sections of news websites and social media with pro-establishment propaganda in an attempt to sway public opinion.
I bear my solemn witness that the use of tissue cultures which are derived from aborted fetal cell lines upon which to grow antigen for vaccines is utterly evil. I will stand before any earthly or heavenly tribunal, if called upon to do so and boldly declare it. I know I am telling the truth, and God knows it.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter...
dconrad000 wrote:dconrad000 wrote:Human Diploid Cells (which include type MRC-5 & WI-38) = ABORTED FETAL CELLS!!!
link: http://www.historyofvaccines.org/conten ... evelopment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Partial list of ingredients (including Human Diploid Cells which include type MRC-5 & WI-38) in Vaccines from the CDC’s own website:
…with the disclaimer, ... "efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this information, but manufacturers may change product contents before that information is reflected here”. In other words, you never know what really may have made its way into these veritable “witches brews”.
link: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbo ... able-2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
______________________________________________dconrad000 wrote:
This is the film that first woke me up to the true horrors of abortion. I saw it off-campus, while attending BYU in 1985. It is a film that everyone should see -- especially those who might ever consider participating in an abortion. As with the business of vaccinations, and the use of anti-depressant medication -- true informed consent has never been a part of the business of abortion.
This film was produced by a repentant former abortionist. An honest doctor now telling the truth, that has done immeasurable good by having the courage to come out with this film in 1983.
...from the caption below the video:
ABORTION - THE SILENT SCREAM COMPLETE VERSION (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown:
VHS/DVDs Available
American Portrait Films
Call 1-800-736-4567
http://www.amport.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This has been performed as asked. This video is perfectly legal.
The Silent Scream Complete Version - Abortion as Infanticide
Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child's pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a "silent scream" as her body is torn apart. A great tool to help people see why abortion is murder. The most important video on abortion ever made. This video changed opinion on abortion to many people.
Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists' tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion.
Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion. The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist's suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a "silent scream." The child's heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist's suction tip begins to rip the baby's limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to "dehumanize" the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby's head as "number 1." The abortionist crushes "number 1" with the forceps and removes it from the uterus.
Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed. Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven't been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge. Films like this must be made part of "informed consent." NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion.
Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world.
The Silent Scream
...to view it fullscreen, use this link:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... UJQxDXqb0s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...So aborted baby parts from American babies will continue to be very quietly sold for profit to medical researchers and most Americans will never hear anything about it. But future generations will look back in horror at what we allowed to be done right under our noses...
...But the harvesting of tissue and organs from aborted babies is definitely not new. It has been going on for a long time.
For example, a recent article posted on worldmag.com describes the very big business that the Birth Defects Research Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle does in aborted baby parts….
It’s known within the research community as a top government distributor of fetal tissue. Last year the Puget Sound Business Journal stated the lab “in 2009 filled more than 4,400 requests for fetal tissue and cell lines.”...
...Once again, it is supposed to be against federal law to buy aborted baby parts from abortion clinics. But this “problem” is avoided by taking advantage of the loophole that allows for “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”
An article posted on LifeDynamics.com describes how this system works….
1) A baby parts “wholesaler” enters into a financial agreement with an abortion clinic in which the wholesaler pays a monthly “site fee” to the clinic. For this payment, the wholesaler is allowed to place a retrieval agent inside the clinic where he or she is given access to the corpses of children killed there and a workspace to harvest their parts. In most cases, this retrieval agent is an employee of the wholesaler. In other instances, the retrieval agent is a clinic employee who was trained by the wholesaler.
2) The buyer – usually a researcher working for a medical school, pharmaceutical company, bio-tech company or government agency – supplies the wholesaler with a list of the baby parts wanted.
3) When such orders are received by the wholesaler, they are faxed to the retrieval agent at the clinic who harvests the requested parts and ships them to the buyer via FedEx, Airborne or a similar common carrier.
4) These parts are “donated” by the clinic to the wholesaler who turns around and “donates” them to the buyer. The buyer then “reimburses” the wholesaler for the cost of retrieving the parts.
In the end, nobody is technically “buying or selling” anything but they all get what they want and a lot of money changes hands.
A number of years ago an abortion industry insider came forward with shocking details of how this organ harvesting operation actually functions. The following is from a very eye-opening InvestigateDaily article….
It was an interview that shocked America. An Insider, spilling the beans on massive malpractice to a reporter on ABC’s 20/20. Only this time, it wasn’t Big Tobacco in the gunsights, it was the US abortion industry, exposed as harvesting the organs from aborted babies. According to former abortion clinic technician Dean Alberty, clinics were harvesting eyes, brains, hearts, limbs, torsos and other body parts for sale to the scientific market: laboratories wanting to test new drugs or procedures, or researchers trying to find the causes of genetic disorders or discover new ways of treating disorders like Parkinsons.
Sometimes babies actually survive the initial abortion procedure and workers actually have to kill the babies themselvesbefore harvesting the organs….
Alberty worked for a Maryland agency called the Anatomic Gift Foundation, which essentially acted as a brokerage between universities and researchers seeking body parts, and the abortion clinics providing the raw material. Alerted by the clinics about the races and gestations of babies due to be aborted each day, AGF technicians would match the offerings with parts orders on their client lists. Alberty and his colleagues would turn up at the abortions that offered the best donor prospects to begin dissecting and extracting what they needed before decay set in.
“We would have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to go in…[to] procure fetal tissue for research. We would get a generated list each day to tell us what tissue researchers, pharmaceuticals and universities were looking for. Then we would go and look at the particular patient charts—we had to screen out anyone who had STDs or fetal anomalies. These had to be the most perfect specimens we could give these researchers for the best value that we could sell for.
“We were taking eyes, livers, brains, thymuses, and especially cardiac blood…even blood from the limbs that we would get from the veins” he said.
Alberty told of seeing babies wounded but alive after abortion procedures, and in one case a set of twins “still moving on the table” when clinicians from AGF began dissecting the children to harvest their organs. The children, he said, were “cuddling each other” and “gasping for breath” when medics moved in for the kill...
...“I was in the scrub room when I saw the towel move,” says Harrah. “A nurse said, ‘Eric, you’re just tired. It’s three in the morning.’ Then we both looked and a little baby’s arm raised up out of the towel and was moving like a newborn baby. I screamed and ran out. The doctor came in and closed the door and when we went back in to process the baby out of the clinic into the lab, [the baby] had a puncture wound in his chest.”
In the United States, trafficking in baby parts for profit is a criminal offence. But to get around the problem, universities and researchers pay a fee – not for the parts themselves but for the “cost of extraction”. Thus, there are different fees depending on the amount of work involved. And shipping and handling is extra...
You can read the rest of that shocking article right here [see link above to original article for live reference links].
So are you sick to your stomach yet?
This is a hard article to write, but the American people need to be confronted with the truth. If we ignore the horrors going on right under our noses, then that would make us just like so many of the other nightmarish societies throughout history that we rightly condemn.
Sadly, most Americans don’t even realize that large numbers of consumer products on our supermarket shelves contain ingredients which have been cultivated using aborted human fetal cell lines.
This information is not hard to find.
But people do not like to talk about it.
There are price lists for human fetal tissue all over the Internet. You can find one example right here.
So does it bother you that aborted babies are being chopped up and sold to researchers all over America?
Or are you perfectly fine with it?...
This is the shocking face of China’s brutal one child policy which many academics and pressure groups are now calling to be imposed in the west – the image shows a 9 month old baby lying dead in a bucket, forcibly aborted by Chinese family planning authorities in the town of Moshan, Shandong province.
Because the parents of the baby already had a child, they were hunted down and forced to comply with China’s draconian one child policy. The mother was injected with a poison that induced an abortion, but after the baby was “pulled out inhumanly like a piece of meat,” it was still alive and began to cry before doctors slung the defenseless child into a bucket and left it to die.
The time stamp on the image tells us the baby was killed on Monday. The image began circulating today on Weibo, China’s version of Twitter, which has around 260 million members. The story has attracted widespread revulsion directed against the family planning authorities responsible for the murder of the baby.
China’s one child policy is enforced by way of forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization. In many cases, women are literally kidnapped off the street by state goons from the “Birth Control Office,” driven to government hospitals, drugged, and their child is forcibly aborted.
In one case in 2009, both a young woman and her baby were killed after such an abduction in Liaocheng City.
“According to a Doctor at the hospital where the two died, the young woman was kidnapped by the “Birth Control Office” and taken to the hospital where she was forced to undergo an abortion procedure,” reported the Epoch Times.
“The young woman fought with staff to protect her unborn child however a half a dozen men, pushed her down on a bed and injected her with a drug to induce labor...
I bear my solemn witness that the use of tissue cultures which are derived from aborted fetal cell lines upon which to grow antigen for vaccines is utterly evil. I will stand before any earthly or heavenly tribunal, if called upon to do so and boldly declare it. I know I am telling the truth, and God knows it.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter...
dconrad000 wrote:dconrad000 wrote:Human Diploid Cells (which include type MRC-5 & WI-38) = ABORTED FETAL CELLS!!!
link: http://www.historyofvaccines.org/conten ... evelopment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Partial list of ingredients (including Human Diploid Cells which include type MRC-5 & WI-38) in Vaccines from the CDC’s own website:
…with the disclaimer, ... "efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this information, but manufacturers may change product contents before that information is reflected here”. In other words, you never know what really may have made its way into these veritable “witches brews”.
link: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbo ... able-2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I like your passion on the subject "dconrad000!"dconrad000 wrote:I bear my solemn witness that the use of tissue cultures which are derived from aborted fetal cell lines upon which to grow antigen for vaccines is utterly evil. I will stand before any earthly or heavenly tribunal, if called upon to do so and boldly declare it. I know I am telling the truth, and God knows it.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter...
________________________________________________________
dconrad000 wrote:dconrad000 wrote:Human Diploid Cells (which include type MRC-5 & WI-38) = ABORTED FETAL CELLS!!!
link: http://www.historyofvaccines.org/conten ... evelopment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Partial list of ingredients (including Human Diploid Cells which include type MRC-5 & WI-38) in Vaccines from the CDC’s own website:
…with the disclaimer, ... "efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this information, but manufacturers may change product contents before that information is reflected here”. In other words, you never know what really may have made its way into these veritable “witches brews”.
link: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbo ... able-2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Dr. Mercola did NOT "earn" the term "quack". Anti-truthers gave him that label because he is so knowledgeable about the pharmaceutical industry and the shills that exist. And like I said before that you obviously didn't read, IT DOESNT MATTER that Dr. Mercola wasn't in the room when you were talking about him, you obviously used ad hominem attacks against him but you're now backing out of it and saying it doesn't count. /:)Sweetwater14 wrote: Oh, my goodness; you're back for more. OK. In the post that concerns you, I set the condition for my use of ad hominem. I said "in a debate of this nature"—a direct reference to the "live" debate exchanges I was having with anti-vaccinators. As I say below, I wasn't having a "live" exchange with Dr. Mercola, nor Dr. Wakefield, nor the editor of Natural News, etc. I went on to say that when an actively participating debate opponent begins to lose ground, he/she often resorts to attacking the opponent personally. Do you understand that I could not have been referring to Mercola, Wakefield, et al. because I wasn't having "live" exchanges with them? I was criticizing them for their positions as voices for the anti-vaccine cabal.
