The documented facts in the scientific journal peer reviewed articles are far more than mere assertions of faith or fantasy. The latter seem to be the foundation of the perspectives I keep responding to.
It might be more honorable to admit the truth instead of continue shoveling . . . faith based fantasies as facts.
But it doesn't matter that much, to me. Folks hereon are quite sharp enough to see that the position I'm responding to has been met with PEER REVIEWED scientific facts that are demanded haughtily and then VERY BRAZENLY AND GROUNDLESSLY denied.
Not very admirable.
Not very scientific.
Not very factual.
Not very impressive.
Not very kosher.
Not very crickett.
Not very consistent.
Not very logical.
Instead, such a position is rather
duplicitous,
disingenuous,
dispicable,
demeaning to the one offering it,
deaf,
dastardly,
daffy,
dank,
dark,
a dearth of substance,
dazed,
debased,
debrisful,
defaced,
defective,
defiant,
defiled,
depleted,
. . .
LOL.
What a fun circus.
Until you pointed it out. I didn't realize plant nodes had peers.
Still awaiting facts or artifacts. Your talking in circles, creating long strings of words signifying nothing, hearsay inferences, and fuzzy photographs do not constitute facts.
How about a little more show and a lot less tell?