recogitare.com

they're such freaks, the fungi. The new stuff being learned about the mycelium networks is mind-boggling. The way nutrients can be shared between species of trees, via fungal networks is wild. A much less static picture of the forest emerges, with complex interspecies relationships coming into view.
With more knowledge, it seems life forms always become more stupendous than before. Moss has gained some high status recently for its role in carbon sequestering.The study concluded a six fold increase over previous estimates of moss's carbon stashing powers.

Proof?

Of course not.

It's just not your style, is it?

It's just generic stuff i'm relaying because i read it somewhere in a credible book by a well respected mycologist. no, can't say i rmember the name. sorry, sparks. it's not very controversial. If you feel like being a dick why not research the subject yourself while learning something new and find the proof that i was wrong? That would be super humiliating for me and a studly move by you.

but for whatever future claims are made, keep in mind that the evidence is often found to be false in the future. and recently, there's a barrage of tainted data and compromised science. Here's a typical honest claim: I read an expose of a prestigious medical journal that had published some bogus paper that was designed to look legit, but had no substance. It seemed as though no one had bothered to verify its authenticity. The authors, iirc, managed to slip 4 nonsense papers into their journal. Scandalous. Names and evidence? Nah, can't remember. I know i read about this. Could it have been a fake story? yeah. for what it's worth, i'm not lying a far as relaying something i saw.
I suppose i should share no general, casual stuff. Must provide rock solid evidence. If i said i saw this show the other night that had a dog that could discern 300 different toys by name which i did see, which i cant prove, plus the show itself might have been a fake and the dog simply appeared to be smart through manipulation of film. too late for evidence. too much fake now and too much corruption. how you gonna veify anything? Scientist can be hired to spew all manner of b.s. to fluff up data in favor of the product and omit other. This is so common that it could be assumed. Even the debunking sites can be bunked. it's the new communication breakdown. can't trust data, especially new. we can trust old and verified facts like melting points and distances and such, but not much else.

the james web space telescope has been finding some evidence of how wrong we are about astro physics. But i'm lying or that was a lie i saw. or maybe there is no telescope. can you prove it's real?

no. so knock it off. every thing is suspect as scutinized and scrubbed to promote an agenda. At the highest levels of academia and government, there is propaganda and censorship. your faith in the veracity of the evidence is quaint at this point. may as well be nostalgic for the old evidence. It was wrong too, but at least it wasn't corrupt. It didn't lie for money, it simply bungled the data and misinterpreted the result. Now it's vicious and relentless have truths and omissions, in service of sick shit...like say, the need to bomb some place. evidence isn't evidence any more.

You make the claim, burden of proof is on you.

Sorry. This is how it works.

prove it.

Pure gold.

Proof is bunk. This is the Age of Aquarius...

50 years late.

stanky wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 6:45 amprove it.

Burden of proof is on you my friend. Not me. Study the history of the scientific method. TA could do with a refresher course as well.

Age of Aquafuck indeed.

sparks wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 5:00 pmTA could do with a refresher course as well.

No, there's a universe of difference.

I was taking the piss.

That explains nothing. TA. Take another piss and think about it.

ya'll actin' crazy.
sparky, get back to insulting me.

where you belong.