GMOs: This is World War III- It Just Isn't Labeled

[Border Reiver]

First, HM Elizabeth II is wearing the ceremonial cloak and insignia of the Order of the Knights of St. John. Not all Maltese crosses indicate a Knight of Malta.

Second, you are correct in asserting that the Vatican is not a religion, but rather a state. Said state is however where the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church is based. The two are separate entities.

Third, cool story. Andnot a shred of proof for any of it that wasn't conjured from the brain of a fervent anti-Catholic.

 

[Hans]

Papa you didn't answer my questions, I'll take that as concession and you concede those points.

So another question in this bizarre world you live in why are the KoM not silencing you - I mean you are claiming you know their secrets and are exposing their plans - why sweetie are you still alive?

Additionally; if you've managed to figure this out why have none of the world's intelligence or police agencies done so also? Does the KoM control ALL of them? Is the Al Mukhabarat Al A'amah under the Pope's control?

 

[marplots]

Is the Al Mukhabarat Al A'amah under the Pope's control?

I hope you realize this is going to spawn another half-page connect the dots screed. Thanks.

 

[Hans]

I hope you realize this is going to spawn another half-page connect the dots screed. Thanks.

Hey don't complain to me my handler at the Politiets Efterretningstjeneste made me do it! They want a flood of communications from Papamundi so they can find his server.....


lol

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Let me break it down for you again in words of one syllable. If you were to actually join the Knights of Malta then you would become a traitor to your nation by definition. That may sound like fun to the psychological infant, or perhaps you like their system of fascism better than the U. S. constitutional democracy. It is your right to choose. But I do hope for all our sakes that you then leave these shores and go stay closer to those you love better.

Thanks to any True Patriots who exist on this site,
Peter Valentino

While you're digging up the evidence for your latest rant, you might also want to look up the meaning of "syllable".

 

[Hans]

While you're digging up the evidence for your latest rant, you might also want to look up the meaning of "syllable".

Hey now wait a minute CY, aren't you being unkind and unfair?

He obviously MEANT the original Anglo-Saxon meaning of syllable and not the Anglo-French we foolishly use.

In the true Anglo-Saxon translation it means 'a horde of yelling Vikings coming to take my head', or a ######## of stuff'.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I like the idea that the head of the Church of England would swear allegiance to the Vatican.
Someone doesn't know much English history.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Second, you are correct in asserting that the Vatican is not a religion, but rather a state. Said state is however where the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church is based. The two are separate entities.

And a church is a separate entity from the religion it houses.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

And a church is a separate entity from the religion it houses.

Yes actually, as churches get re-tooled to new religions on a regular basis.
Unless you assume that in the Pantheon the Roman gods are still honoured, or that the Hagia Sophia still functions as an orthodox church. Not to mention all the former Catholic churches used by protestants.
The Vatican is a bit odd in that the head of state is also the head of a religion, but then again, so the monarch of England (as our OP likes to mention a lot). Politically they are separate entities.
And of course fodder for conspiracy theories like the OP presented, which by the way would not be amiss as a story by Jack Chick

 

[Border Reiver]

Both Mr. Chick and papa are about as nuanced

 

[timhau]

I like the idea that the head of the Church of England would swear allegiance to the Vatican.
Someone doesn't know much English history.

But hey, at least his old man has a PhD in physics.

 

[Rincewind]

For those who are interested, Status Quo are still in existence.

However, I have failed to link them to Monsanto or GMOs...

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

Thank goodness, I've been waiting for a thread like this to pop up. Things haven't been as lively around here.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Hey now wait a minute CY, aren't you being unkind and unfair?

He obviously MEANT the original Anglo-Saxon meaning of syllable and not the Anglo-French we foolishly use.

In the true Anglo-Saxon translation it means 'a horde of yelling Vikings coming to take my head', or a ######## of stuff'.

A syllable of Vikings.
Not the manliest of collective nouns, is it?

 

[abaddon]

Define Reality.

Reality is the fact that everything you eat is a GMO. Everything.

