So, Old Herman is an EARTH RAPER.

[Anonymous]

Odd that you don't seem to apply that same rationalisation to the climate change hoax.

I apply it to all claims of "scientific proof," except perhaps in your dreams.

[Anonymous]

Odd that you don't seem to apply that same rationalisation to the climate change hoax.

I apply it to all claims of "scientific proof," except perhaps in your dreams.

You offered no scientific proof that canola is harmful.

[Bricktop]

Odd that you don't seem to apply that same rationalisation to the climate change hoax.

I apply it to all claims of "scientific proof," except perhaps in your dreams.

Yet members here have posted valid rebuttals which you decline to accept because the source is not to your liking.



Just because the source has a vested interest in the subject of debate, it does not automatically render their position invalid. Merely open to greater scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

Odd that you don't seem to apply that same rationalisation to the climate change hoax.

I apply it to all claims of "scientific proof," except perhaps in your dreams.

You offered no scientific proof that canola is harmful.

I did not claim to have PROVEN anything.  This is a flame thread, and my posts about canola are based upon personal observation and political cynicism.  I offered a bit of history about the rise of canola as a major cash crop,, the ties of Big Ag to its development, and my distrust of Monsanto and its business practices as a player in the human food chain.  



Again, the purpose of the thread is to flame Herman rather than to talk about science.



 :001_rolleyes:

[Bricktop]

Erm, point taken...



But flaming?



I think you mean "trolling".

[Anonymous]

Odd that you don't seem to apply that same rationalisation to the climate change hoax.

I apply it to all claims of "scientific proof," except perhaps in your dreams.

Yet members here have posted valid rebuttals which you decline to accept because the source is not to your liking.

Are you kidding?  Every single poster on this forum who has ever argued with me about anything of substance has also done that to me.  Is it surprising that I've come to assume it's a particularly Western Canadian style of discussion?

Just because the source has a vested interest in the subject of debate, it does not automatically render their position invalid. Merely open to greater scrutiny.

Yes, and somewhere in the Child Abuse of Greta thread I mentioned this as a problem...about which I hope to facilitate a more focused discussion in coming days.

[Bricktop]

I look forward.

[Anonymous]

Odd that you don't seem to apply that same rationalisation to the climate change hoax.

I apply it to all claims of "scientific proof," except perhaps in your dreams.

You offered no scientific proof that canola is harmful.

If  canola did cause cancer or heart disease, this entire country would be one big cancer treatment centre or cardiac ward. Or perhaps a palliative care hospice.

[Anonymous]

Erm, point taken...



But flaming?



I think you mean "trolling".

You don't think "earth raper" qualifies as a flame?

[Bricktop]

Perhaps...but not one that would leave a scar.

[Anonymous]

I had an uncle who was advised to switch to canola oil by his cardiologist.

[Blurt]

I dub this thread the Canadian Canola Canard thread.



I use canola oil to soften my heels.

[Anonymous]

I dub this thread the Canadian Canola Canard thread.



I use canola oil to soften my heels.

Even heels acknowledge canola's uses.

[Anonymous]

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/california-governor-james-rolph-jr-with-an-oilcan-in-hand-news-photo/186627669">//https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/california-governor-james-rolph-jr-with-an-oilcan-in-hand-news-photo/186627669

[Bricktop]

I dub this thread the Canadian Canola Canard thread.



I use canola oil to soften my heels.

Even heels acknowledge canola's uses.

Blurt has always been a heel.