Oh My!

We are all in deep, deep trouble.


So many fuckwits, so little time. Oy vey.

I did like this one though:

“Skeptics believe that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).”

Now, I know boggerall about nutritional properties, but last time I tried to chomp into my steak on the hoof, the bloody thing gave me a helluva skop.

Could some scientific person please explain this one to me:

“Water is inert, they say, and the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring (assuming the chemical composition is the same, anyway).”

Same chemical composition, but its origin causes it to differ? Is this water memory again?? Would someone tell Mike Adams, Health Ranger Extraordinaire, that I peed on the mountain top above his favourite “natural” spring ( what is an unnatural spring btw? ) hehe!

I saw this on Pharyngula yesterday, Mike Adams is a moron. I’d love to know where he got his info about sceptics from.

I look at blogging/posting on forums in much the same way as any social interaction, if you don’t have anything intelligent,constructive or interesting to say; then shut the hell up.(This includes cutting and pasting nonsense as well…you know who you are) Adam’s post shows what an idiotic fruitcake he is, and I’m sure even some of his followers must wondering if he’s flipped his wig.

And I agree with rwenzori, I prefer my food dead, thank you.


Aha, so that’s why they call it “blue”! ;D

I’m not sure I can explain this one adequately. Woo-woo fadnuts seem to have had this idea for several decades now that if a person consciously interferes with a natural process towards some self-interested end, then the result will be unnatural and deleterious as if people somehow stood outside of nature. That is, they take for granted that, e.g., the salicylic acid (aspirin) synthesised by Bayer is chemically distinguishable from that extracted from willow bark and that Bayer’s product is ineffective, if not positively harmful, compared to the willow bark extract because Bayer does this for a (shudder!) profit. Exactly how this works they are loath to say (one wonders why, other than the obvious motivation of keeping their options open in a bid to appear sage and wise on universal unity or something similarly beyond the grasp of us ordinary mortals), but when pressed the “explanation” invokes mystical vibrations and harmonics and higher planes of existence and quanta and all of the usual paraphernalia associated with New Age bunk.

Not much of an explanation, I realise, but there it is for what it’s worth.


Interesting, I didnt quite realise that I believed all of that. Nice to be reminded once in a while. :stuck_out_tongue:

Bunch of wankers.

Wow I only got about 1 sentence in before exclaiming (wtf!!)!!!

Briefly stated, "skeptics" are in favor of vaccines, mammograms, pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy.

Oh man! That sounds horrible! Why didn’t anyone tell me?! Chemotherapy? I mean, that can kill all those natural cancer cells! STOP PLAYING GOD!

Oh, and WTF is so bad about mammograms?

Skeptics believe that many six-month-old infants need antidepressant drugs
and more insane loonery..... all I can think while reading this is..... (wtf!!) (wtf!!) (wtf!!) (wtf!!) (wtf!!) (wtf!!) (wtf!!) ...................... (wtf!!) (wtf!!) (wtf!!) (wtf!!)

What crazed skeptics did he talk to? I think this is the problem, “skeptics” is a very broad target. We’re actually allowed to hold contrary beliefs from one another. No cool aid here!

He’s probably talking about those 911/moon landing/holocaust denying skeptics ;D

My bad for only reading the article. The comments as you click through the “next” button are truly horrific. I want to crawl into my bed now, in the fetal position, and cry for humanity.

Jesus H Crust on a bullshit pie! These aren’t even strawmen. Straw’s got its uses.

Hehe, I just wrote this huge comment for the article, I hope at least one person will read it all the way through… :frowning: