OK, I spoke too soon. You are not about to concede any point or move away from black and white pronouncements. I had a glimmer of hope, and you have dashed it.


Understood. Hope springs eternal, so perhaps another time.

Again, I gave you an opportunity to discuss the prohibitive flaws of CA, e.g. the totalitarian inevitability of centralized control over food resources. You, again, attack the messenger and avoid the message that was offered. I must assume that your reputation as a message-oriented pundit potentate is largely self-erected ... for there are no anchor points for such a reputation in your posts.



Hope and dopes spring eternal. There is no time like the present time.

PaxPFIndia

ps: For those that care to discuss the fatal design of centralized control over food resources - or argue against that thesis - I have a mind to bend. Bend away.

Its pathetic. If our species had any sense our leaders would have created self independence. With our own farms and energy to feed the world.

All this shit is, is justified soul grabbing under the guise of legislation and socialization.

Shills smills, while everyone is trying to catch the white rabbit of paranoia its a win win situation for the eugenist.

If im a social engineer I will tell you exactly what I am going to do. I support and allow the opposition to manifest. Then I create confusion at that juncture, but I still continue with my agenda. My agenda has unlimited resources and time, because no one knows where I am centralized.

So in essence I preemptively tease out my opposition and through slow incrementalization I absorb my competition.


HOW DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE!

.
You're just trying to change the subject. You held up Laibow, she was exposed, you were exposed, and now you want to shift the focus elsewhere.


Nothing like condemning it and immediately doing it yourself!

It's amusing how you still insist on attacking the messenger - now two messengers - and ignore the message ... even calling the message a shift of focus elsewhere.

Take all the rope you want, Chico. Your game is being exposed with little effort on my part.



At this point, I'm beginning to think trivial pursuits are your only interests. Again, the message is there for you to discuss should you wish to throw a net and capture purpose ... centralization of authority over food resources, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

PaxPFIndia

OK, let's summarize. You started this thread, which you named "Codex Alimentarius - a quick run through by Dr. Laibow." You selected Laibow as your champion to slay the evil Codex. She was caught in one big lie upon examining only one of her 5 points. We could examine the other 4, but you can't be bothered to seek truth. Likewise, it appears that Laibow can't slay the evil Codex using the truth, so she has to make things up. So now, instead of studying the Codex, you wish to divert the discussion to a related and more general topic, "centralization of authority over food resources". And you wish a binary verdict, either "good" or "bad".

I have no doubt that you imagine me hanging lifeless on the gallows, but that's not what I see at all.

I just gave you something to place your intellectual incisors on (e.g. the wisdom or lack thereof of centralized control over food resources) ... and you refuse to chew ... preferring instead to prevaricate and segue into past disagreements (which I had already addressed).

'Nuff said.

PaxPFIndia