And don't pull out the "organic" card because they are all GMO as well.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes actually, as churches get re-tooled to new religions on a regular basis.
Unless you assume that in the Pantheon the Roman gods are still honoured, or that the Hagia Sophia still functions as an orthodox church. Not to mention all the former Catholic churches used by protestants.
The Vatican is a bit odd in that the head of state is also the head of a religion, but then again, so the monarch of England (as our OP likes to mention a lot). Politically they are separate entities.
And of course fodder for conspiracy theories like the OP presented, which by the way would not be amiss as a story by Jack Chick

The examples you give are of relationships that no longer exist, but did exist when the religion and the buildings were together. So that's a fail. The Vatican is owned by the Catholic Church. Why would you pretend otherwise?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Forgive me guys, I'm just trying to understand you better. Now, you think that, in America, we shouldn't have the right to decide what we eat anymore . Is that correct?

My Dear Mr. Valentino:

One can only conclude that this bit of your screed is intended to be rhetorical, as, in America (and elsewhere), "you" do, in fact, have the right to decide what you eat. It may require careful shopping ((as in, for instance, avoiding artificial dyes) or extra effort (as in joining a reputable CSA or keeping a garden), but "you" do, in fact, have the right to choose what you eat. As with most rights, exercising it may not be the easiest path.

And this forum is International Skeptics, right? So, is it that you're skeptical of new ideas? Is that it? And isn't it a radical new idea in America that we have to abrogate the US Constitution and States Rights in order to have GMOs remain unlabeled? Now, stay with me here, boys... Wouldn't it make more sense to be skeptical of that radical idea?

Any marketer of foodstuffs is, currently, free to put any accurate label on any product they sell (see, for instance, the rash of "cholesterol free!" prattle on such things as applesauce...). Praps you should consider the content of your jeremaiads, not just their delivery...

What is it exactly that you are skeptical of? Maybe you're not really skeptical of anything at all and we should change the name of the forum to:
The Protectors of the Status Quo.

Honesty is good...
Peter Valentino

I, personally, so not self-identify as a "skeptic". I prefer a Baconian (or, to be pedantic, a neo-Baconian) approach. As such, I tend to require an evidence chaser before I am interested in imbibing a claim of vast conspiracy.

...but that's just me.

BTW: Latin can be tricky. Be careful when you are using "status quo" to sweep up recent, and ongoing, developments.

I remain,

Faithfully yours &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dear Sir,

My father was a physicist with his PhD. I started UCLA as a physics major, but moved on to History, instead.

My Dear Mr. Valention:

Given your hobbyhorses, might I be so bold as to guess that (one of) the reason(s) for your choice was "less math"?

It's more my cup of tea. I have a lot of experience with people who think they know science, but they don't. Like yourself.

Here is a science quiz for you. Can the kerosene fuel in 2 commercial jet aircraft really take down 3 skyscrapers in lower Manhattan?

From a purely neo-Baconian approach, all available evidence indicates that in 100% of the cases where a building constructed as were the WTC towers was observably struck by a commercial airliner, such buildings fell in an interactive cascade of effects triggered by the combustion of the jet fuel on board the commercial airliners.

You are, of course, welcome to provide actual evidence (you know the litany that goes here, given your intimacy with science) to the contrary.

If you answered yes, then I have a prize for you. All the GMOs you can eat.

Thanks for playing,
Peter Valentino

Your offer of a "prize" is transparently false: how is it that you , personally, intend to provide the "prize" you have offered? You cannot "award" me the opportunity to behave as I choose, no matter how fond of yourself (and your screed) you are.

Through it all,

I remain patiently yours &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip for focus.
Please wax on eloquently about why America needs unlabeled GMOs .
<snip for focus>

My Dear Mr. Valentino:

Praps you should send this person of straw to stand with the others, over there under that windmill.

Unless, of course, you are able to demonstrate precisely where this claim has been made, and by whom?

Through it all,

I remain patiently yours &ct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hey now wait a minute CY, aren't you being unkind and unfair?

He obviously MEANT the original Anglo-Saxon meaning of syllable and not the Anglo-French we foolishly use.

In the true Anglo-Saxon translation it means 'a horde of yelling Vikings coming to take my head', or a ######## of stuff'.