Wow....still saying the same things that I already commented on and ignoring what I already said. Do you not understand that you said, and I quote:
Dr. Joseph Mercola (a quack from w-a-y back)
If you weren't referring to "Dr. Joseph Mercola", then who were you referring to?Talk about denial, wow! #-o
How did Dr. Mercola "earn" the pejorative term "quack"? Did someone just decide to be nasty and call him that? Or was the term applied to him because of the positions he has taken re. vaccination? Eh? Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you think re. my reference to Dr. Mercola, because—as I said at the outset of my post (sigh)— "in a debate of this nature." Dr. Mercola wasn't in that debate.
No, I will not waste my time to go to your conspiracy website full of myths and ad hominem attacks on truthers. :ymsmug:Suggestion: Go to the website Alternet and read the article "4 of the Biggest Quacks Plaguing America with False Claims About Science." First on the list is Dr. Joseph Mercola. Some excerpts from the article: 1) A typical "pitch" on his website "touts the wonders of yet another miracle cure supplement . . . {including] "13 Amazing Health Benefits of Himalayan Crystal Salt" and "Vitamin D is 'The Silver Bullet for Cancer.'" 2) "Mercola has been the subject of a number of FDA warning letters about his activities, including marketing products providing 'exceptional countermeasures' against cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and a host of other illnesses." 3) "Mercola has stated that HIV may not be the cause of AIDS. He believes that the manifestations of AIDS could result from 'psychological stress' brought on by the belief that HIV is harmful." 4)"Mercola has also stated that commercial sunscreens increase the likelihood of skin cancer instead of protecting from it. Of course, he sells his own natural sunscreens on his website."
I have read your concluding "points," and I find that I have already addressed them.
Have a nice day.Army Of Truth wrote:Dr. Mercola did NOT "earn" the term "quack". Anti-truthers gave him that label because he is so knowledgeable about the pharmaceutical industry and the shills that exist. And like I said before that you obviously didn't read, IT DOESNT MATTER that Dr. Mercola wasn't in the room when you were talking about him, you obviously used ad hominem attacks against him but you're now backing out of it and saying it doesn't count. /:)Sweetwater14 wrote: Oh, my goodness; you're back for more. OK. In the post that concerns you, I set the condition for my use of ad hominem. I said "in a debate of this nature"—a direct reference to the "live" debate exchanges I was having with anti-vaccinators. As I say below, I wasn't having a "live" exchange with Dr. Mercola, nor Dr. Wakefield, nor the editor of Natural News, etc. I went on to say that when an actively participating debate opponent begins to lose ground, he/she often resorts to attacking the opponent personally. Do you understand that I could not have been referring to Mercola, Wakefield, et al. because I wasn't having "live" exchanges with them? I was criticizing them for their positions as voices for the anti-vaccine cabal.
Wow....still saying the same things that I already commented on and ignoring what I already said. Do you not understand that you said, and I quote:
Dr. Joseph Mercola (a quack from w-a-y back)
If you weren't referring to "Dr. Joseph Mercola", then who were you referring to?
How did Dr. Mercola "earn" the pejorative term "quack"? Did someone just decide to be nasty and call him that? Or was the term applied to him because of the positions he has taken re. vaccination? Eh? Ultimately, it doesn't matter what you think re. my reference to Dr. Mercola, because—as I said at the outset of my post (sigh)— "in a debate of this nature." Dr. Mercola wasn't in that debate.
No, I will not waste my time to go to your conspiracy website full of myths and ad hominem attacks on truthers. :ymsmug:Suggestion: Go to the website Alternet and read the article "4 of the Biggest Quacks Plaguing America with False Claims About Science." First on the list is Dr. Joseph Mercola. Some excerpts from the article: 1) A typical "pitch" on his website "touts the wonders of yet another miracle cure supplement . . . {including] "13 Amazing Health Benefits of Himalayan Crystal Salt" and "Vitamin D is 'The Silver Bullet for Cancer.'" 2) "Mercola has been the subject of a number of FDA warning letters about his activities, including marketing products providing 'exceptional countermeasures' against cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and a host of other illnesses." 3) "Mercola has stated that HIV may not be the cause of AIDS. He believes that the manifestations of AIDS could result from 'psychological stress' brought on by the belief that HIV is harmful." 4)"Mercola has also stated that commercial sunscreens increase the likelihood of skin cancer instead of protecting from it. Of course, he sells his own natural sunscreens on his website."
I have read your concluding "points," and I find that I have already addressed them.
Thank you! You do the same! B-)Sweetwater14 wrote:
Have a nice day.
Interesting. I've never heard of this before.dconrad000 wrote:Governments Hire Web Trolls to Sway Public Opinion
Hiring paid shills to propagandize for the establishment is a common practice
http://www.infowars.com/governments-hir ... c-opinion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Warning!!! Now that you are aware of this, you might find yourself being a little suspicious of some of our regular visitors. Especially when they say things that are so outragious, it's hard to fathom how they could possibly believe the things they are typing.A Random Phrase wrote:Interesting. I've never heard of this before.dconrad000 wrote:Governments Hire Web Trolls to Sway Public Opinion
Hiring paid shills to propagandize for the establishment is a common practice
http://www.infowars.com/governments-hir ... c-opinion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
:)) Some do seem a little ... off, all right.caddis wrote:Warning!!! Now that you are aware of this, you might find yourself being a little suspicious of some of our regular visitors. Especially when they say things that are so outragious, it's hard to fathom how they could possibly believe the things they are typing.A Random Phrase wrote:Interesting. I've never heard of this before.dconrad000 wrote:Governments Hire Web Trolls to Sway Public Opinion
Hiring paid shills to propagandize for the establishment is a common practice
http://www.infowars.com/governments-hir ... c-opinion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
:)) Some do seem a little ... off, all right.A Random Phrase wrote:Warning!!! Now that you are aware of this, you might find yourself being a little suspicious of some of our regular visitors. Especially when they say things that are so outragious, it's hard to fathom how they could possibly believe the things they are typing.caddis wrote:Interesting. I've never heard of this before.dconrad000 wrote:Governments Hire Web Trolls to Sway Public Opinion
Hiring paid shills to propagandize for the establishment is a common practice
http://www.infowars.com/governments-hir ... c-opinion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[/quote] =))Bee Prepared wrote:And some are overly sensitive.
caddis wrote:=))Bee Prepared wrote:And some are overly sensitive.
=))[/quotecaddis wrote:Bee Prepared wrote:And some are overly sensitive.
Good point.Sweetwater14 wrote:Virtually every organization—government at all levels, for-profit and non-profit corporations, labor unions, the National Rifle Association, etc.—has an agenda it seeks to promote. To that end, they hire lobbyists, which is a euphemism for "web trolls" and "paid shills."
Thank you.A Random Phrase wrote:Good point.Sweetwater14 wrote:Virtually every organization—government at all levels, for-profit and non-profit corporations, labor unions, the National Rifle Association, etc.—has an agenda it seeks to promote. To that end, they hire lobbyists, which is a euphemism for "web trolls" and "paid shills."
You're welcome.Sweetwater14 wrote:Thank you.A Random Phrase wrote:Good point.Sweetwater14 wrote:Virtually every organization—government at all levels, for-profit and non-profit corporations, labor unions, the National Rifle Association, etc.—has an agenda it seeks to promote. To that end, they hire lobbyists, which is a euphemism for "web trolls" and "paid shills."
Thank you.[/quote]A Random Phrase wrote:Good point.Sweetwater14 wrote: Virtually every organization—government at all levels, for-profit and non-profit corporations, labor unions, the National Rifle Association, etc.—has an agenda it seeks to promote. To that end, they hire lobbyists, which is a euphemism for "web trolls" and "paid shills."
I think if we all figured out how to be civil, this would be a most awesome site to visit in every forum - whether we believed in sound science or pseudoscience or fantasy. Bee Prepared wrote:" Random Phrase" is a very nice and civil person, you can always depend on that! She stands up for me when I get swatted at! :ymhug:
