Fluoride endgame approaches....

jma

Sarky wrote: »

Not interested in backing any of that up? It's only polite to show where your claims are coming from. If they're good sources, then you might have a point.



So... Any time now, ta.

Sarky, I have lots of sources, and I have already referenced some in previous posts, in case you care to check. What you might not realise is that it's very time consuming and draining to keep doing this. The problem is that I cannot easily tell who here is genuinely interested in the facts, and who are asking for proof just for the sake of arguing and ignoring facts and sources when they are posted. I've highlighted the concerns, and the sources are not too difficult to find on the Internet (and I don't mean CT sites).

If anything that I've posted above is of particular interest to you, or anyone else, I'd be happy to dig up the sources for you.

Sarky

Indulge me.

jma

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

I'm honestly not getting your point... You can copy and paste excerpts from Wikipedia. So what? I'm sure most people here understand the concept. Or at least I should hope so.

kumate_champ07

jma wrote: »

I'm honestly not getting your point... You can copy and paste excerpts from Wikipedia. So what? I'm sure most people here understand the concept. Or at least I should hope so.

if youre going to make a statement on something controversial and label it as fact, you are required to back it up with proof

jma

Sarky wrote: »

Indulge me.

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

if youre going to make a statement on something controversial and label it as fact, you are required to back it up with proof

I will, gladly. What would you like me to back up? I mean, surely you don't need me to reference sources for everything. In the time you looked up the word "Fact", you could just as easily have found this Wikipedia page, "Fluoridation by country":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country#Europe

Tell me what you'd like me to back up and I'll do my best to provide you with reliable sources.

kumate_champ07

jma wrote: »

I will, gladly. What would you like me to back up? I mean, surely you don't need me to reference sources for everything. In the time you looked up the word "Fact", you could just as easily have found this Wikipedia page, "Fluoridation by country":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country#Europe

Tell me what you'd like me to back up and I'll do my best to provide you with reliable sources.

youve just proved that Ireland has fluoride in its tap water, well done!

jma

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

youve just proved that Ireland has fluoride in its tap water, well done!

This is exactly my point. Read again what I said, please, then come back to me.

darkhorse

jma wrote: »

We've covered a lot of facts here about water fluoridation. I don't know why you keep asking for more. To summarise, here are some of the important ones:

* Ireland is practically the only EU country that gets public fluoridated water (over 70% of the population), apart from parts in the UK (about 11%) and Spain (about 10%). Do Irish people have better, healthier teeth than the rest of Europe?

* Fluoridation is unethical and a bad medical practice. It's a chemical that is neither licensed nor regulated as a medicine that's added to the public drinking water for the purpose of public health. So, essentially, it's unsupervised, unconsented mass medication using an unlicensed and unregulated substance.

* The dose cannot be controlled. Once the fluoride is added to the water, the amount of fluoride a person ingests cannot be controlled, simply because different people drink different amounts of water and get fluoride from lots of different sources with lots of different concentrations. As I said before, one person could be getting 800% more fluoride than the next, simply by drinking 8 times more water during the day. You don't need a degree in chemistry to understand that.

* Fluoride is absolutely no nutritious value to the body. No disease, not even caries, is caused by a fluoride deficiency. In fact, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that fluoride inhibits or interferes with important natural biological processes within the body.

* Fluoride, no matter what dose, accumulates in the body over time. Only about 50% of daily intake is excreted through the kidneys (a healthy adult kidney, that is). The rest is absorbed by bones, teeth, and glands. At the very least, this can lead to dental and skeletal fluorosis over time. Children, the elderly and people with impaired kidney function are at a much higher risk because their bodies absorb much more fluoride.

* Tooth decay does not go up when fluoridation is stopped. An increase in tooth decay has not been shown in areas where fluoridation has been stopped. This means there's absolutely no valid reason to keep doing it.

* Young kids are being over-exposed to fluoride. New borns and infants alone are being exposed to fluoride just when their bodies and organs are at critical development stages. Less than half of Irish mothers breastfeed their children, and the babies getting formula milk are exposed to much more fluoride than breastfed babies. Natural breast milk contains only about 0.006 ppm of fluoride, which also backs up the point that fluoride has no nutritious benefits.

* There is enough evidence to suggest that fluoride has neurotoxic effects and can interfere with brain functions. However, there is not enough research or evidence to be able to say that long-term exposure to fluoride has does not have negative effects on brain function.

* Many countries oppose fluoridation because of environmental, safety and/or ethical reasons. More and more scientists, doctors, dentists and other experts are opposing fluoridation. In a public survey here in Ireland, 45% of people expressed concern. This shows us that there is a concern and all of the above facts SHOULD tell us that our concerns are justified.

There are a lot more facts out there, and anyone genuinely interested should take a little bit of time to educate themselves and draw a proper, educated conclusion with regards to the advantages and disadvantages of water fluoridation, instead of echoing the same lines over and over again - things like "Everything is toxic in doses" and "It's all about the dose". We're not talking about occassional exposure, we're talking about regular and constant exposure over a very long period of time.

Also, they are spending a few million annually for to have the flouride pumped into us. They really do care about us.:rolleyes: O.K., will I give them another link:

HSE Cover UP: Fluoride | OneWorldChronicle

Aquarius34

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

You could of spent that wasteful time, realising how harmful Fluoride is to our bodies.

"Licks lips" like an iguana..

Aquarius34

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

youve just proved that Ireland has fluoride in its tap water, well done!

A very disturbing truth!

darkhorse

jma wrote: »

Sarky, I have lots of sources, and I have already referenced some in previous posts, in case you care to check. What you might not realise is that it's very time consuming and draining to keep doing this. The problem is that I cannot easily tell who here is genuinely interested in the facts, and who are asking for proof just for the sake of arguing and ignoring facts and sources when they are posted. I've highlighted the concerns, and the sources are not too difficult to find on the Internet (and I don't mean CT sites).

If anything that I've posted above is of particular interest to you, or anyone else, I'd be happy to dig up the sources for you.

Yer wasting yer time. They dont read 90% of the facts that we dig up. I mean, ya could post some facts up here that there might be 20 minutes or so reading, and they'd be back in 3 minutes saying their still waiting on facts, ya know what I mean. Better not to indulge them too much. If they are happy with the status quo, well and good.

Aquarius34

That the tactics used, dismiss the facts and keep asking for more facts, when the obvious is already very apparent to what is actually going on. It's very sinister to see it and witness it.

Let those who plays games play their little games. What the focus should be is to spread awareness on this subject. People are taking this very seriously now. i know a lot of people who are now taking measures to stop ingesting fluoride. Some people will always try to hinder the real facts on this issue. There is just no use or need to fluoridate our water and put it into our food. It's just insane. What's more insane is people are defending the governments as if they actually do care about our teeth. They don't. Why should someone else care about my teeth. I can take care of myself. Then it looks like they seem to be more focused on caring about our teeth rather than sorting out the mess this country is in. Oh the Irony.

Aquarius34

http://www.naturalnews.com/026364_fluoride_pineal_gland_sodium.html

Fluoride and Pineal gland.

Understanding the Different Fluorides

There are two types of fluoride. Calcium Fluoride, which appears naturally in underground water supplies, is relatively benign. However, too much consumed daily can lead to bone or dental problems. Calcium is used to counter fluoride poisoning when it occurs. This redeeming factor indicates that the calcium in naturally formed calcium fluoride neutralizes much of fluoride's toxic effects.

On the other hand, the type of fluorides added to water supplies and other beverages and foods are waste products of the nuclear, aluminum, and now mostly the phosphate (fertilizer) industries. The EPA has classified these as toxins: fluorosilicate acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride.

For this article, the term Sodium Fluoride will include all three types. Sodium fluoride is used for rat poison and as a pesticide. According to a scientific study done several years ago, Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds, industrial waste sodium fluorides are 85 times more toxic than naturally occurring calcium fluoride.

