That is how I feel too, but if you come into a thread to refute the science based truth with your feelings, I feel the need to explain things in a different manner in hope you may just understand what I am trying to say.
If the fact based information provided is not refuted as false you will never see me repeating myself in 100 differnt ways to 10 differnt people.
In other words if folks dont call bullshit based on their feelings in a science based discussion there is not a need to repeat things over and over in differnt ways.
So you see this is my attempt at hoping they will one day see the light.
Some do and some will never, but if just one has been reach the effort put in was worthy.
I dont really wanna force anyone to do anything…but if you wish to refute known science fact, I will try and show you the error of your ways.
If you do not wish to participate in the discussion, it ain’t like I will hunt you down to make sure you know the truth.
Might I suggest one should just simply refain from posting until one has the proper information to make a well educated comment.
As opposed to those that will just state, I feel this is false without any facts to back up why they feel like they do.
But if you tell me that the truth I posted was false, I will surely engage you in a long and heated debate.
Again, I do not wish to force anything on anyone, but if you call bullshit on my fact based post, please prepare for a long and heated debate. 
Also, ifa person calls bullshit on a fact based post with only feelings to back it up and no fact, I could argue that it is that person being pushy and out of line.
I could also say I think that person is just here to argue.
Now if you bring real science to the discussion, I feel we are just having a discussion not an arguement.
But there is a fine line between an argument and a discussion.
I feel a discussion is based on facts but an argument is based on feelings not facts at all, so take that for what it is worth.
I am not a fan of arguing, it is based on feelings not facts, but a good heated debate based on facts alone…I can get into that.
I ask you…if I had not been so persistant do you think you would still have gone down the rabbit hole you did?
So maybe my persistance has a purpose even though some may not appreciate that fact.
I am always happy to rethink my position on a topic if I am in error or new facts are entered into the discussion.
We can all learn from a rational polite discussion by keeping an open mind.
That does not mean to just accept what the other person says as truth but one should be open to the fact that what they are saying may just have value.
That is the whole purpose of a discussion.
We are trying to find real truth.
You bring up the boron guy…aka @WestCoastCroppers…
Now he has some real good information to share but it is all lost due to his method of delivery.
I would suggest that some folks should stop telling him he is full of shit before doing a proper investigation into the real world facts before calling him names and starting all the drama that goes with that.
You see it is the uniformed naysayers that come into the thread and cause drama.
Their feelings seem to dominate the discussion and derail a rational debate based on facts.
What I am suggesting here is…folks should hold their comments until they have the proper information to engage in the debate in a constructive manner.
Quite the concept right…LOL
Round and 'round we go…
So yeah - science-based truth is a bit unclear. I don’t remember you ever presenting any hypotheses on apogamy that have undergone the rigorous testing necessary to become accepted theories - which, in itself, only means something that hasn’t yet been disproven. In fact, science-based truth is kind of an oxymoron. One of the basic tenets of science is that nothing can actually be proven to be 100% true, only disproven. That’s why they’re called theories, not facts. Like the theory of gravity, which still leaves open the possibility that it could be disproven. I don’t think it’s likely, but science is not insistent upon the fact that even such basic physics is hard, cold truth with no possibility of human error or bias or anything else.
As far as the discussion on calcium, the reason I learned from it is not because you insisted you were right about a subject that none of us could test, much less test fully for the rest of the world - it’s because it was relevant to me and my situation and I actually wanted to learn about it, and could test for myself how it works. You also engaged in actual discussion, which boron guy didn’t. Maybe he did for a day or two, but by the time I joined two weeks after him he was doing nothing but trolling and hating everyone for not bowing down to his wisdom. Guaranteed to start fights even if he’s right.
I think you might be looking for something other than social media, which this still basically is. 
Ok, fair enough, you made some good points.
I still stand by my statements, but maybe you are right, maybe I do expect too much from folks here.
I will leave the discussion where its at. 
Cal-mag gives you eternal life.
I prefer the Konami code. 30 extra lives is way better than eternal life in a body that still ages.
Science realizes that there is no truth and that the closest we can come is repeatable evidence of something. Scientists don’t want to be right or wrong. This is the thinking of funding sources.
Up up down down left right left right…calmag
There is no such thing lmao and smh that’s a fact ps I’m outta likes but that’s some good stuff up through there sounds like progress
Gravity is real
Theory is also best we can say pretty much ever because no one wants to say that something is actual unless there’s hundreds of years of evidence pointing in that direction and even then it is hard to say for sure.
Think about the theory of evolution. It has literally endless examples of it in nature and it can actually be observed in quick living populations. It is even recognized by the vatican as real and yet we call it a Theory.
Time to evolve the peshewar.
Theory is the highest level any hypothesis can reach. Once, some called certain principles “laws”, but that has gone by the wayside due to the nature of the Scientific Method. What was once known as a “Law of Physics” today remains theory because ANY theory can change should sufficient new evidence be presented to alter the theory.
The only thing constant about science is that modern science will always change with appropriate evidence, thus change within scientific thought remains constant.*
Technically it’s a label for something that no one really truly understands lol I think it would be better terminology if we said electromagnetism but I I don’t even have a high school diploma so who the hell am I anyways lol and so you know I’m not trying to start some big debate and all that rigmaroar so I agree to disagree hopefully you can too
See lol smh and who decides what’s “appropriate” lmao me! At least in my world lol just kidding but this is the main problem with modern science and academia and peer reviewed I also feel is bullshit too and why do archaeologists stop digging after so many feet? Because they don’t want us to “Know” our true history smh any ways I’ll get off my soap box now sorry for the rant lol
Gravity is the effect mass has upon spacetime.
Peer review is absolutely critical to scientific understanding. It removes the possibility of bias in observation of test results. when the hypotheses are tested by multiple scientists globally. In many cases when the theories are altered, it’s because we have more accurate data. It doesn’t mean the old theories are useless, it just means new data demonstrates a more refined way of looking at things. This plays out in the engineering, especially in the field of Civil Engineering. In many cases, the calculations are close enough to build the structure desired, but nothing calculated in engineering is absolute. It is always an approximation. When we went from bridge building to rocket science, the calculations had to be far more accurate because ignoring a small discrepancy is sufficient for building a bridge across a small stream, that same type of discrepancy means the difference between achieving lunar orbit and being cast into interplanetary space.
This is most understood by those in applied science as opposed to thiose involved in pure science…
@upstate bro ain’t no way I found another! One of these Peshi males is a resin male! But it’s flower cluster are not as tight as the other, and the other also has a much louder stem rub lol I’ll post some pictures this afternoon! I didn’t not expect it that’s for sure
Oh sweet! Can’t wait to see it. I transplanted Joe over the weekend and she’s just been put to flower. I may have no Peshawar males myself. I don’t see one yet anyway.
K I’ll start working on it oh and for the record I have revegged these males at least 3 times and not a single caylx! Stable as sht!
