You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

jangles ago

@Millennial_Falcon , I think my post complies with rule 1 as it is about the Podesta relations, and I'm clearly stating that. What am I missing? You must give reason because: On-Demand Explanations

Millennial_Falcon ago

You make it sound very "sciency," but basically you present no evidence to support your argument. Therefore, your post is a violation of Rule 1. Maybe if you can build at least a decent argument as to how McCann's eye is relevant, your post can satisfy Rule 1.

Vindicator ago

Also jangles, scientific claims are verifiable in scientific publications. If you are going to make such claims, you need to provide supporting links that back up each one. PubMed is good place to start. You can also search scholar.google.com.

jangles ago

wtf, there are 4 peer reviewed publications noted on this link. I will rebuild this to satisfy need for educating the community.