Generally, most fluoride entering the body is not easily eliminated. It tends to accumulate in the body's bones and teeth. Recently, it has been discovered to accumulate even more in the pineal gland, located in the middle of the brain.

*Cancer
*Genetic DNA Damage
*Thyroid Disruption - affecting the complete endocrine system and leading to obesity
*Neurological - diminished IQ and inability to focus, lethargy and weariness.
*Alzheimer's Disease
*Melatonin Disruption, lowers immunity to cancer, accelerates aging, sleep disorders.
*Pineal Gland, calcification, which clogs this gland located in the middle of the brain.

uralnews.com/026364_fluoride_pineal_gland_sodium.html#ixzz2IC4HuARv
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/026364_fluoride_pineal_gland_sodium.html#ix
zz2IC3zwFXA

jma

Sarky wrote: »

Indulge me.

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

if youre going to make a statement on something controversial and label it as fact, you are required to back it up with proof

@Sarky, @kumate_champ07: Against my better judgement, I have amended my post to include references. I am doubtful about whether you will even explore half of it, but at least it is there now for anyone that happens to stumble upon it. If you do, great.

For reference, here is the amended post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82729618&postcount=599

Jimoslimos

jma wrote: »

@Sarky, @kumate_champ07: Against my better judgement, I have amended my post to include references. I am doubtful about whether you will even explore half of it, but at least it is there now for anyone that happens to stumble upon it. If you do, great.

For reference, here is the amended post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82729618&postcount=599

Well now, what you've done is scour Pubmed for journals papers with "Fluoride" and picked the papers that reaffirm your bias.

Cherry-picking, I believe it is called. Was it yourself who went to all that trouble or did you lift them from a list on some quackery CT website?

Fair play if you've read all these, I suspect you haven't though since many of these studies are completely irrelevant to the claims you are making.

One quote, from the oldest (1958!);

Galletti & Joyet, 1958 wrote:

The main objective of the present study was not to determine whether fluoride is effective, safe and suitable for routine use in the medical treatment of hyperthyroidism. For instance, with the same biologic mechanism of action, perchlorate is a more active drug and its use does not raise the question of possible accumulation in the body. Our aim was to elucidate the inhibitory effect of chronic administration of fluoride upon thyroid function in cases of hyperthyroidism. It was demonstrated that such an action appears only occasionally among persons subjected to massive doses of this substance.

Aquarius34

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Well now, what you've done is scour Pubmed for journals papers with "Fluoride" and picked the papers that reaffirm your bias.

Cherry-picking, I believe it is called. Was it yourself who went to all that trouble or did you lift them from a list on some quackery CT website?

Fair play if you've read all these, I suspect you haven't though since many of these studies are completely irrelevant to the claims you are making.

One quote, from the oldest (1958!);

Bizarre how you defend fluoridation, or is it?

Aquarius34

http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/detox-flouride.html

You can rid you body of most fluorides with some easy natural remedies. Fluorides have been linked to a variety of severe chronic, even acute health issues. First a quick review summary of fluoride.

Fluoride Toxicity

Fluoride is a soluble salt, not a heavy metal. There are two basic types of fluoride. Calcium fluoride appears naturally in underground water sources and even seawater. Enough of it can cause skeletal or dental fluorosis, which weakens bone and dental matter. But it is not nearly as toxic, nor does it negatively affect so many other health issues as sodium fluoride, which is added to many water supplies.

Sodium Fluoride is a synthetic waste product of the nuclear, aluminum, and phosphate fertilizer industries. This fluoride has an amazing capacity to combine and increase the potency of other toxic materials. The sodium fluoride obtained from industrial waste and added to water supplies is also already contaminated with lead, aluminum, and cadmium.

It damages the liver and kidneys, weakens the immune system, possibly leading to cancer, creates symptoms that mimic fibromyalgia, and performs as a Trojan Horse to carry aluminum across the blood brain barrier. The latter is recognized as a source of the notorious "dumbing down" with lower IQ's and Alzheimer's effects of fluoride.

Another not commonly known organ victim of fluorosis is the pineal gland, located in the middle of the brain. The pineal gland can become calcified from fluorides, inhibiting it's function as a melatonin producer. Melatonin is needed for sound, deep sleep, and the lack of it also contributes to thyroid problems that affect the entire endocrine system. The pineal gland is also considered the physical link to the upper chakras or third eye for spiritual and intuitive openings.

Various permutations of Sodium Fluoride are also in many insecticides for homes and pesticides for crops. Sometimes it is even added to baby foods and bottled waters. If you live in a water-fluoridated area, purchase commercially grown fruits, especially grapes, and vegetables that are chemically sprayed and grown in areas irrigated by fluoridated water, you are getting a triple whammy! Better skip that fluoridated toothpaste!

Avoiding Fluoride Contamination


As always, the first step in detoxifying is to curb taking in toxins. Purifying water by reverse osmosis or distillation in fluoridated water communities is a good start to slowing down your fluoride contamination. Distillation comes with a bit of controversy, as all the minerals are removed. A great mineral supplement such as Fulvic Acid (not folic acid) or unsulfured blackstrap molasses is recommended if you distill your water.

Avoiding sprayed, commercially grown foods while consuming organic or locally grown foods is another big step. Watch out for processed foods such as instant tea, grape juice products, and soy milk for babies. They all contain high concentrations of sodium fluoride. So do many pharmaceutical "medicines". By minimizing your sodium fluoride intake, your body can begin eliminating the fluorides in your system slowly.

Magnesium is a very important mineral that many are lacking. Besides being so important in the metabolism and synthesis of nutrients within your cells, it also inhibits the absorption of fluoride into your cells! Along with magnesium, calcium seems to help attract the fluorides away from your bones and teeth, allowing your body to eliminate those toxins. So during any detox efforts with fluoride, it is essential that you include a healthy supplemental dose of absorbable calcium/magnesium as part of the protocol.

Jimoslimos

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Bizarre how you defend fluoridation, or is it?

Not bizarre at all, I'm here shilling, "Jimoslimos' Evil Fluoridation Company Ltd." supplier of toxic and mind-altering chemicals at a low-low price. Mwuhahahah....

Another satisfied customer wrote:

Without Jimoslimos' special additive in my water I was full of rage, ready to rise up and overthrow our oppressive illuminati lizard overlords. Now I feel calmer, more docile and accepting of my situation. It tastes delish too.

Aquarius34

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Not bizarre at all, I'm here shilling, "Jimoslimos' Evil Fluoridation Company Ltd." supplier of toxic and mind-altering chemicals at a low-low price. Mwuhahahah....

I see....

Jimoslimos

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Aquarius34 wrote: »

It accumulates in the body, and like other heavy metals it will eventually trigger cancer in the body.

It isn't a metal (ion) and it ain't heavy.

Don't correct me, until you get it into your skull that sodium fluoride is harmful to the human body.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Fluoride is a soluble salt, not a heavy metal...

..

Aquarius34

I'm aware it is a salt. Sodium fluoride accumulates in the body LIKE other heavy metals do and it reacts with them. I am aware fluoride is not a metal. You're really failing at this rate with whatever you're trying to accomplished here.

jma

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Well now, what you've done is scour Pubmed for journals papers with "Fluoride" and picked the papers that reaffirm your bias.

Cherry-picking, I believe it is called. Was it yourself who went to all that trouble or did you lift them from a list on some quackery CT website?

Fair play if you've read all these, I suspect you haven't though since many of these studies are completely irrelevant to the claims you are making.

One quote, from the oldest (1958!);

Excellent! This is the reason why I shouldn't bother. Cherry-picking is exactly what you are doing, not me! What I've done is put together references that were relevant to my points. Of course I didn't read all of them from front to back. I did actually go through a lot of trouble, though, and it took a long time even entering them here.

