no, you mentioned consistent association, I had never associated food producers to NANO, that was you.
No I didn't. Did I bring them up, yes. But I never linked food producers with nanobot technology except through a comparison that shows how pitifully your reasoning is.
Also! -
You mentioned food, there has been study to implement NANO tech towards supplying nearly unlimited amount of food.
I believe you said that my dear boy - first. Before you had said this, for whatever misguided reason, I had never associated nanobots with food producers. I do believe I'm going too fast for you or you're just getting your different fields of technology confused.
I understand in entirety your comparison, but do not accuse me of missing an alleged consistancy when no such consistancy has been established.
I think my critique has been pretty well established. I used your exact criteria to assume the worst of food producers being interested in bio-technology - namely poisoned corn. That's why criteria is ridiculous - I can apply the same vague, laughable line of reasoning on another industry and I get yet another ridiculous answer as mind control nanobots.
I have not failed to present evidence, I would just like to clear this issue up before I divulge what others, as well as myself have thus far accuired pertaining to NASA and their wrong doings.
Yes you have. I've asked for it and yet all you done so far is misunderstand my critique of your line of reasoning and forget who said what - as exemplified by the fact you were in fact the first to link food and nanobots and yet you accused me of it.
And - still waiting and getting vaguely annoyed by your constant and apparently confused deflection.
On a personal note - this is great fun, debating the pros and cons of an obvious tin-foil hat theory with the slightest bit of evidence to support it. All good fun I must say.