This topic has totally backfired on the OP, giving us all a valuable lesson in logical consequence...


This information given by Chico, which unlike the previous BS is solidly backed up with real links to real sources, sadly leaves no doubt as to who employs UncleZook, the only uncertainly left now is which one of the the "Big Pharma" gang it is!

Anyone reading this from one of the other forums, please post on or link to this info, UncleZook is dangerous to your health and not to be trusted!

How's that Zookie juice taste now mags?

Stop the valley girl prattle, Chico. It is unbecoming for your age and your whiskers.



Real truthseekers that promote the Soros-funded, Rothschild-tentacled, CIA/MI6/Mossad intelligence psyops aka the Assange/Wikileaks scam???

ROFL ... stop! You two power pyramid titwits are killing me with your false pleas for recognition, e.g. as genuine truthseekers.



Yes, thank you.



Based on Andy's history at UP ... no one can slander Andy. That's beyond human capability. The best one can do for Andy is load him into a tree bucket, and chop the cord.



Chico is lying now. He and most everyone who regularly posts here knows that I entertain (or ignore) Andy at my choosing and pleasure. He doesn't have the intellectual goods to engage in real discussion, so I've essentially turned him off. I will make the odd comment on his posts whenever I feel like it ... but that's about it. Everyone here also knows that Chico is Andy's appointed ass-kisser.



For someone who preaches message message message around the clock ... you sure have a hard-on for the messenger often enough.



Irrelevant. The online poll you allude to above is not the roadside testing experiments referenced by the link I provided. Your legerdemain is noted. Do you have proof that the roadside testing of labelled foods (GM, conventional, organic) did not take place ... or bear the results that were reported by GM-compass? Put up or shut up. Attempting to shift the discussion from 2006-7 testing experiments to 2008 online polling is a scoundrel's tactic.



Are you through with your feeble spin? Good. Here's the real story. Andy made two deceptions. One, he attempted to compare existing producer-directed labeling in Europe with nonexisting consumer-directed labeling in the US ... for the purpose of arguing that the reason for GMO's not being sold in Europe is the labeling laws there and equally, the reason for GMO's being sold in US is the lack of labeling laws here. This is a pernicious distortion of the fact that Andy promotes two different types of labeling (consumer versus producer) as one.

The other deception is that the roadside experiments ... ( which you, Chico, have yet to disprove; here, pointing at a few employees at GMO-compass who tried to stuff the ballot, as it were, on a different event - an online poll - doesn't count as disproof) ... showed that GM foods gained the largest marketshare when compared to conventional and organic foods in key European roadside markets. This finding is contrary to the deception that Andy tried to promote, namely, that people given a label-choice would be less-inclined to buy GMO foods ... indeed, would opt out of them altogether as indicated by his original remark: "Europe and many other countrys have laws enforcing the labeling of GMO's, they're not sold there."

In the above, Andy deliberately confuses consumer-directed labeling laws (e.g. Prop 37) and producer-directed labeling laws ... as well, he makes a fraudulent assertion that Europe does not sell GMO foods because of this putative generic thing called "labeling laws". On the contrary, Europe bans the import of GMO foods if they fail threshold content levels (wrt GMO's). The corollary to that ... is that if the GMO foods satisfy the threshold, they are allowed in to the market. In short, consumer-labeling has nothing to do with not selling GMOs in Europe.

Two lies by the liar. Two ass-kisses by the ass-kisser. You have to love the symmetry, wot?



When all else fails - there's always innuendo, eh, TUGPOOT?

Pax The Undisputed Great Prevaricator Of Our Time

ps: The great irony here is that while you provide a link to the contrived online poll that is admittedly damaging to GMO-Compass:
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1 ... and-hunger

beginExcerpt
GMO-Compass is, in fact, almost invariably pro-GM in its output. Behind its activities seems to be a company ('Genius') which numbers amongst its many GM-related clients: the American Soybean Association, BASF, Bayer, EuropaBio and Syngenta
http://www.lifesciences.de/en/reference/customers.php

Here are the questions in its poll, and then an exchange of letters:

Should European agriculture make use of the best available technologies, including biotechnology and genetic engineering, to minimise negative effects on the environment and to optimise the global food supply?
Results to date:
Yes 93.91%
No 4.15%
Don't know 1.18%
No answer 0%

Should all available technologies, including biotechnology and genetic engineering, be considered as tools to improve plants and crops in order to meet the challenges of increasing production while reducing environmental impact?
Results to date:
Yes 94.92%
No 3.72%
Don't know 1.18%
No answer 0%

end

... I found a link which catches GM-Watch, GMO-Compass's detractor in its own hyperbolic polling chamber:
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1 ... -gmo-foods

beginExcerpt
Despite efforts from biotechnology companies such as Monsanto to promote GMO (genetically modified organisms) foods, a new poll announced November 12 shows that as many as 95 percent of European respondents rate GMO foods as potentially unsafe and lacking real benefits.
end

93.91 ... GMO-Compass poll
94.92 ... GMO-Compass poll
95 percent ... GM-Watch poll

Seems to me that both GMO-Compass and its detractor GM-Watch suffer from SENS (Saddam Election Numbers Syndrome).



ps2: Give it up, you two Julian Assange Ass-kissing Jokers. You don't have a chance against genuine truthseekers.

I find this following statement odd considering UncleKook only mentioned me a mere 15 times in the above post!

What?! No big "mea culpa" from the mighty Zook? Just bigger attempts at weaseling out of his discernment predicament?

Zook, do you have any idea how many times in the past you've done this? You really need to develop a taste for humble pie, rather than trying to feed it to all your neighbors.

Yes, the polls are not the same, but the tactics of skewing the vote may very well be. Do I have to prove malicious intent for every act of a con-artist when he's been exposed at least once? I think not. And the same goes for you. You've been exposed for sloppy research, faulty reasoning, malicious slander, extreme vanity, overconfidence, grandiosity, and sociopathic tendencies, yet you pull a Bill Clinton (a known sociopath) and continue to lie through your teeth to the Grand Jury.

As you wish. The spotlight is on you. Show us what you're made of.

For a guy who still accords Assange a comfort bed after the preponderance had weighed in hard on the latter's guilt ... it's amusing to see Chico conclude with blinding speed on conjecture and possibility (e.g. "may very well be").

To wit, I have to "prove malicious intent for every act of a con artist when he's exposed at least once" (in Assange's case, multiple times) ... yet Chico only needs to show the one instance of fraud (e.g GMO Compass's online polling article).

Double standard? Or just good old-fashioned hypocrisy?


Pax To The Wedded Pair Of Prevarication and Hypocrisy

"after the preponderance" of what exactly?

You have no proof!

Your a fraud UncleZook.

Pax Futue te ipsum

No preponderance has weighed in hard on Assange's guilt. You are simply repeating the same mistake over and over. What mistake? This one. You believe everything that aligns with your delusion.


Just simple idiocy on your part.