Diogenes wrote:It still cracks me up that the biggest hypocrite posted this thread.
Or the logic, or lack thereof, that led him to believe that there would be any positives for him. I guess he thought that because some of us quoted from Watts, we were somehow potential parties to the Mann suit, never mind that Watts was a not a defendant in the suit in the first place and you don't become liable for simply quoting somebody else. This is just lying to "I'm going to get you in trouble." And then if he pointed at us and said "they've been bad daddy," Joe would kick all the unclean off the board and he would have it to himself. Childish crap.
LOL
So, paranoid much?
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
Boy, I wouldn't have tried to deflect attention if someone said I was impotent.
Of course, I'm not a destroyative.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