Let me guess... You picked out a random reference, looked it up on Google, and then cherry-picked a paragraph/sentence that you thought would discredit me. Meanwhile ignoring everything else as well as the other points and references. Am I right? Well done! You obviously don't know how references or referencing works.

Regarding Galletti & Joyet:
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/18/10/1102
Also have a look here:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=10335430924941207152&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&ei=cof3UJqRJMKXhQfSqYGAAg&ved=0CDsQzgIwAQ
And here:
https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fluoridealert.org%2Fuploads%2Fgalletti-1958.pdf

Aquarius34

All countries in the EU have banned sodium fluoride from their tap water, with the exception of Ireland, Spain and England, Both Spain and England has only small areas fluoridated.. Both 3% and 10% respectively. Seems odd to be such a small percentage and the rest of the nation free from it. The Republic of Ireland is at 71%. That s probably the highest in the world. Now that's a revelling! USA is behind at 60% Is there a graph to show which areas our Island that is fluoridated? Is there any local areas now rejecting it? God the more I think about this the angrier I am getting.

Jimoslimos

jma wrote: »

Excellent! This is the reason why I shouldn't bother. Cherry-picking is exactly what you are doing, not me! What I've done is put together references that were relevant to my points. Of course I didn't read all of them from front to back. I did actually go through a lot of trouble, though, and it took a long time even entering them here.

Let me guess... You picked out a random reference, looked it up on Google, and then cherry-picked a paragraph/sentence that you thought would discredit me. Meanwhile ignoring everything else as well as the other points and references. Am I right? Well done! You obviously don't know how references or referencing works.

Regarding Galletti & Joyet:
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/18/10/1102
Also have a look here:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cites=10335430924941207152&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&ei=cof3UJqRJMKXhQfSqYGAAg&ved=0CDsQzgIwAQ
And here:
https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fluoridealert.org%2Fuploads%2Fgalletti-1958.pdf

No, no you haven't. If you can explain to me how the aforementioned paper relates to any of your points then please, go ahead. I'm not attacking the paper, rather your interpretation of it. I'd imagine I'd find a similar pattern for most of the other references in your supposedly self-compiled list. We've already thoroughly debunked the mad claims in relation to another reference on the list.
Choi AL, et al. (2012). Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 2012 Jul 20.

You can't simply put up a few dozen references without explaining how you found them to back up your argument. Do you even understand any of them?

BTW, I'm not sure "FluorideAlert" have the required permissions to reproduce and make that paper available via their website.
http://www.endo-society.org/journals/reproduction.cfm

Aquarius34

Jimoslimos wrote: »

You can't simply put up a few dozen references without explaining how you found them to back up your argument. Do you even understand any of them?

BTW, I'm not sure "FluorideAlert" have the required permissions to reproduce and make that paper available via their website.
http://www.endo-society.org/journals/reproduction.cfm

:rolleyes:
Why are you blatantly denying the obvious? It's pretty obvious to most people that sodium fluoride is harmful. The more you argue it the more exposure you give it. So It's a good thing it's getting exposed this way, and the truth get's out eventually. No matter what You say or do, you just cannot stop the truth from getting out.

jma

Jimoslimos wrote: »

No, no you haven't.

Yes, I have. If you don't understand what I'm giving you, that's something you'll have to deal with yourself. There might be some references that are less relevant than others, but as far as I can tell, they are all relevant.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

If you can explain to me how the aforementioned paper relates to any of your points then please, go ahead.

Have you even read the pages that I referenced? To me, it looks like it is demonstrated how fluoride has an effect on thyroid functions. Are we not looking at the same thing? As I understand it, a dose of 2 to 10 mg of fluoride administered over a period of 20 - 245 days reduced the basal metabolism rate in 6/15 hyperthyroid patients. Please explain to me how this isn't relevant!

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I'm not attacking the paper, rather your interpretation of it. I'd imagine I'd find a similar pattern for most of the other references in your supposedly self-compiled list.

There's absolutely no point in imagining anything here. You were the ones whining about facts and sources, so don't you think it's a little hypocritical to make baseless and stupid assumptions like that?

