In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Celebrity chef, Food Network host Michael Chiarello dead at 61, TexasGator wrote: “Your linked website is propaganda.”
Facts you cannot refute so you attack the messenger.
Am I now to assume that you agree with the claim that the shots are 99.9% Graphene?
I don't believe the globalist lies about Climate Change but the website you linked acts to 'debunk' any criticism of it. I would have to spend all my waking hours going through that propaganda site to refute it - WHY? Why should I bother. You cited a worthless source to back your claims; why should this take my time? You will no doubt assume anything you want to, free from fact or legitimate source. You'll focus on changing the subject and diluting the topic with waste-of-time comments and fake sources.
“You’ll focus on changing the subject”
You are the one that brought up Karen Kingston, not me. Since your reference to her claims was inaccurate your credibility is suspect.
“I would have to spend all my waking hours going through that propaganda site to refute it”
Just try to debunk the facts related to the sampled vial I quoted.
Me: Am I now to assume that you agree with the claim that the shots are 99.9% Graphene?
Am I now to assume that you agree with the claim that the shots are 99.9% Graphene Oxide and/or Graphene Hydroxide?