"The bottom line is that both of you fear the audit results because you know what the science is."

.I absolutely know what the science is in this case. Its being used for unnatural levels of biodiversity, amoung other things. Its being used to support extreme goals. And towards that end, the science is accurate. I fail to see how that makes things any better when science is being used in such a manner.

That doesnt mean that same science couldnt or shouldnt be used towards meeting other goals.

"You simply don't have the facts to support your case."

your 100% unbased opinion nothing more.

"Cornelius, you simply yell and repeat your opinion and when challenged you simply yell it again telling us it's not debatable or it's obvious.

And all you do is tell mistruths such as the one right now. I havent yelled anything ever, kinda hard to do with my fingers. I also didnt use caps. Simply your pathetic attempt to create argument. And since you brought it up, what are the traits YOU are known for besides skewing polls and telling mistruths constantly? And i didnt have to make those up like you just did.

Also, if i say something isnt debatable at the time, and I dont say it alot only when pertinent... its because it isnt. Despite what you think, not everything is.

And the issue you are speaking of where I last said that was the contracteption issue. And thats a fact. Pgc supports its use. GUIDELINES FOR USE tell us this. SO does "vigorous real world testing". Thats not debatable. You dont have guidelines for use if no use is intended, and you dont vigorously real world test something without using it. lmao.