patrick.net

I got an idea, why don't they retry those experiments using rats that weren't bred on three mile island?

mell says

What is worry-some is that If you dig deeper into the criticism (some of which may be warranted) you will find that a lot of the same "issues" exist with the safety studies the GM companies submitted for approval, a lot of which had ridiculously short durations. Let's wait and see.

and while we wait and see clear labeling of any GMO-derived food ingredient

mell says

donjumpsuit says

IT immediately got mis-construed

I agree it got partially misconstrued in terms of conclusions you cite, but not as a toxicology study as which it still holds valid to this day. Also the references you cited for criticism (two dozen?) can easily be countered with at least the same amount of references from scientist who support it. Well has the paper been retracted? No. At least it has been deeply scrutinized/reviewed by now, so let's wait if it will be retracted, then you can have your field day, for now it is a peer-reviewed study ;) What is worry-some is that If you dig deeper into the criticism (some of which may be warranted) you will find that a lot of the same "issues" exist with the safety studies the GM companies submitted for approval, a lot of which had ridiculously short durations. Let's wait and see.

The problem with such a "wait and see" approach is that leaves these flawed studies to be used as "evidence" of the dangers of GMOs. Note the timing between the release of the original OT study with California's prop 37. Had this study not been exposed as fraudulent so quickly it would likely have been used to incite anti-GMO sentiment enough to pass prop37. With this precinct other states would follow, "just to be on the safe side". Then it would be too late - the anti-GMO advocates would have accomplished their goals, truth be damned.

A parallel can be found in the work of Dr. Robert G. Health who in a 1974 Tulane university study "proved" marijuana kills brain cells.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20064743,00.html

(sorry for the people magazine link, but the general public never saw the original article for themselves. More on that later)

These results were exactly what the powers-that-be (including then governor of California Ronald Reagan) needed to justify the war on marijuana. Critics of the study were unable to obtain details on how the study was performed in order to replicate the results. It took multiple freedom of information act requests to get the information. When it was eventually released The study was thoroughly reviewed by a distinguished panel of scientists sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. Their results were published under the title, Marijuana and Health in 1982. Heath's work was sharply criticized for its insufficient sample size (only four monkeys), its failure to control experimental bias, and the misidentification of normal monkey brain structure as "damaged".

Numerous studies conducted on human populations have been undertaken, yet none have indicated any correlation to cannabis usage and brain damage.

http://www.angelfire.com/hiphop2/truthonpot/mythbuster.html

http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v13/2/myths.html

This is an example of how a flawed "scientific" study can be used to successfully promote an agenda. To this day people believe pot kills brain cells.

donjumpsuit says

When really it has nothing to do with GMO's at all, it was about drowning rats in herbicide.

Drowning rats in herbicide, or suffocating monkeys with smoke nope, no parallels here...

New Renter says

The problem with such a "wait and see" approach is that leaves these flawed studies to be used as "evidence" of the dangers of GMOs. Note the timing between the release of the original OT study with California's prop 37. Had this study not been exposed as fraudulent so quickly it would likely have been used to incite anti-GMO sentiment enough to pass prop37. With this precinct other states would follow, "just to be on the safe side". Then it would be too late - the anti-GMO advocates would have accomplished their goals, truth be damned.

A parallel can be found in the work of Dr. Robert G. Health who in a 1974 Tulane university study "proved" marijuana kills brain cells.

Best point made so far.

Public hysteria causes bad public policy.

Speaking of which, I'm still wondering why those who believe GMO foods are dangerous do so. So far, I've seen nothing that even suggests GMO foods are bad other than some thoroughly debunked studies that were so flawed that one has a hard time believing the flaws were human error rather than deliberate deception.

The parallels between GMO and THC are strong. THC is irrationally demonized by one segment of the population, the buzz-kills, and GMOs are irrationally demonized by another segment of the population, the hippies. Is it just coincidence that these two segments happen to hate each other? Are they really criticizing weed and GMOs? Or are the hippies criticizing the man and the man criticizing the hippies? Seems more like a culture war than anything else.

mell says

I agree it got partially misconstrued in terms of conclusions you cite, but not as a toxicology study as which it still holds valid to this day. Also the references you cited for criticism (two dozen?) can easily be countered with at least the same amount of references from scientist who support it. Well has the paper been retracted? No. At least it has been deeply scrutinized/reviewed by now, so let's wait if it will be retracted, then you can have your field day, for now it is a peer-reviewed study ;) What is worry-some is that If you dig deeper into the criticism (some of which may be warranted) you will find that a lot of the same "issues" exist with the safety studies the GM companies submitted for approval, a lot of which had ridiculously short durations. Let's wait and see.

Mell, you are obviously out of your mind.

donjumpsuit says

As for THC. I have spoken directly to a lung surgeon through a friend, and he mentioned that he sees smokers lung from marijuana and smokers lung from cigarrettes with enough frequency, that he can assure me that even though the marijuana lung is blackened, there are typically never any tumors associated with it.

Not a shocker. In fact the higher potency marijuana available now may lead to lessened "smokers lung" since users don't need to puff as much as is needed with natural strains.

Personally I'd like to see GMOs with high potency THC expression genes added. That'd be a sure fire motivation for more Americans to eat vegetables. Gets rid of the smokers lung problem too.

donjumpsuit says

Posting this specific study, the "Seralini study", is disgraceful, defeatist to your argument, and frankly an agressive attempt to create hysteria in lieu of a productive discussion.

Next, anybody even remotely defending this type of study, especially after you read the actual "Food and Chemical Toxicology" publication (Impact factor 3), you would be quite remise in that decision.

Defend your anti-GMO stance as you wish, but please don't let flawed science be the torch of your arguments.

No. The data is solid, sorry. I am willing to debate the conclusions though. Also, bashing a study that has NOT been retracted so far that much is not good for any debate.

donjumpsuit says

If you have a list of scientists who without a doubt support this study, please post them in a list here, so I can go out in the world and make certain that their scientific pursuits are closely monitored for grotesque methods and unsound deductions.

Here's a starter - go ahead and monitor them, you are the expert, I gladly concede that if we judge by degree, profession and credentials. And maybe homeboy can help you monitor ;)

http://gmoseralini.org/category/scientists-support-seralini/

mell says

donjumpsuit says

Posting this specific study, the "Seralini study", is disgraceful, defeatist to your argument, and frankly an agressive attempt to create hysteria in lieu of a productive discussion.

Next, anybody even remotely defending this type of study, especially after you read the actual "Food and Chemical Toxicology" publication (Impact factor 3), you would be quite remise in that decision.

Defend your anti-GMO stance as you wish, but please don't let flawed science be the torch of your arguments.

No. The data is solid, sorry. I am willing to debate the conclusions though. Also, bashing a study that has NOT been retracted so far that much is not good for any debate.

Just what are you basing your assertion on that "the data is solid?"

This is again reminding me of the backlash against the LHC and the claims it may create an earth consuming black hole:

http://www.lhcdefense.org/

Before you hop on this crazy train take a look at this segment The Daily Show aired where they interviewed the founder of this anti LHC group:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-30-2009/large-hadron-collider

(sorry, video unavailable on Youtube)

If these crackpots had their way the LHC would never have been used and the discovery of the Higgs Boson would not have happened. We'd also have missed out on all the other upcoming discoveries as well.

Dan8267 says

The scientific method is not there to give definitive answers.

If you believe that, try walking over a cliff. After all, gravity is just a theory.

People have been faling over cliffs long before any kind of theory of gravitation was developed. This is common sense but has nothing to do with science. Newton discovered a law that describes the attraction between two bodies of given masses at a given distance from each other. However this law did not give correct answers in all cases. ("A planet in Mercury's situation should gradually shift its nearest approach to the sun a fifth of a milliradian per century faster than the rate that Newton's law could account for"). Science uses statistics to assess probabilities. If it were able to provide definitive answers there wouldn't be any probabilities involved. Inform yourself about how many different GMO plants there are and how they use the GMO principle. In science it is absolutely necessary to carefully define where, how, what and when. Then we measure and measure again and the results are expressed in probabilities. It should be my decision if I want to live with these probabilities or not and that's why I want labeling of GMO ingredients in my food.

eastcoast guy says

It should be my decision if I want to live with these probabilities or not and that's why I want labeling of GMO ingredients in my food.

The probability is unless you grow all your own food or eat exclusively "organic" you've already been eating GMO foods for the past 15 years.

mell says

Here's a starter - go ahead and monitor them, you are the expert, I gladly concede that if we judge by degree, profession and credentials. And maybe homeboy can help you monitor ;)

O.K., first guy: Doug Gurian-Sherman, PhD, senior scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists, USA

From UCS website:

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/monsanto-fails-at-improving.html

Monsanto Fails at Improving Agriculture

Help UCS Set the Record Straight by Sharing Our New Ad Campaign

Sure, it's not like that guy has an axe to grind or anything. LOL.

New Renter says

eastcoast guy says

It should be my decision if I want to live with these probabilities or not and that's why I want labeling of GMO ingredients in my food.

The probability is unless you grow all your own food or eat exclusively "organic" you've already been eating GMO foods for the past 15 years.

Yeah thanks to a corrupt congress, now corrupt Obama and the lobbying of such firms. Which is not the case in the EU. Corporations in search of a profit rob of us of a choice and force feed this stuff to us.

I realize this field is your source of income , but otherwise you make no sense. Who cares about GMO-just label the darn thing and let people have a choice. If you didn't use such corrupt and heavy handed tactics -there wouldn't be a backlash at all. You want to shove your products down our throats, you want our cash for it-but no, us consumers are like little kids who can't understand such great concepts and should just shudup and buy your magical products-no questions asked.

Then you wonder why people don't like these companies? Nobody likes corrupt, greedy companies that take your cash and bribe congress from giving you a choice. That has nothing to do with GMO .

donjumpsuit says

But something tells me you are quite satisfied in calling GMO's niggers.

don't let your emotions get in the way of rational debate there, donjumps

donjumpsuit says

Your opinion is valuble, and it is now being used in a very dangerous context.

Thanks, yours is too. We don't have to discuss this further. What I want is that everybody can do their own research and then make a decision of whether they want to consume GMOs or not and that requires labeling.

Dan8267 says

People absolutely should not be deciding for themselves whether or not GMO foods are unhealthy any more then they should be deciding for themselves whether or not smoking or eating a pound of bacon every day for breakfast is healthy or not. The truth is not a democracy. Whether or not GMO foods are dangerous is not a matter of opinion. It is a factual statement that is either right or wrong and acceptance of either conclusion should be based on real, peer-reviewed, and reproducible results.

Maybe i'm not reading this correctly, but it reads as if you are suggesting that eating a pound of bacon every day for breakfast, is akin to smoking, in regards to ones health.

It's just odd, knowing what we all know now thanks to science, that eating bacon IS healthy. Unlike the misinformation that the government and their bad science spread for decades (ie. the food pyramid) led people to believe that eating bacon was "unhealthy"

donjumpsuit says

Consumers have a choice. They have a choice, and it's called
organic.
Also, if they do not wish to participate, they can grow their own
food.

Organic is expensive. For those that don't buy organic, there is no choice. As for your second sentence, that is like saying those who don't like the policies of the gas industry can bike to work. I like my choices and I suspect for most -the world is bit grey than pure black and white. But you are being extremely unscientific and dogmatic. You are calling debate dangerous. If your principle is sound, you should be able to debate without getting this irrational-that is the trait of true believers.

By the way, they do require GMO labelling in Europe.

lostand confused says

Organic is expensive. For those that don't buy organic, there is no choice

Also even local access to organic food is an issue for some depending on the area.

mell says

donjumpsuit says

Your opinion is valuble, and it is now being used in a very dangerous context.

Thanks, yours is too. We don't have to discuss this further. What I want is that everybody can do their own research and then make a decision of whether they want to consume GMOs or not and that requires labeling.

Mell,

How do you propose consumers do their own research? Most of the raw data is not available nor comprehensible to most consumers. Its hard to make a good judgement when the only information available is from either rabid anti-whatever activists or corporate shills.

errc says

Maybe i'm not reading this correctly, but it reads as if you are suggesting that eating a pound of bacon every day for breakfast, is akin to smoking, in regards to ones health.

You're not reading it correctly, and I have no idea how you could get that interpretation out of the writing. It seems clear to me that the passage you quoted is stating that the health effects of any consumption is not a matter of opinion, e.g., bacon doesn't become healthy simply because you choose to believe it is. The health effects, whatever they are, are not influenced by your cultural preferences or sociopolitical ideology. Either smoking causes cancer or it doesn't. Smoking doesn't cause cancers in hippies, but not in rednecks.

It seems to me that the GMO debate and the pot debate are really culture wars rather than factually founded concerns. Conservatives hate hippies. Hippies smoke pot. Therefore, conservatives hate pot. This does not make pot unhealthy.

Hippies hate conservatives. Conservatives profit on GMOs. Therefore, hippies hate GMOs. This does not make GMOs unhealthy.

I have no problem accepting that pot will kill you, if someone provides solid evidence to support that claim. As of yet, I have seen zero such evidence. I have no problem accepting that a particular GMO food will kill you, if someone provides solid evidence to support that claim. As of yet, I have seen zero such evidence. The burden off proof is on those making the ill-health claims.

The core belief I have is that people need to put their stupid, narrow-minded cultural preferences away and simply rationally look at evidence when deciding whether or not pot or GMO foods are unhealthy. I don't base my diet on whether I like the Beatles or Shannia Twain, and it would be stupid to do so.

How exactly is bacon "unhealthy"? I eat it by the pound, in order to be healthy. Do you have some scientific evidence to prove that eating bacon is not healthy?

---------

Donjumps said

GMO is a "Fad". A label whose only connotation is to stir up anger, distrust. It doesn't not help the consumer to make an informed choice.

Fruedian slip?

I do agree with part of the argument, as to gmo labeling allowing consumers to make an informed decision, as it pertains to their "food" and how "healthy" a choice they are making. What difference does it make, what with the level of ignorance that has been hammered into the minds of the masses over the past decades, surrrounding food, health, and nutrition

I bet if you ask most people, they'd tell you that corn is a vegetable, LOL

donjumpsuit says

You want to educate yourself and the consumer on food ingredients? Do it
responsibly, and act accordingly.

Not like a bunch of psychos.

I get it. Anyone who buys a product with their hard earned money and wanting a choice in what they buy is a psycho.

You can be whatever you think you are, but you are just part of a company/entity that is selling something to the general public. As a consumer, we have the right to buy whatever we want to buy based on whatever belief-wether that be scientifc, personal beleifs, belief in the tooth fairy. My money-my choice. Unfortunately these corrupt companies and congress rob of us of our choice and then calls consumers who demand a choice a bunch of psychos.

Someone may choose to not buy GMO foods-just because they believe GMO crops are proof of Satan's reign on earth. As long as they are using their hard earned money-their choice-this is supposed to be a free country. But now these corrupt companies and congress has robbed consumers of a choice and on top of that insult their consumers for actually asking for a choice. Nice.

Now if you are talking of the merits/demerits of GMO-that is another issue. But you have lost the public trust-because of your industry's corrupt practices.

New Renter says

Mell,

How do you propose consumers do their own research? Most of the raw data is not available nor comprehensible to most consumers. Its hard to make a good judgement when the only information available is from either rabid anti-whatever activists or corporate shills.

I am a proponent of a free society, that includes the freedom of educating yourself as much as possible and the government staying out of making judgement calls rather than presenting the facts - of course there are issues where the government must act, e.g. when other liberties or health is infringed upon. GMOs are actually a perfect example for a government that believes it cannot make a sound judgement at this point to stay neutral and simply require labeling, as it does for many other additives, even non-allergens. The public then can access the data, read about studies on the web, talk to their scientist friends or MDs and then decide whether they want to buy GMO food or not. Plain and simple, everything trying to cloud this simple solution is FUD IMO and not good for a healthy debate. As lostand confused mentioned, European countries often either require labeling or have an outright ban on GMOs. It would be silly to dismiss the fact that nobody has the monopoly to the exact truth at this point, and thus - as eastcoastguy mentioned - it is about probability and whether one wants to take the risk or not. Just label it already ;)

donjumpsuit says

Can you see what harm is done to both those products, if a generic and obtuse label of GMO is casually slapped on the front of the package?

Labeling GMO's doesn't do ANYTHING to educate.

Of course it does. even with the obtuse numbering system which has been used in Europe for decades (E123, E406 etc.) or in the US (e.g. yellow #8). One can easily look up the actual ingredient, do a bit of research and then decide to consume or avoid.

Mell,

Its simple. If a food is labels organic or even better naturally farmed then it is GMO free. If it has no label just assume it contains one or more GMO ingredients. That will redress the majority of your your consumer anxiety.

Reserve the detail for ingredients that have been proven to have an impact on health, otherwise you run the risk of diluting the message.

mell says

donjumpsuit says

Your opinion is valuble, and it is now being used in a very dangerous context.

Thanks, yours is too.

No it's not. He is being completely rational and scientific. You are being completely irrational and emotional.

We don't have to discuss this further. What I want is that everybody can do their own research and then make a decision of whether they want to consume GMOs or not and that requires labeling.

That is not rational. I could say that food processed with red tractors needs to be labeled, whereas food processed with green tractors does not. There is no scientific evidence that the color of the tractor makes any difference to your health. But by your logic, we should be required to put a label on the food so people can "make their own decision".

mell says

Of course it does. even with the obtuse numbering system which has been used in Europe for decades (E123, E406 etc.) or in the US (e.g. yellow #8). One can easily look up the actual ingredient, do a bit of research and then decide to consume or avoid.

Great. I'm all for listing the ingredients. GMO is not an ingredient, so it doesn't need to be listed.

mell says

I am a proponent of a free society, that includes the freedom of educating yourself as much as possible and the government staying out of making judgement calls rather than presenting the fact

Yet you want the government to force retailers to put labels on food because of YOUR unfounded belief that it is harmful? How is that "staying out of it"? That seems decidedly like getting into it.

Homeboy says

No it's not. He is being completely rational and scientific. You are being completely irrational and emotional.

I meant his opinion is valuable.

Homeboy says

That is not rational. I could say that food processed with red tractors needs to be labeled, whereas food processed with green tractors does not. There is no scientific evidence that the color of the tractor makes any difference to your health. But by your logic, we should be required to put a label on the food so people can "make their own decision".

Again, you are dismissing hundreds of scientific voices out there and studies that claim otherwise. Actually you are ignoring whole countries, which is ok if you think the US is the central source of truth - I don't know of any scientist or country that thinks that the color tractors used in farming makes a difference in the assessment of health risks ;)

errc says

I bet if you ask most people, they'd tell you that corn is a vegetable, LOL

Why is that funny? Tomatoes are usually thought of as vegetables, too. It's about how they are used and prepared. The average consumer doesn't concern himself with nitpicky scientific definitions, and really shouldn't need to.

Homeboy says

mell says

Of course it does. even with the obtuse numbering system which has been used in Europe for decades (E123, E406 etc.) or in the US (e.g. yellow #8). One can easily look up the actual ingredient, do a bit of research and then decide to consume or avoid.

Great. I'm all for listing the ingredients. GMO is not an ingredient, so it doesn't need to be listed.

The actual type of corn is an ingredient, if you want to split hairs you can say I want them to be more specific in that case instead of listing an additional ingredient, similar to donjumps example (corn #234567).

donjumpsuit says

Don't play the victim. It weakens your position.

Don't 'whoa is me'. You are well researched, you can avoid GM foods, you know
what you choose, and you pick what you want.

Demanding others to follow your wishes, and your wants it kind of
Totalitarian, don't you think?

Obama needs to take some PR lessons from you on how to deal with the current scandals. It is your industry that fights labelling tooth and nail . It is your indutry that pays huge lobbying fees to congress . I do not want to assume. I want it labelled-so I have a choice. I am not asking for it to be banned-I just don't want to go on the word of corproations that make money off me. Label it-I may choose to buy or not. That is what you are afraid of-that people may choose not to buy and so will cut into your cash flow. Pure greed .

So if someone who buys something wants to know what he is buying-he is playing the victim and is trying to turn it into a totalitarian state? My, even Cheney cannot come up with such mind-bending descriptions. I buy, I am the customer and all I ask is I know what I am buying.

If you think GMO is great-fine-stand by your product-proudly. Like the organic folks. Now by the way, I don't buy organic animal products, because they are not supposed to use antibiotics. I don't think that is right-now I don't like what they do in commercial farms, but anyone who has big animals, know they get sick and not giving them antibiotics is not right.

But your logic is intriguing. What's next -no labelling of country of origin on manufactured goods-because that is totalitarian. Or what's next -can't ask any questions to used car salesmen, becaus eyou just know that going to a used car salesman means he is a fraud? I would expect these kind of arguments from politicians not scientists. But thanks for the laugh!

New Renter says

Mell,

Its simple. If a food is labels organic or even better naturally farmed then it is GMO free. If it has no label just assume it contains one or more GMO ingredients. That will redress the majority of your your consumer anxiety.

Reserve the detail for ingredients that have been proven to have an impact on health, otherwise you run the risk of diluting the message.

This is a fair point. However companies can use the "all natural" label as they see fit so it's hard to figure out what is what beyond organic and non-gmo labels. Also, I don't want the government be the judge but rather the messenger. You are right it could dilute the message, but I don't mind that much as I don't consider it primarily a warning label in the first place. Strangely it is the GMO corporations and pro-activists that claim it would not dilute the message but instead scare the public enormously.

mell says

Again, you are dismissing hundreds of scientific voices out there and studies that claim otherwise. Actually you are ignoring whole countries, which is ok if you think the US is the central source of truth - I don't know of any scientist or country that thinks that the color tractors used in farming makes a difference in the assessment of health risks ;)

I don't deny that there is a very vocal minority that has it in for GMO foods. I am dismissing them, but I am not dismissing them out of hand. I am dismissing them after duly considering their "evidence", and concluding that it is ALL bogus. The anti-GMO faction does not seem to have any qualms about using improper scientific procedure, falsifying results, drawing unwarranted conclusions, and even knowingly continuing to present "evidence" that has already been discredited. For people who claim to be interested in helping consumers, they don't seem to have any ethics whatsoever. To use rats in a study that were deliberately bred to grow tumors, then publish pictures of the rats, claiming that GMO food caused the tumors, is just beyond the pale. And that's just one example of the misdirection and misinformation this faction is spreading to a gullible public. Donjumpsuit has given you all the information; you are just choosing to ignore it.

The reason I used the tractor color analogy is that your position is not an iota more rational than that. The fact that "hundreds" of people believe an irrational proposition does not sway me in the least. A lot more people than that have believed much stupider things.

lostand confused says

Or what's next -can't ask any questions to used car salesmen, becaus eyou just know that going to a used car salesman means he is a fraud?

Next is no labeling or message when you are being wiretapped and spied upon - oh wait, we already have that ;) But why do you care that you are being spied upon, it's proven that you don't suffer any ill-effects from it, and the government says so. Don't rattle the public and scare it shitless! ;)

mell says

This is a fair point. However companies can use the "all natural" label as they see fit so it's hard to figure out what is what beyond organic and non-gmo labels.

What's hard about that? Organic means organic. If it doesn't say organic, it's not organic. Problem solved.

errc says

Do you have some scientific evidence to prove that eating bacon is not healthy?

Are you fucking kidding?

I honestly don't know what your point is. You go off on rants about race, conservatives vs. liberals, justice, totalitarinsim-when someone asks for a simple label on their food products. Just a label. Sigh- you refuse to deal with the point. I don't want to assume what is in my food-I want to know. As someone who buys them with my money-your sort and the govt have conspired to take away that choice from me. All I ask is for you to restore that choice-not just assuming if I go to this store on this date after this policy change and at this price range -I get this product.

All I ask as someone who buys your product-is I need to know what is in it. MY CHOICE. Oh no racism, the n word, totalirainism, conservatism, liberalism, smug in justiceism-can you throw in a few more monikers in there?? You still haven't answered my question-why as a consumer should I not be informed of my chocie when I buy a product. My dollars, my choice-I want to be clear on what I buy and eat-what is it to you-oh yes you are afraid you will lose money. Same old, same old.

I don't want to assume-I just wanna know. What is your problem with that-how am I supposed to figure out what is what among the hundreds of thousands of stores and their varying descriptions and what they consider to be GMO or not. Not my job-have a standard, slap a label and be done with it. Give me back the choice you stole from me to make more money.

donjumpsuit says

Great.

I made a new product for you.

It's called Organic.

It comes in many shapes and forms, and whole Markets specialize in this type
of food product.

It contains everything you want in a food product, and nothing you don't
want, or nothing that you don't know.

Are you happy?

No?

Why not?

You know I honestly don't know if you are a troll or just bored out of your mind.