EU Bureatwits Rule Water Does not Hydrate, lol

[JimBowie1958]

Recap of major points of contention:

The reg in question:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:299:0001:0003:EN:PDF

A defense of the regulation
The Online Society

The pivotal part of the above is the following from the EU:

‘[The previous regulation] defines reduction of disease risk claims as ‘any health claim that states, suggests or implies that the consumption of a food category, a food or one of its constituents significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease’. Upon request for clarification, the applicant proposed water loss in tissues or reduced water content in tissues as risk factors of dehydration. On the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 16 February 2011 that the proposed risk factors are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of the disease. Accordingly, as a risk factor in the development of a disease is not shown to be reduced, the claim does not comply with the requirements of [the regulation] and it should not be authorised.’

So, since they classify dehydration as a disease (though that isnot the kind of dehydration a bottled water company is trying to address as anyone with any sense realizes) and lack of water is classified as a measure of the disease and not a 'risk factor', drinking water cannot be classified as reducing a risk factor, and so the bottled water company cannot claim it prevents/treats/does anything for dehydration.


In short, thanks to bureacratic redefinition, categorization and general idiocy, the EU prohibited a company that sells bottled water from claiming that drinking their water can prevent dehydration.

And morons here rush to the EUs defense because they are ideologically blinded fools and dimwits.

Jail and fines:

Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:404:0009:0025:EN:PDF

Offenses and penalties
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2080/pdfs/uksi_20072080_en.pdf

Offences and Penalties
5.—(1) Subject to the derogation contained in Article 1(3) (relating to trade marks etc) and to the
transitional measures contained in Article 28, any person who contravenes or fails to comply with
the provisions of the Regulation specified in paragraph (2) is guilty of an offence and liable —
(a) on conviction on indictment to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years or to a
fine or both;
(b) on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months or to a fine
not exceeding the statutory maximum or both...

 

[JimBowie1958]

the "EU bureautwits" did not rule that water does not hydrate.

that is a lie.

it is as simple as that.

No, they did by implication when they prohibited a company from marketing such as a false claim.

Dumbass.

How do you like my recap text?

I am going to keep reposting it in this thread so that you dont bury the relvant responses with your bullshit, dumbass.

 

[JimBowie1958]

well, what can i say.

Apparently nothing of relevance that isnt a lie or an obfuscation.

i am highly entertained by what i am reading on these boards.

Yeah, the train wreck of your bullshit must be so much fun for you, lol.

one can learn so much.

But you wont because you're a .....

lol, why bother?

 

[L.K.Eder]

the "EU bureautwits" did not rule that water does not hydrate.

that is a lie.

it is as simple as that.

No, they did by implication when they prohibited a company from marketing such as a false claim.

Dumbass.

How do you like my recap text?

I am going to keep reposting it in this thread so that you dont bury the relvant responses with your bullshit, dumbass.

keep reposting.

it is an extremely awe-inspiring method used by many scholars on this board.

 

[JimBowie1958]

keep reposting.

it is an extremely awe-inspiring method used by many scholars on this board.

I will.

 

[JimBowie1958]

EU Rules water cannot be advertized to treat dehydration.
Recap of major points of contention:

The reg in question:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:299:0001:0003:EN:PDF

A defense of the regulation
The Online Society

The pivotal part of the above is the following from the EU:

‘[The previous regulation] defines reduction of disease risk claims as ‘any health claim that states, suggests or implies that the consumption of a food category, a food or one of its constituents significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease’. Upon request for clarification, the applicant proposed water loss in tissues or reduced water content in tissues as risk factors of dehydration. On the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 16 February 2011 that the proposed risk factors are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of the disease. Accordingly, as a risk factor in the development of a disease is not shown to be reduced, the claim does not comply with the requirements of [the regulation] and it should not be authorised.’

So, since they classify dehydration as a disease (though that is not the kind of dehydration a bottled water company is trying to address as anyone with any sense realizes) and lack of water is classified as a measure of the disease and not a 'risk factor', drinking water cannot be classified as reducing a risk factor, and so the bottled water company cannot claim it prevents/treats/does anything for dehydration.
In short, thanks to bureacratic redefinition, categorization and general idiocy, the EU prohibited a company that sells bottled water from claiming that drinking their water can prevent dehydration.
And morons here rush to the EUs defense because they are ideologically blinded fools and dimwits.

Jail and fines:

Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:404:0009:0025:EN:PDF

Offenses and penalties
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2080/pdfs/uksi_20072080_en.pdf

Offences and Penalties
5.—(1) Subject to the derogation contained in Article 1(3) (relating to trade marks etc) and to the
transitional measures contained in Article 28, any person who contravenes or fails to comply with
the provisions of the Regulation specified in paragraph (2) is guilty of an offence and liable —
(a) on conviction on indictment to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years or to a
fine or both;
(b) on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months or to a fine
not exceeding the statutory maximum or both...

 

[L.K.Eder]

keep reposting.

it is an extremely awe-inspiring method used by many scholars on this board.

I will.

here is the actual ruling on the science part of water and its effect on body functions. this is what makes your thread title a lie, and no amount of pretzel-logic can deny that.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2075.pdf

Maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions
The claimed effects are “hydration, e.g. body function, physical and cognitive performance”, “adds to fluid intake and supports hydration”, and “hydration”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. The Panel considers that maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions is a beneficial physiological effect.
Loss of body water of about 1 % is normally compensated within 24 hours. Without compensation and with further increase of body water loss, physical and cognitive functions are impaired.
The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the dietary intake of water and maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions.
The Panel considers that, in order to obtain the claimed effect, at least 2.0 L of water should be consumed per day. Such amounts can be easily consumed as part of a balanced diet. The target population is the general population.
Maintenance of normal thermoregulation
The claimed effect is “regulation of normal body temperature”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. The Panel considers that maintenance of normal thermoregulation is a beneficial physiological effect.
Water is particularly important for thermoregulation. To protect the body's core temperature the body produces sweat, and thereby dissipates metabolic energy in the form of heat. A rise in body temperature is a consequence of both reduced sweating and reduced skin blood flow induced by dehydration.
The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the dietary intake of water and maintenance of normal thermoregulation.
The Panel considers that, in order to obtain the claimed effect, at least 2.0 L of water should be consumed per day. Such amounts can be easily consumed as part of a balanced diet. The target population is the general population.
“Basic requirement of all living things”
The claimed effect is “Basic requirement of all living things. Without water, biological processes necessary to life would cease in a matter of days. Solvent for minerals, vitamins, amino acids, glucose, and many other small molecules so that they can participate in metabolic activities. Transportation of nutrients to cells, wastes from cells, and substances, such as enzymes, blood platelets, and blood cells. Structure of large molecules such as proteins and glycogen. Direct metabolic role represented by hydrolysis”. The target population is assumed to be the general population.
The claimed effect is not sufficiently defined and no further details were given in the proposed wording or the clarifications provided by Member States. From the references provided it was not possible to establish which specific effect is the target for the claim.
The Panel considers that the claimed effect is general and non-specific, and does not refer to any specific health claim as required by Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.

the application was refused because it did not comply with art 14, and was basically a logical brainfart. not a risk factor.

 

[JimBowie1958]

here is the actual ruling on the science part of water and its effect on body functions. this is what makes your thread title a lie, and no amount of pretzel-logic can deny that.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2075.pdf

Maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions
The claimed effects are “hydration, e.g. body function, physical and cognitive performance”, “adds to fluid intake and supports hydration”, and “hydration”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. The Panel considers that maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions is a beneficial physiological effect.
Loss of body water of about 1 % is normally compensated within 24 hours. Without compensation and with further increase of body water loss, physical and cognitive functions are impaired.
The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the dietary intake of water and maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions.
The Panel considers that, in order to obtain the claimed effect, at least 2.0 L of water should be consumed per day. Such amounts can be easily consumed as part of a balanced diet. The target population is the general population.
Maintenance of normal thermoregulation
The claimed effect is “regulation of normal body temperature”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. The Panel considers that maintenance of normal thermoregulation is a beneficial physiological effect.
Water is particularly important for thermoregulation. To protect the body's core temperature the body produces sweat, and thereby dissipates metabolic energy in the form of heat. A rise in body temperature is a consequence of both reduced sweating and reduced skin blood flow induced by dehydration.
The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the dietary intake of water and maintenance of normal thermoregulation.
The Panel considers that, in order to obtain the claimed effect, at least 2.0 L of water should be consumed per day. Such amounts can be easily consumed as part of a balanced diet. The target population is the general population.
“Basic requirement of all living things”
The claimed effect is “Basic requirement of all living things. Without water, biological processes necessary to life would cease in a matter of days. Solvent for minerals, vitamins, amino acids, glucose, and many other small molecules so that they can participate in metabolic activities. Transportation of nutrients to cells, wastes from cells, and substances, such as enzymes, blood platelets, and blood cells. Structure of large molecules such as proteins and glycogen. Direct metabolic role represented by hydrolysis”. The target population is assumed to be the general population.
The claimed effect is not sufficiently defined and no further details were given in the proposed wording or the clarifications provided by Member States. From the references provided it was not possible to establish which specific effect is the target for the claim.
The Panel considers that the claimed effect is general and non-specific, and does not refer to any specific health claim as required by Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.

So, in short, the bottled water company cannot claim that their product, bottled water, treats dehydration because it is not specific enough. But that is not the part I am criticizing them for, though it too is pretty stupid.

Drinking water hydrates you and we dont need scientists EU bureaucrats to reaffirm this.

the application was refused because it did not comply with art 14, and was basically a logical brainfart. not a risk factor.

EU Rules water cannot be advertized to treat dehydration.
Recap of major points of contention:

The reg in question:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:299:0001:0003:EN:PDF

A defense of the regulation
The Online Society

The pivotal part of the above is the following from the EU:

‘[The previous regulation] defines reduction of disease risk claims as ‘any health claim that states, suggests or implies that the consumption of a food category, a food or one of its constituents significantly reduces a risk factor in the development of a human disease’. Upon request for clarification, the applicant proposed water loss in tissues or reduced water content in tissues as risk factors of dehydration. On the basis of the data presented, the Authority concluded in its opinion received by the Commission and the Member States on 16 February 2011 that the proposed risk factors are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of the disease. Accordingly, as a risk factor in the development of a disease is not shown to be reduced, the claim does not comply with the requirements of [the regulation] and it should not be authorised.’

So, since they classify dehydration as a disease (though that is not the kind of dehydration a bottled water company is trying to address as anyone with any sense realizes) and lack of water is classified as a measure of the disease and not a 'risk factor', drinking water cannot be classified as reducing a risk factor, and so the bottled water company cannot claim it prevents/treats/does anything for dehydration.
In short, thanks to bureacratic redefinition, categorization and general idiocy, the EU prohibited a company that sells bottled water from claiming that drinking their water can prevent dehydration.
And morons here rush to the EUs defense because they are ideologically blinded fools and dimwits.

Jail and fines:

Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:404:0009:0025:EN:PDF

Offenses and penalties
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2080/pdfs/uksi_20072080_en.pdf

Offences and Penalties
5.—(1) Subject to the derogation contained in Article 1(3) (relating to trade marks etc) and to the
transitional measures contained in Article 28, any person who contravenes or fails to comply with
the provisions of the Regulation specified in paragraph (2) is guilty of an offence and liable —
(a) on conviction on indictment to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years or to a
fine or both;
(b) on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months or to a fine
not exceeding the statutory maximum or both...

 

[L.K.Eder]

here is the actual ruling on the science part of water and its effect on body functions. this is what makes your thread title a lie, and no amount of pretzel-logic can deny that.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2075.pdf

Maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions
The claimed effects are “hydration, e.g. body function, physical and cognitive performance”, “adds to fluid intake and supports hydration”, and “hydration”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. The Panel considers that maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions is a beneficial physiological effect.
Loss of body water of about 1 % is normally compensated within 24 hours. Without compensation and with further increase of body water loss, physical and cognitive functions are impaired.
The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the dietary intake of water and maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions.
The Panel considers that, in order to obtain the claimed effect, at least 2.0 L of water should be consumed per day. Such amounts can be easily consumed as part of a balanced diet. The target population is the general population.
Maintenance of normal thermoregulation
The claimed effect is “regulation of normal body temperature”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. The Panel considers that maintenance of normal thermoregulation is a beneficial physiological effect.
Water is particularly important for thermoregulation. To protect the body's core temperature the body produces sweat, and thereby dissipates metabolic energy in the form of heat. A rise in body temperature is a consequence of both reduced sweating and reduced skin blood flow induced by dehydration.
The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the dietary intake of water and maintenance of normal thermoregulation.
The Panel considers that, in order to obtain the claimed effect, at least 2.0 L of water should be consumed per day. Such amounts can be easily consumed as part of a balanced diet. The target population is the general population.
“Basic requirement of all living things”
The claimed effect is “Basic requirement of all living things. Without water, biological processes necessary to life would cease in a matter of days. Solvent for minerals, vitamins, amino acids, glucose, and many other small molecules so that they can participate in metabolic activities. Transportation of nutrients to cells, wastes from cells, and substances, such as enzymes, blood platelets, and blood cells. Structure of large molecules such as proteins and glycogen. Direct metabolic role represented by hydrolysis”. The target population is assumed to be the general population.
The claimed effect is not sufficiently defined and no further details were given in the proposed wording or the clarifications provided by Member States. From the references provided it was not possible to establish which specific effect is the target for the claim.
The Panel considers that the claimed effect is general and non-specific, and does not refer to any specific health claim as required by Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.

So, in short, the bottled water company cannot claim that their product, bottled water, treats dehydration because it is not specific enough. But that is not the part I am criticizing them for, though it too is pretty stupid.

Drinking water hydrates you and we dont need scientists EU bureaucrats to reaffirm this.

the application was refused because it did not comply with art 14, and was basically a logical brainfart. not a risk factor.

*spam snipped*

your "in short" is wrong.

you really suck at this.

marvelous, the clue is in your own links, which you repeat ad nauseam.

Drinking water hydrates you and we dont need scientists EU bureaucrats to reaffirm this.

we certainly don't need lamers like your cited bloggers and UKIP politicians and yourself to lie about EU bureaucrats' findings.

your thread title is still a lie, as is proven by the scientific findings presented above and below, as it seems that you like repetition.

The claimed effects are “hydration, e.g. body function, physical and cognitive performance”, “adds to fluid intake and supports hydration”, and “hydration”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. The Panel considers that maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions is a beneficial physiological effect.
Loss of body water of about 1 % is normally compensated within 24 hours. Without compensation and with further increase of body water loss, physical and cognitive functions are impaired.
The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the dietary intake of water and maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions.
The Panel considers that, in order to obtain the claimed effect, at least 2.0 L of water should be consumed per day. Such amounts can be easily consumed as part of a balanced diet. The target population is the general population.

 

[JimBowie1958]

your "in short" is wrong.

No, it is exactly right. The EU denied the right of a company to advertise that its bottled water treats/prevents dehydration because 1) they classify it as a disease 2) they only agree to claims of treating disease if the product reduces 'risk factor' 3) they ruled that lack of water is a symptom of the disease of dehydration, and so 4) since water only treats the symptom and does not reduce the risk factor they said it is denied under false advertising laws for a company to market bottled water as atreatment/preventative for dehydration.

You tack on another response that simply adds more farce onto the pile by their claim that such claims are ambiguous, which is simply horse shit.

you really suck at this.

So what if I do? It would reveal how ridiculous your defense of this monstrosity is since I am showing what a bunch of bullshit this is and what a liar you are in defending it.

marvelous, the clue is in your own links, which you repeat ad nauseam.

Yeah, but you cant manage to point it out, lol.

we certainly don't need lamers like your cited bloggers and UKIP politicians and yourself to lie about EU bureaucrats' findings.

I didnt only cite UKIP, nor have I lied, dumbass, but I have linked to the original decision, the regs covering it and the English law that prescribes up to two years in jail for violating the EU ban on marketing water as a treatment for dehydration.

your thread title is still a lie, as is proven by the scientific findings presented above and below, as it seems that you like repetition.

Yes, it even more absurd that the EU admits that water does in effect treat dehydration while at the same time they deny the right of a bottled water company from marketing their product as a treatment for dehydration, lol.

And again, you text you cite in no way refutes the documented fact that the EU employs a bizare form of bullshit logic to assert that water does not treat dehydration.

You are so full of shit it defeats the English languages capability of truly expressing how full of shit you are, dumbass.

 

[L.K.Eder]

your "in short" is wrong.

No, it is exactly right. The EU denied the right of a company to advertise that its bottled water treats/prevents dehydration because 1) they classify it as a disease 2) they only agree to claims of treating disease if the product reduces 'risk factor' 3) they ruled that lack of water is a symptom of the disease of dehydration, and so 4) since water only treats the symptom and does not reduce the risk factor they said it is denied under false advertising laws for a company to market bottled water as atreatment/preventative for dehydration.

You tack on another response that simply adds more farce onto the pile by their claim that such claims are ambiguous, which is simply horse shit.

you really suck at this.

So what if I do? It would reveal how ridiculous your defense of this monstrosity is since I am showing what a bunch of bullshit this is and what a liar you are in defending it.



Yeah, but you cant manage to point it out, lol.

we certainly don't need lamers like your cited bloggers and UKIP politicians and yourself to lie about EU bureaucrats' findings.

I didnt only cite UKIP, nor have I lied, dumbass, but I have linked to the original decision, the regs covering it and the English law that prescribes up to two years in jail for violating the EU ban on marketing water as a treatment for dehydration.

your thread title is still a lie, as is proven by the scientific findings presented above and below, as it seems that you like repetition.

Yes, it even more absurd that the EU admits that water does in effect treat dehydration while at the same time they deny the right of a bottled water company from marketing their product as a treatment for dehydration, lol.

And again, you text you cite in no way refutes the documented fact that the EU employs a bizare form of bullshit logic to assert that water does not treat dehydration.

You are so full of shit it defeats the English languages capability of truly expressing how full of shit you are, dumbass.

Article 14
Reduction of disease risk claims
1. Notwithstanding Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2000/13/EC,
reduction of disease risk claims may be made where they have
been authorised in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Articles 15 to 18 of this Regulation for inclusion in a Community
list of such permitted claims together with all the necessary
conditions for the use of these claims.

2. In addition to the general requirements laid down in this
Regulation and the specific requirements of paragraph 1, for
reduction of disease risk claims the labelling or, if no such labelling
exists, the presentation or advertising shall also bear a statement
indicating that the disease to which the claim is referring
has multiple risk factors and that altering one of these risk
factors may or may not have a beneficial effect.

this is the article the claim has to be in compliance with.

it was not.

therefore, the claim was refused.

it's logical to dismiss the claim, as the claim was not logical.

i posted why several times, and everytime you cite "online society", it is explained there as well.

i cannot help you with your failings to grasp this.

but it is fun to watch your confirmation bias slapping you in your frothing face.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Article 14
Reduction of disease risk claims
1. Notwithstanding Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2000/13/EC,
reduction of disease risk claims may be made where they have
been authorised in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Articles 15 to 18 of this Regulation for inclusion in a Community
list of such permitted claims together with all the necessary
conditions for the use of these claims.

2. In addition to the general requirements laid down in this
Regulation and the specific requirements of paragraph 1, for
reduction of disease risk claims the labelling or, if no such labelling
exists, the presentation or advertising shall also bear a statement
indicating that the disease to which the claim is referring
has multiple risk factors and that altering one of these risk
factors may or may not have a beneficial effect.

this is the article the claim has to be in compliance with.

it was not.

therefore, the claim was refused.

And exactly how does water NOT reduce the risk of dehydration, Einstein?

And do you really think the marketing was directed at hospitalized patients instead of people engaged in sweat-producing activity? If so then, once again, you are a dumbass.

it's logical to dismiss the claim, as the claim was not logical.

It is not logical to assert that drinking water does not reduce the risk of dehydration.

lolololololol

i posted why several times, and everytime you cite "online society", it is explained there as well.

Online society was defending the EU, dumbass, and provided some useful links to the original decisions.

Good Lord.

i cannot help you with your failings to grasp this.

but it is fun to watch your confirmation bias slapping you in your frothing face.

My confirmation bias?

lololololol

You are truly astonishingly a boot-licking statist troll.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Article 14
Reduction of disease risk claims
1. Notwithstanding Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2000/13/EC,
reduction of disease risk claims may be made where they have
been authorised in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Articles 15 to 18 of this Regulation for inclusion in a Community
list of such permitted claims together with all the necessary
conditions for the use of these claims.

2. In addition to the general requirements laid down in this
Regulation and the specific requirements of paragraph 1, for
reduction of disease risk claims the labelling or, if no such labelling
exists, the presentation or advertising shall also bear a statement
indicating that the disease to which the claim is referring
has multiple risk factors and that altering one of these risk
factors may or may not have a beneficial effect.

this is the article the claim has to be in compliance with.

it was not.

therefore, the claim was refused.

And exactly how does water NOT reduce the risk of dehydration, Einstein?

And do you really think the marketing was directed at hospitalized patients instead of people engaged in sweat-producing activity? If so then, once again, you are a dumbass.



It is not logical to assert that drinking water does not reduce the risk of dehydration.

lolololololol

i posted why several times, and everytime you cite "online society", it is explained there as well.

Online society was defending the EU, dumbass, and provided some useful links to the original decisions.

Good Lord.

i cannot help you with your failings to grasp this.

but it is fun to watch your confirmation bias slapping you in your frothing face.

My conformation bias?

lololololol

You are truly astonishingly a boot-licking statist troll.

confirmation bias.

look it up, don't disregard my input by a lame attempt at argumentum ad hominem.

oh and don't be mad

 

[L.K.Eder]

just for the record.

i am not katzndogz.

that's just another heap of failure brought to usmb by jimwhatever.

 

[JimBowie1958]

this is the article the claim has to be in compliance with.

it was not.

therefore, the claim was refused.

And exactly how does water NOT reduce the risk of dehydration, Einstein?

And do you really think the marketing was directed at hospitalized patients instead of people engaged in sweat-producing activity? If so then, once again, you are a dumbass.



It is not logical to assert that drinking water does not reduce the risk of dehydration.

lolololololol



Online society was defending the EU, dumbass, and provided some useful links to the original decisions.

Good Lord.

i cannot help you with your failings to grasp this.

but it is fun to watch your confirmation bias slapping you in your frothing face.

My conformation bias?

lololololol

You are truly astonishingly a boot-licking statist troll.

confirmation bias.

look it up,

Dont need to; I know what it is Einstein.

don't disregard my input by a lame attempt at argumentum ad hominem.

I didnt, your absurd assertions do quite well without much effort on my part.

oh and don't be mad

<pointless bullshit graphic deleted>

Yeah, such logic is just truly breathe takingly...stupid.

Also, I note you did not answer my question.

But then again, boot-licking statists usually cant answer questions.

 

[JimBowie1958]

just for the record.

i am not katzndogz.

that's just another heap of failure brought to usmb by jimwhatever.

Oh, gosh, it was a cut and paste error.

Dont get your panties in a wad, boot lick.