Brenda Gonzalez12 said:That’s exactly how I see the whole situation. An alternative perspective is really just a viewpoint built on extra layers of information that go beyond a strictly scientific—meaning very conservative and hyper-rational—approach. But let me ask you this: if someone came up to you and said, "Hey, if you want to fix your thinning hair, you need to gather birch leaves, dry them out, grind them into a powder, and sprinkle them all over your scalp three times a day right after breakfast," would you actually listen? Or would you tell them they're talking nonsense and dismiss it as just "another one of those weird methods"? Honestly, I think even you would call that person out for being totally delusional. And that’s exactly how I feel about the topics I write about here. I mean, some people will literally post something so absurd it makes my head spin—like claiming you can pour molten steel at 2,200°F into a wooden mold to create a massive 2x1x1 meter block. If they’re that confident, they should just head down to the local cemetery, grab a wooden casket, and try pouring liquid steel into it (even though the temperature is technically lower!). Let's see how that reaction turns out!
If he’d just used even one percent of his brainpower, he’d be talking about using a stone mold or maybe a metal one—anything besides that wooden setup. But honestly, the second you point out how ridiculous the idea is, he acts like you’ve personally insulted him!
Look, at the end of the day, an exchange of ideas is everything. It’s the whole point! But let me ask you this: isn't an opinion actually built on something? You need a stance, a solid argument, or some actual knowledge to back it up. If all you're doing is tossing out random YouTube links—especially when those very videos end up contradicting exactly what you're claiming—then what are we even doing here? It just doesn't add up!
I actually know of a guy who learned this lesson the hard way—not even on Reddit, but on some other corner of the internet. This dude used to spend all his time posting absolute nonsense online, acting like a total tough guy and constantly bragging about "what he would do" if anyone ever crossed him. Well, the universe eventually called his bluff. One day, a group of guys actually showed up at his front door to settle things, and let me tell you, he folded faster than a lawn chair. He went from being an internet warrior to a complete wreck in seconds. After that, he ended up taking a few legal hits, served a few months in jail, and honestly? He’s been quiet as a mouse ever since. Sometimes life has a funny way of teaching you how to behave!
Don't go thinking that people aren't cross-referencing posts here just like they do on other sites! I mean, they probably are, but honestly, nobody seems to care until some massive "incident" happens—you know, like when someone like Pero from Reddit starts telling everyone to jump ship to a specific platform or service, and then everything goes sideways. Only then does everyone suddenly wake up and start reacting. It’s always the same story... "Oops, my bad!" But hey, that’s just how it works. At the end of the day, you own what you say. That's pretty much the golden rule of democracy, right?
Look, choosing an alternative path was never illegal, and honestly, it never has been. At the end of the day, people should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether they want to read up on certain topics or take some helpful advice. But here’s the thing: calling doctors murderers or insulting scientists—people who spend literal decades studying their craft—just because they don't align with some "no-name random guy" popping up on a random Reddit thread or a sketchy website? That's where it gets messy. When people start attacking everything in existence just because they claim "there are other perspectives," they actually create the very stigma that pushes useful information to the fringes. It’s those exact attitudes that make legitimate ideas look "radical." Personally? I’m all for total liberalization. Let people decide.
Look, you don't have to vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. It's your call. But let’s be real: if you go that route, your child isn't going to be stepping foot in a public daycare, a state school, or a university. The rule is pretty straightforward. You choose. If you want to live off nothing but "solar energy," hey, go for it! Just don't expect society to bend around your schedule. If you decide your diet should consist strictly of tree roots, grass, metal scraps, lightbulbs, plastic, or snow—fine, be my guest—but please, don't come crying to me when you can't meet certain standards later on. If you're eating eight times a day just to stay upright, or if you're running to the restroom fifteen times a day because you lack basic energy after 1:00 PM, well, that's your problem, man. The system doesn't adapt to you; you adapt to the system. Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice. Everyone should have the right to live how they want, but there shouldn't be any whining afterward about how things "should" have been different. And let’s keep this civil, okay? No insults. Honestly, I have never once insulted a vegetarian in my entire life. I actually hang out with a whole circle of people who follow that lifestyle. However, if one of those people looks me in the eye, calls me a murderer, and starts showing me videos of animals being slaughtered, then yeah, I’m going to call them an idiot. Short and sweet. That's just how it is.
Then you clearly don't know what spam actually means! If someone is just dropping links without any context, providing zero explanation for why they're even posting them, and nobody is responding—or even bothering to reply because there’s honestly nothing worth engaging with—then that isn't spam. It's just pointless. You can't call it flooding a thread when someone posts half a page of fluff that ultimately says absolutely nothing at all.
Look, if you manage to actually elaborate on a point, back it up with solid arguments, and spark a debate using actual data rather than just saying "I believe," nobody is going to ban you.
But if you start claiming water is a sentient being without providing a single coherent reason... well, I think even you would pull the trigger on a ban there.
I'm not saying we need a moderator specifically for the scientific side—nobody's suggesting that—but having a moderator who views the "alternative" stuff through a more scientific lens? Absolutely. It sounds to me like your negative reaction to that idea is really just personal beef with BatKol. He was known for being pretty sharp when cutting down certain "advice" posted in threads, insisting on arguments or evidence for "claims," and honestly, I'm not surprised you feel this way.
Truthfully, if you have a PDF full of stuff that's on the edge of science, then that kind of moderator is exactly what we need. We want to stay on the edge of SCIENCE, not cross over the edge of common sense.
That isn't obstructionism; it's maintaining boundaries. If we're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, we don't want someone rambling about flying octahedrons (when they probably don't even know what an octahedron is), or claiming that when we talk about water, we're talking about the spiritual essence of the molecule. Alternative theory, as I've told you before, should be an upgrade to science, but it needs to be grounded. Something that can actually be described. Argued.
The "one-size-fits-all" solutions you're proposing could very well be the fate of many others, which is exactly why we had this discussion about moderation in the first place. There are people who are constructive, people who are occasionally constructive, and people who just have different opinions. But then there are those who are purely destructive and write posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand; they just exist to act out their fixations on certain people or things. When they get the chance, they go for it. Now, I'm not getting in the middle of the fight between you and Biljka112. The guy has real knowledge; he writes brilliant posts on other topics and gives great advice. In fact, I've personally copied some of the things you wrote here and saved them as helpful tips. But I really think that if you two could just lower the tension a bit and stop being so allergic to one another, it would help. Because some of his comments actually hold weight. Some don't... but hey, that's between the two of you.
So... let's keep things fair and square for everyone, strictly by the book!
Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.
I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.
Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.
Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?
That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.
Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.
Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?
Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.
When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.
Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁
To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.
A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.
Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.
On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉
I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁
Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂
Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂
Honestly, I don't know what to make of people who go around recommending chemotherapy and radiation as the go-to solutions for cancer. It’s actually pretty stomach-turning to read some of the things people post about those doctors and their methods.
Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.
I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.
Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.
Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?
That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.
Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.
Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?
Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.
When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.
Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁
To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.
A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.
Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.
On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉
I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁
Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂
Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂
Look, here’s the deal. There is a massive difference between someone being clever enough to outwit an idiot with a witty comeback that flies right over their head, and some absolute jerk using the lack of moderation as an excuse to go low. When someone decides to bring people's families into an argument just because they can't handle a simple question? Yeah, I’m not sitting here quietly taking that insult. Not a chance. I’m going to call them out loudly and clearly and tell them exactly where they can shove it. That’s how you talk at home, and that’s how you should act anywhere else, too. We are on a forum—this is supposed to be a place for exchanging ideas, having civil discussions, and backing up your opinions with actual logic. It isn't some dive bar where some drunk loser thinks he can say whatever garbage he wants just because he’s acting tough or looking for a fight. This is a community, not a brawl!
Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.
I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.
Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.
Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?
That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.
Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.
Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?
Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.
When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.
Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁
To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.
A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.
Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.
On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉
I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁
Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂
Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂
Look, I see where you're coming from. But when someone like that rolls up and starts acting like an expert—you know, the type who basically stopped learning anything useful after middle school and now spends their entire life feeding on random YouTube conspiracy theories—calling them exactly what they are isn't an insult. It’s just being honest! It's about calling a spade a spade, really.
A true scientist is a lifelong student who never stops learning! Science evolves every single day, and theories that seemed rock-solid yesterday might be totally different today. That’s actually the whole beauty of science! But I guess if someone treats YouTube rabbit holes and certain personalities like Zrinka K. as their only source of truth, that concept is just impossible to grasp.
Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.
I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.
Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.
Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?
That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.
Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.
Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?
Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.
When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.
Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁
To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.
A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.
Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.
On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉
I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁
Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂
Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂
Well, maybe you respect people like that! Personally, though, I have way more respect for those "yes-men" who are backed by verified, peer-reviewed knowledge from experts you can actually reach out to. To me, that "yes-man" status is exactly what distinguishes people with real results from those who have none. It's clear, precise, and factual. Some random "Ibrahim" on an internet forum might sound incredibly convincing to me, but please forgive me—that doesn't mean I'm going to accept him as an authority in any field. Once "Ibrahim" becomes a Dr. Mayo Clinic specialist who helped cure 2,342 lung cancer patients, or someone who fixed a stubborn wart or bad breath after eating garlic, *then* he’s an authority in my book!
Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.
I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.
Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.
Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?
That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.
Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.
Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?
Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.
When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.
Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁
To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.
A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.
Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.
On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉
I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁
Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂
Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂
Not for much longer... her life could get very, very complicated, very fast. That's why we have "national immunization programs" from the CDC, and just like how you need health certifications for a driver's license or specific jobs, there will be vaccination records for infectious diseases. I believe even now, you can't enter certain European countries without them..
Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.
I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.
Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.
Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?
That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.
Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.
Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?
Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.
When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.
Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁
To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.
A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.
Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.
On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉
I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁
Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂
Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂
So, basically, as a fisherman, I'm a murderer. Brilliant logic there! 😵 By the way, when you chop up a cycle or a salad, you're just as much a murderer. I don't think you view yourself differently in those cases. Or when it comes to radishes or microbes, where you're actually a mass destroyer... see, we can actually have a conversation like this!
Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.
I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.
Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.
Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?
That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.
Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.
Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?
Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.
When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.
Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁
To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.
A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.
Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.
On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉
I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁
Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂
Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂
Honestly, I have zero issues when it comes to watching exactly how my food is produced. In fact, I actually love it! There’s nothing like heading out to catch some fish, cleaning them myself, and then firing up the grill to cook them. It’s just more rewarding that way. Plus, I make it a point to head out to the local county fair almost every single year. I always get right in the thick of things, helping out with the sausage making or prepping the pork cracklings—it’s hard work, but man, is it worth it!
So, what's the big deal? You could just pull up a chair right next to me while everything is cooking! I mean, imagine that incredible aroma filling up the kitchen... mmm, just thinking about it makes my mouth water. But hey, I guess there'd be a catch, wouldn't there? Only, the problem wouldn't be mine—it would definitely be yours!
Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.
I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.
Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.
Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?
That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.
Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.
Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?
Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.
When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.
Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁
To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.
A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.
Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.
On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉
I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁
Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂
Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂
Do you really want me to drop the link where this "genius" actually pulls it off? Seriously, Ibrahim, look at your buddy here...
LINK 1.
LINK 2.
Do you think we need to grab a few more?
Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.
I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.
Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.
Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?
That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.
Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.
Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?
Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.
When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.
Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁
To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.
A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.
Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.
On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉
I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁
Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂
Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂
You’re basically digging your own grave in just five sentences—short, sweet, and devastating. You claim to stand for one thing, but then you go and write something completely different, sometimes even crossing the line into straight-up hostility!
Look, like I said before, you’ve got to get your own house in order before you start trying to critique everyone else. And honestly, I wasn't suggesting anything or putting words in your mouth—you wrote this yourself!
Elizabeth Jackson said:The only thing people truly decide for themselves is— which kind of advice is even actually good.
I haven't come across that anywhere yet.
Insulting other users on the Reddit is prohibited, though I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion regarding certain professions. That said, I do agree it’s tacky and frankly pathetic to insult any profession, especially when there's no actual argument behind it.
Anyone can send insults to anyone else; unfortunately, that's just how the world works.
The real question is whether the recipient actually lets the insult get to them.
When it comes to scientists, I don't think it should be much of an issue; it seems unlikely that highly educated professionals would be rattled by some ignorant random.
As for scientists spending years studying certain topics, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, because "studying" is an ongoing concept.
What actually matters is whether they have learned and whether they have produced concrete, useful results from it.
Are you perhaps trying to suggest that we should only trust "big-name experts" who, aside from their theories and degrees (which, let's face it, are sometimes bought), have absolutely no tangible results and that everything they say should be treated as sacred dogma that can never be questioned?
That’s just not right.
A good friend of mine from this Reddit community—someone who’s actually quite well-known among several other users here too— Not quite. She went ahead and vaccinated her daughter, and now the kid is attending daycare without any issues. 🙂
And, if she decides she wants to, I suppose she’ll be heading off to school and eventually onto college as well.
Brenda Gonzalez12 Asks:
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I have ever once gone out of my way to offend a vegetarian in my entire life.
Why even bring that up? I mean, is there really any reason we should be insulting them?
Of course you aren't some kind of killer. Murderer. I suppose he’s the one who... It looks like someone was killed. A second living being.
When it comes to how people view animals, I honestly can't wrap my head around why there's such an intense obsession with carnivores. It’s one of those things that just doesn't quite click for me. It’s honestly a bit unsettling. I mean, I don't want to be alarmist, but there's definitely something about this that feels genuinely unnerving. It just gives me pause. Ever wondered what actually goes on behind the scenes when they're making their food? I mean, really seeing the process...
What exactly is it that people are so afraid to face? Is it the truth?🤔
To be honest, I don't have any hesitation at all when it comes to seeing exactly how my food is produced—whether it’s fruits, vegetables, grains, or other plant-based staples. In fact, I find the whole process quite fascinating to watch, and I even get a bit of a kick out of growing some of it myself.
Take a close look at the part in bold... but how exactly does that even work? It would probably take up about half a page. If they just drop the link, that's all we need. So, he doesn't offer any explanation regarding the link, and yet... absolutely nobody is giving him an answer? It’s a bit strange, I guess.
What on earth do you mean by links that take up half the page? 😁
To be clear, I wasn't actually talking about the whole "water as a living organism" concept; I was just sharing a link from that other thread regarding the consumption of distilled water. That’s really the point I was getting at. I suppose we should talk about that 100-point card used for blatant, shameless bluffing. It’s almost impressive, in a way, how some people just lean into it without a shred of hesitation. Which link was I actually referring to?
If someone just drops a link without any context or explanation, I wouldn't jump straight to a ban. I think a yellow card would be more appropriate—just a polite nudge asking them to actually explain what they're posting. But this? Handing out a hundred-point penalty and an immediate ban right out of the gate feels like a bit much, don't you think? It seems like we’re diving into some pretty heavy-duty bullying here. I mean, honestly, it’s one of those things that just feels fundamentally wrong when you see it happening, doesn't it? It’s unsettling to witness people being targeted like that. I suppose there isn't much to say beyond how much it sucks for everyone involved.Honestly, that is just unprecedented. It’s truly incredible.
A How exactly am I supposed to determine that, and what kind of basis would I even have to work from? It’s hard to say for sure, but I suppose we should take a moment to actually assess what kind of person he really is. Does anyone have a perspective on what might serve as a better alternative to saying "from a more scientific standpoint"?
And does that mean a moderator on this platform should also be someone who actually possesses... So, what exactly does it mean to look at science from a more "alternative" perspective? It’s an interesting question, though I suppose it depends entirely on how one defines that term. If we are talking about questioning the mainstream consensus—which, let’s be honest, is usually where the most intense debates happen—then maybe there is some merit to being skeptical. Science isn't just a static collection of facts handed down from on high; it’s supposed to be a process of constant questioning and refinement. In that sense, looking at things through a different lens might occasionally shake up a field that has become a bit too comfortable with its own assumptions. However, I find myself wondering if we aren't sometimes veering into territory that is a bit more... speculative than others might prefer. There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and simply ignoring established data because it doesn't fit a preferred narrative. I guess you could say that while true scientific progress often comes from outliers, those outliers still have to play by the rules of evidence. Without that foundation, "alternative science" can quickly start to feel less like a new way of seeing the world and more like just wandering around in the dark. It's a delicate balance, really.
Your assumption regarding my animosity toward Bat Cole is completely off base.
I didn't mean to bring him up just now, but I don't think what you said is quite right.
It’s quite literally... He basically spent his time trolling threads that he actually should have been moderating, essentially obstructing anything that didn't align with the official medical establishment. It wasn't exactly an environment that encouraged free speech; instead, it practically invited trolling and personal attacks, which ultimately led to the total destruction of the PDF alternative. Honestly, if it hadn't been for Begemotice, the whole thing would have fallen apart ages ago—that’s just a fact.
I’m willing to put my money on this: his absolute peak as a moderator has arguably been these last few months. I truly believe that.
On claims he’s a mix of one alternative enthusiast and one representative from "scientific circles."
Honestly, hearing him toss around terms like "scientific circles" feels incredibly pretentious—as if he’s some sort of arbiter of universal truth. 🎉
I can't speak for what happens in other threads, though I suspect he likely possesses significant knowledge regarding agriculture and plant cultivation. However, on the alternative forum, he hasn't contributed a single constructive post. Not one.
He seemingly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about here; his entire presence seems dedicated to attacking alternative methods, yet he never actually manages to provide a coherent argument to support those attacks.
It’s quite apparent that his participation on this forum is driven solely by the need to protect certain personal interests—interests that are obviously threatened by anyone presenting factual evidence regarding the efficacy of alternative treatments.
I’ve asked him at least ten different times to please just cite one single constructive post of his that actually addresses the topic, and he wasn't able to produce even one. Instead, he just insisted there were plenty and called me rude and ignorant. 😁
Anyway, my apologies for being (pre)emptively long-winded, but I suppose I don't really have the habit of posting one-liners. 🙂
Have a pleasant day, everyone—and a special one to Monty. 🙂
From what I can gather, he’s just hunting for those actual FACTS. Saying that maybe 5 out of 2,341,653 people were cured of cancer by drinking carrot juice isn't a fact—it's just a statistical glitch.
Now, if 4,536 out of 5,233 people had a positive reaction, extended their lives, improved their quality of life, or beat some form of tumor, and if that was actually PUBLISHED
UNDER A REAL NAME then we'd be talking about a fact. As it stands, this is just "old wives' tales" territory, and that's exactly how it should be treated.
If a method actually works, then stand behind it! Put your name on it and take the money, the credit, or whatever else comes with it. But if it doesn't work, you can't claim it's real—especially when the only "proof" offered is some YouTube video from a random "expert in rural Nebraska." Sorry, but that’s just nonsense.