Jimoslimos wrote: »

We've already thoroughly debunked the mad claims in relation to another reference on the list.
Choi AL, et al. (2012). Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 2012 Jul 20.

You've "debunked" it? What does that mean exactly? How does one go about debunking a scientific, peer-reviewed article? Let me guess - did it have something to do with dosage or concentration?

Jimoslimos wrote: »

You can't simply put up a few dozen references without explaining how you found them to back up your argument. Do you even understand any of them?

Can't I?? So, what you're saying is that I need to back up my arguments with references, and I have to back up my references with what? How I found them, is it? Is that how it works? It seems to me that it's you who's not understanding a thing or two.

By the way, a lot of references to scientific literature on fluoride can be found at the same place where you found your quote from Gilletti and Joyet, here:
http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html

Just in case you feel like "debunking" any more scientific papers...

Jimoslimos wrote: »

BTW, I'm not sure "FluorideAlert" have the required permissions to reproduce and make that paper available via their website.
http://www.endo-society.org/journals/reproduction.cfm

You should take this up with someone that actually cares. I most certainly couldn't care less. If it bothers you not knowing whether or not they have permission, perhaps you should ask them?

humanji

Aquarius34 wrote: »

All countries in the EU have banned sodium fluoride from their tap water, with the exception of Ireland, Spain and England, Both Spain and England has only small areas fluoridated.. Both 3% and 10% respectively. Seems odd to be such a small percentage and the rest of the nation free from it. The Republic of Ireland is at 71%. That s probably the highest in the world. Now that's a revelling! USA is behind at 60% Is there a graph to show which areas our Island that is fluoridated? Is there any local areas now rejecting it? God the more I think about this the angrier I am getting.

You should drink some tap water to calm you down.

--Kaiser--

darkhorse wrote: »

See post 557.

Oh Christ a link to probably hours of Youtube clip. The Ace up the sleeve of every diehard CTer.
"Can't argue logically or provide any evidence? Why not bore your opponent into submission with hours of badly made, sensational documentary!"

hooradiation

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Don't correct me,

Stop telling lies and you won't have to be corrected.

opinion guy

This thread has become a farce. Mods kill it or ship it to conspiracy forum please

Genghiz Cohen

opinion guy wrote: »

This thread has become a farce. Mods kill it or ship it to conspiracy forum please

Nah, it's doing more good for the anti-bull**** brigade than any amount of reasoned debate ever could.

AnonoBoy

darkhorse wrote: »

If I, or anyone else for that matter, think it is wrong to ingest fluoride in large amounts, I am hardly going to want to ingest heroin or cocaine, making your analogy a bit silly.

My point still stands no matter how silly the examples I used. Aquarius34 stated that laws about what he can/cannot ingest into his body do not apply to him. But quite clearly they do. This has nothing to do with fluoride and everything to do with the fact that the law applies to him whether he likes it or not.

Simply stating that a law does not apply to you does not make it so.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

The same way that I deal with you. It's not acceptable. I keep it simple and I make it clear as to what I will not accept from others.

You deal with it by arguing pointlessly on a message board?

It calcifies the pineal gland and causes brain damage.

Link to evidence that shows brain damage and how fluoride in the pineal gland can be used to control people please?

Why do you think the Nazis used it in concentration camps and why people are so docile in the western world.

I'm pretty sure the Nazis didn't have to rely on the slow build up of substances in the glands of the people they put in the concentration camps for them to control them. They had them in camps already.

hooradiation

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the Nazis didn't have to rely on the slow build up of substances in the glands of the people they put in the concentration camps for them to control them. They had them in camps already.

Also, the Nazi's didn't use flouride in concentration camps.
It's another lie that gets told again and again by Aquarius34, and he has no apparent compunction about spinning any tale to suit his unfounded beliefs.

Reductio ad Hitlerum at it's most basic, really.

humanji

Whatever this thread had to offer when it started, it's long gone now, and descended into circular arguments. For all our sake's I'm locking this.