Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Picasso_sl said:
Why would you get to reign in hell?
Click to expand...
Its a line from Paradise Lost bro.

Great book. Probably my favorite from the Christianity IP.

Here at least
we shall be free; the Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choice
to reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.
Click to expand...
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Complains about me googling for information about things he thinks I only just heard about.

Googles for information about things he just heard about.

Just pharmakos things.

In the absence of your ability to cite any credible sources supporting your position, I'm going to go with the US Federal government, and PubChem.

Have a nice chemo.
 
pharmakos

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,305
-2,234
hodj_sl said:
In the absence of your ability to cite any credible sources supporting your position, I'm going to go with the US Federal government, and PubChem.
Click to expand...
Pubchem is procedurally generated crap, and the u.s. government is hardly a credible source when it comes to the effects of Monsanto products.

Not that I am anti-Monsanto or anti-GMO but shit.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
"For pelargonic acid, data gaps to address the following aspects of the ecotoxicological risk assessment
were identified: aquatic organisms, bees, in-field populations of non-target arthropods, earthworms,
soil microorganisms and non-target plants (seedling emergence). A low risk to birds, mammals and
sewage treatment organisms was concluded. A risk was identified for earthworms and in-field
populations of non-target arthropods."

This doesn't say what you said it says.

Just fyi.

You should stop posting now.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Hmmm.

Nope.

I don't feel like arguing semantics with you for the next twelve hours.

Which is all you really want at this point.

So I'm not going to give it to ya.
 
pharmakos

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,305
-2,234
That entire PDF says in many different spots that it is not currently possible to come to a conclusion on the toxicity of pelargonic acid to bees. It's not a matter of semantics.
 
pharmakos

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,305
-2,234
Pubchem can be trusted for a lot of things. That little blurb about "little or no toxicity to non-target organisms" is ambiguous enough that no scholarly person would accept it as definitive proof of anything. *shrugs*
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Yeah, well its a good thing that I also cited the US government then huh?

Like I said, you should stop posting now.

I swear the ball cancer has spread to your brain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.