[] Quote:


The topic is golden triangles. Any evidence that they exist?

The term is IRON triangle!!!

Quote:


Yet none of the scientists involved can bring themselves to say it?

There are hardly going to confess they are doing this are they?

Quote:


They did not fail.

So then why have you spend pages arguing there is no conflict of interest?

Quote:


I am in no trouble. I just put a lot more stock in review by real scientists rather than internet wannabes.

If anyone is an internet wannabe it's you. Walter Starck is emenently qualified to pseak on the subject.

Your only way round this is to build elaborate conspiracies and golden triangles to explain why all the scientists are out to get you, but you can't produce any real evidence that they exist.

Strawman - there not 'elaborate conspiracies'. You so called arguments have just peated out to bleating 'no real evidence'. Rather than repeating myself I think I will wait and see what developes on this as there are investigations underway. 

Quote:


I am not saying you should be ignored. I am not ignoring you. But I am also not taking you seriously. That's the difference.

So you spend pages arguing about a topic yet tell me that 'your not taking me seriously'. Is that meant to be some sort of excuse for your silly arguments?

Quote:


But this is exactly what you do. You just confuse yourself into thinking that copying and pasting technical criticisms and vague accusations is evidence of a golden triangle.

More projection again on your part. And i haven't just 'copied and pasted' (strawman again). I have offered my own arguments and interprations.

Quote:


Walter Starck won't even come out and say it. Only you.

Rubbish. He said there is a conflict of interest. He has also said that the paper is a huge over reach on the part of the GBRMPA in order to expand it's empire.

Quote:


What is your evidence of golden triangles again? How is that 'peating out'? Is it up to me to disprove your accusations about goldent triangles?

It's iron triangle.  

Quote:


No. I just guess that's why I haven't looked into the technical aspects yet. [/quote]

Yes well that you haven't speaks volumes.

freediver wrote on May 16^th, 2010 at 4:05pm:


What if I don't? Circumstantial evidence can be as compelling and even more so, as you have already conceded. As the Wiki definition also pointed out direct evidence is not always available, as wrongdoers tend not to leave it lying around.

If you want direct evidence there is the admission from Pew that they use their grants to scientists and others to promote their agenda.

PS: What mental deficiency prevents you from using the correct name, Ie iron triangles.

quote]What if I don't? [/quote]

Well, for starter's we could leave this one in the trash where it belongs and move on to some of the other issues you raised.

Doesn't follow. You have already conceded that circumstantial evidence can be just as valid. So a lack of direct evidence does not consign this thread to trash.

Quote:


You don't need a wiki to point that out for you PJ. But what about this case? Are you saying that it would be possible to pressure all those marine scientists into lying and not get exposed?

They are being exposed FD.

Quote:


Can you quote them please?

It's in the Pew thread. I think I pulled that quote out and repeated it in another post.

And what is that agenda? Revealing the truth, or misleading the public? I am not aware of many charitable organisations that fund fundamental research, without demanding to own the results. If their agenda is anything but revealing the truth, they are going about it the wrong way. [/quote]

Establishing marine park no take zones wherever they don't already exist. Trying to claim some sort of scientific authority on this is why they fund scientists.