Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Rayderr

Members
  • Content Count

    29,230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

508 Excellent

About Rayderr

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday 09/15/1972

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    THE Columbus, Ohio

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Oakland Raiders

Recent Profile Visitors

14,004 profile views
  1. Biggest crime is the person recording the fight in vertical mode.
  2. I just came here to post this! I hate this commercial so much. Probably because I haven't heard a pitcher referred to as a Rembrandt once during the thousands of baseball games I've listened to or have watched in my life. I SURE AS #### HAVE HEARD IT IN THIS COMMERCIAL A MILLION TIMES THOUGH!!! Really, all these ads where they compare their to something completely irrelevant. This GMC truck is alike a pitcher who paints the corners, this Chrysler is like Katniss, this Mazda is like the guy who changed how to do the high jump, this Chase banking acccount is like Serena Williams' double backhand.... ENOUGH!!! Your products are like none of those things!
  3. Because I'm a believer of science. over 2,000 peer reviewed studies have shown that GMOs are safe (as opposed to 0 peer reviewed studies that show GMOs to be harmful to us) A higher percentage of scientists agree that GMOs are safe than agree on vaccines don't cause autism and climate change is man made. That's great and all as far as the GMO seed itself is concerned. What about the actual herbicide, in this case RoundUp? Safe for the environment? Carcinogenic? Residues on the food we eat? I'm asking because I don't know. Isn't RoundUp what The Commish was posting about? to him, they go hand in hand.
  4. Because I'm a believer of science. over 2,000 peer reviewed studies have shown that GMOs are safe (as opposed to 0 peer reviewed studies that show GMOs to be harmful to us) A higher percentage of scientists agree that GMOs are safe than agree on vaccines don't cause autism and climate change is man made. link? Link And if you're interested in reading them, here's over 400 of them.
  5. yeah, i spent a few days arguing with him over what was behind chemtrails. i piled on link after link of relevent information attempting to have a reasonable discussion of facts but to no avail. all i got in return was blind denial of anything opposing his viewpoint, and demands for real ... PROOF !!! after a while i just figured i was just being fished and gave up trying. You posted conspiracy drivel. I responded with links (with actual scientific content) that countered what you posted.
  6. Because I'm a believer of science. over 2,000 peer reviewed studies have shown that GMOs are safe (as opposed to 0 peer reviewed studies that show GMOs to be harmful to us) A higher percentage of scientists agree that GMOs are safe than agree on vaccines don't cause autism and climate change is man made.
  7. WHAT WAS FOUND?! And actually found, not some quack's interpretation of it.
  8. Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference? The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request First, you didn't answer the question. Second, Don't get upset with me. You're the one that brought him into this conversation. You could've just linked the FOIA info, but you chose to link to an article by, and let's be honest here, a quack (and I think I'm being kind in the use of that term) The fact that you use someone like Null to back up your opinion speaks volumes about you. Instead of relying on quacks, I will stand by the vast majority of the scientific community who say GMOs are as safe if not more so then non gmo-crops. A majority that is even higher than that of those who believe Climate Change is caused by man and that vaccine's do not cause autism.. You can call me whatever names you want. I linked the link that I did because it was readily available. You can choose to do with it what you want. If you want to focus on the messenger that's on you. Have at it I didn't respond to your question because it's irrelevant to the FOIA request. Again, he was the messenger. One of many reporting on it. He just happened to be the top of the list and I have no idea who the guy is because it really doesn't matter in this instance. Here's your chance dude. Link to a reputable source. Bonus points if you can actually link to the 15,000 documents (or even the so called smoking guns) they got through the FOIA. Oddly enough I can't seem to find the documents anywhere. But I see tons of conclusions of said documents by the anti-gmo crowd. Funny how that works. My chance for what? You've already carved out a nice little niche for yourself. The FOIA request was issued by a source you clearly don't agree with. Even if he posted the entire 15,000 pages it would still be posted by a "source" you don't approve of. It's a vicious circle of absurdity that focuses on winning an argument rather than looking at the content. I don't get why people do it, but have at it. However, I'll make sure to post them so you can at the "source" they came from though You've said to look at what was found in the FOIA request. I'm asking to see what was found in the FOIA request (and not someone's interpretation of it). So which is it, you want me to discuss the actual documents they uncovered or discuss the interpretations of the scientists? If it's the former, show me the documents. If it's the latter, expect me and others to go after their credibility.
  9. Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference? The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request First, you didn't answer the question. Second, Don't get upset with me. You're the one that brought him into this conversation. You could've just linked the FOIA info, but you chose to link to an article by, and let's be honest here, a quack (and I think I'm being kind in the use of that term) The fact that you use someone like Null to back up your opinion speaks volumes about you. Instead of relying on quacks, I will stand by the vast majority of the scientific community who say GMOs are as safe if not more so then non gmo-crops. A majority that is even higher than that of those who believe Climate Change is caused by man and that vaccine's do not cause autism.. You can call me whatever names you want. I linked the link that I did because it was readily available. You can choose to do with it what you want. If you want to focus on the messenger that's on you. Have at it I didn't respond to your question because it's irrelevant to the FOIA request. Again, he was the messenger. One of many reporting on it. He just happened to be the top of the list and I have no idea who the guy is because it really doesn't matter in this instance. Here's your chance dude. Link to a reputable source. Bonus points if you can actually link to the 15,000 documents (or even the so called smoking guns) they got through the FOIA. Oddly enough I can't seem to find the documents anywhere. But I see tons of conclusions of said documents by the anti-gmo crowd. Funny how that works.
  10. Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference? The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request The one(s) doing the "science and investigation" here are Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff Love the ending line.
  11. Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference? The guy you are attacking isn't the one doing the science and investigation. He reported it. As I said, it would probably be more productive to look at what was found in the FOIA request First, you didn't answer the question. Second, Don't get upset with me. You're the one that brought him into this conversation. You could've just linked the FOIA info, but you chose to link to an article by, and let's be honest here, a quack (and I think I'm being kind in the use of that term) The fact that you use someone like Null to back up your opinion speaks volumes about you. Instead of relying on quacks, I will stand by the vast majority of the scientific community who say GMOs are as safe if not more so then non gmo-crops. A majority that is even higher than that of those who believe Climate Change is caused by man and that vaccine's do not cause autism..
  12. Do you really think that a person who believes HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS is a good medical reference?