Everybody a breeder ?
- Thread starter silverhazefiend
- Start date
- Status
That you still don't even grasp my dispise of mendelians is hillarious Busweed 
. I have made the Nong Khai, Santa Marta, Mazari, Mulanje, the Palni Hills and Oaxaca agument many times, I am sure my openning comments in this thread reflect that. Us westerners and you guys are not immune, ruined cannabis in these places with your appetite for more, that was all it took. Got nothing to do with how we go foreward in saving it, unless we are blind to the subject eh?
. I have made the Nong Khai, Santa Marta, Mazari, Mulanje, the Palni Hills and Oaxaca agument many times, I am sure my openning comments in this thread reflect that. Us westerners and you guys are not immune, ruined cannabis in these places with your appetite for more, that was all it took. Got nothing to do with how we go foreward in saving it, unless we are blind to the subject eh?
B
BugJar
Anyone can breed seeds just like anyone can play guitar.
experience, knowledge and talent are what will always make someone shine.
It is truly a shame what is happening to the seed game however.
I have a feeling that there has always been some degree of dilution or degradation in small areas all over the world but it is just unfortunate that the weight of those other amateurs sit on the shoulders of the skilled breeder.
best of luck to any person doing it with the right intentions and knowledge.
experience, knowledge and talent are what will always make someone shine.
It is truly a shame what is happening to the seed game however.
I have a feeling that there has always been some degree of dilution or degradation in small areas all over the world but it is just unfortunate that the weight of those other amateurs sit on the shoulders of the skilled breeder.
best of luck to any person doing it with the right intentions and knowledge.
I concur with you interpretation of this first scenario Tom.
We are best again to out-cross to form yet another divergent gene-pool. A second line is thus made from a gene-pool with differing characteristics to the first, and then these are combined in the F2 Hybrid generation boosting heterozygosity.
I presume that all corners of the globe could commit genes to environmental tolerance and increase viability.
We are best again to out-cross to form yet another divergent gene-pool. A second line is thus made from a gene-pool with differing characteristics to the first, and then these are combined in the F2 Hybrid generation boosting heterozygosity.
I presume that all corners of the globe could commit genes to environmental tolerance and increase viability.
dung beetle
Member
im amazed that this thread is still going!!..ive seen plenty of the threads questioning of breeders ethics being deleted here on ic,glad tht the debate is still ongoing!!...now please vote for which father you would like me to dust my dankest eleet cuts with 
S
SooperSmurph
Why is having a basic understanding of plant genetics so awful? It's mostly just a basis for discussion, common ground as it were, and why is that a bad thing considering the egos involved when talking about Cannabis growers / breeders?
You'd also be surprised how closely those "traditional" methods correlated to a Mendel style breeding program, just over much longer periods of time with many more plants to work with, resulting in far superior results, Mendel isn't God, he didn't really discover anything, he just published the first book concerning the subject which had been discussed by farmers and gardeners for thousands of years before him.
No, it doesn't floor anything. All those places you mentioned can't readily be tested versus other cannabis. What are you going on, your memory of how good the weed was? Drug policies were a large part of driving all the growers indoors, not the "scientific community". I mean how many strains have the dutch created through their EERIE Gregor Mendel books? Science is important, without rigor and documentation for your work, what significance is it if you can't easily share your findings? Also the best weed has yet to come, the extent to which the cannabis plant can be pushed in my opinion isn't even anywhere near 10% of its potential.
Well that isn't giving quite enough credit to Mr. Mendel. You're telling me being able to not only articulate observed behavior, or phenomena in nature, but also constructing a set of ideas and rules to helps others predict these behaviors? Not easy! Sure, everyone had felt gravity, but no one really knew how to put it into words, or how to describe it mathematically until Newton came along. Those farmers and gardeners didn't understand anything about how traits were carried onto offspring. The most peculiar thing of all is how people back in the dark ages would try and control their bloodlines, but really had no idea what they were doing and ended up degrading their own genetics.
thats pretty interesting. seems like you may have stumbled unto another variable. secondary branching as a trait that can be selected for.In all fairness it was only the clone I took from the main stem, the ones from the side branches were all normal
Peace
Take that scientists.
The way I see it is genes are getting spread far and wide.Every hippie making mixes and selling seed is only adding to ,not mudding up the pool.
Chances are my plants will die geographicly with me.I know some of you big hats
will carry on for generations and be spread far and wide before your strains fizzle out.If you remember Ole Nixon&Raygun did a pretty decent job of wiping out old landraces and history repeats...but Cannabis has grown into everyones homes now that wants it.Its rooted in.My friends grow completely differant strains than me and we don't mix them deliberatly.Once in a while there's an accident.Usually its "Bounce off"as described earlier in this thread and doesn't really turn out.Still ,its hard to finish a doobie
If a buddy shows interest,they get some quality seed from my f-2's,not the accidentsI only hope you breeders do your thing properly.
Me as a grower-stoner will choose my stock carefully from profesionals
and carry on till my days are done,doing ZERO harm.IMOI have really enjoyed reading this thread,hope y'all don't mind my babble.
Ill make it easier for you to understand.
Were the greatest artists of the past "just applying proper techniques" or was it art. Or was the art in how they applied their technical knowledge to canvas.
Your an idiot if you don't think there is art to applying a technical skill.
Yes you can be cold strictly technical, and methodical, but you still need the human aspect, which when blended with a technical skill lends a personality to the process.
Oh so you Know all the breeders, and their associates, and that's that.
No possibility that there are people out there knowledgable in plant biology/breeding who don't spend eir life associating with other cannabis breeders. No chance some nobody professor has been breeding in his basement for a decade and just choosen not to share in the open?
And it's not that they haven't been met or seen, they just don't talk or share about their cannabis habit.
Tell that to the mirror
.
.
Lol, what's your definition of master, the guy with 20 years study? There are plenty of people fully capable of practicing advanced breeding techniques in their home.
But really I kind of agree, yes, in reality we aren't benefitting as a culture from the most advanced breeding technologies. 50 years? Try 10-20, scientists are jumping at the bit to study the plant in great detail, not that they already haven't to an extent, but once it's legalized its on like donkey kong.
You sound like a fairly informed individual, so maybe try to keep the logical fallacies out of your arguments.
Edit: for your edification.
Definition of ART
1
: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2
a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts
b archaic : learning, scholarship
3
: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4
a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced
b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5
a archaic : a skillful plan
b : the quality or state of being artful
P
Paco
What an outstanding thread. I laughed, I cried I even pooped my pants a lil.
^this!
These ppl have been turning their stuff into hash for centuries on end.
Meaning the collective denominator of ALL their produced plants combined are beeing turned into one hell of a good smoke.
For them, It's the entire genotype of whatever they are producing that's the most importend.
Trying to improve upon just a small number of plants to eventually turn them into an elite bunch of eternal clones sounds like some exentric hobbyist getting carried away with his own self hype to me.
Not that I think something is wrong with the latter > We prolly need those too. Whatever works, and I'm all for different aproaches.
Intuitively however, I'd like to remain 'old school' for as much as possible.
We, as a human and plant, have probably co-evolved with the 'old school' style. Hence it is the 'old school style products' that happen to match our coevolving brain receptors so well.
Modern science is usually just running after the facts imho.
Like we were 'wired' to mostly appreciate 'old school weed', but now we're using science to replicate more of the same while having to start from scratch allover again?
Because we can! ^^
The nameless farmers who grew cannabis in the past surely deserve a lot of credit.
But I cannot imagine how you know that theirs was "the best ever" unless you were there.
bullshit plain and simple
let me share the universally acceptable definition
breed·er (brdr)
n.
1. A person who breeds animals or plants.
2. An animal kept to produce offspring.
3. Offensive Slang A heterosexual person.
4. A source or cause: social injusticea breeder of revolutions.
5. A breeder reactor.
breeder is anyone who breeds plants or animals
it is that simple
now maybe if you were to PREFACE it with PROFESSIONAL CANNABIS SEED you could have "label" like the one your looking for
once again ABSOLUTELY wrong. WHY?
chucking IS breeding it is the quality and the representation that is in question
which I will also touch upon again, because the margins of difference are in question here and no one is putting a real value to the difference
why? well discuss this later on
an·ec·dot·al (nk-dtl)
adj.
1. also an·ec·dot·ic (-dtk) or an·ec·dot·i·cal (--kl) Of, characterized by, or full of anecdotes.
2. Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: "There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the [oleander] stems" (C. Claiborne Ray).
well it was anecdotal evidence, that is observed phenomenon, that has been the basis for selective breeding as an agriculture technique for millennium
in fact science is still identify all the microbiology that exists in living soil, yet indigenous peoples for millennium used anecdotal evidence to determine soil fertility without the benefit of being able to know its microbiological composition
they are not mutually exclusive and simple observation can also be used as a way to PROOF scientific theory
can you see wind with the human eye? NO
do you need science to prove the concept? NO
you can feel its force and see birds waft in it, that is anecdotal evidence.
Now take someone who has never been outdoors and ask yourself would reading a scientific paper that describes the wind offer a better expatiation than experiencing it first hand?
do you really doubt our innate abilites because science can intellectualizes and quantifies/qualifies what we know intuitively?
now add to the gamit the real truth, that what we are discussing is selective breeding and then answer me this?
what are the scientific criteria and processes used in the selection that breeders are using in selection?
I ask because they are mostly anecdotal, and if not then maybe you can tell me the exact scientific processes they use
interesting. So I don't understand cannabis line degradation? please show me where I even alluded to this. I would be interested to know because it never passed my lips.
slander is dangerous, be real careful about the use of it. If you need to make lie about what i've said to make your point you have no credibility
if you don't understand the things i have said say as much, don't manufacture an argument that does not exist and If you are going to accuse me of something make sure you did your due diligence.
I am arguing however, that the existence of strains is more important than the stability
you cant create something that doesn't exist but you can stabilize something that isn't
it is that simple, chem d is a fine example. Hermie bud from a bag of weed, a result of "inferior breeding" technique
this is the crux of the "more breeders more breeds" argument
seems to me anecdotal evidences have some weight after all
so people who find and reinvigorate genetics are REAL but people who create new ones through breeding are not?
how about the breeder who has found his own genetics and kept them invigorated without plant numbers or without making a name for him/herself?
see you are already deviating, according to Tom they cant be real either.
And I don't think Tom is arguing against crosses, but rather arguing you can't find the same level of perfection in trait selection without a larger number of plants to choose from.
and once again my argument is that if you add the influences of breeding environment, the determining variables behind trait selection (what traits are that individual breeder aiming for), the results desired and lastly the genetics themselves that greater plant number in breeding selection is not paramount BUT relative
it is only paramount if your desired result is stability
at least you are not trying to say some are breeding and some are chucking pollen, but your statement is not accurate in any sense
first let me set things straight on TOM HILL"s argument
Simply, Tom is arguing that with selective breeding plant numbers are paramount, that it is a numbers game and indeed there is truth in this statement
I am arguing that the MARGIN of difference is a relative measure, not an absolute one, and one that can be determined both anecdotally and mathematically,and one that is offset by a variety of other variables including availability
if this were done I am sure you would see the gap in quality between small numbers breeders and big numbers breeders is relative,
in fact if we play the pure "numbers" game the 100 breeders with 100 plants will yield similar results as 10 breeders with 1000 plants
it is only when we add the SELECTION process ENVIRONMENT and GENETICS that the equation changes and real results can be determined and analysis
In my observation TOM'S experience TRUMPS his plant numbers because it is his experience that biases his selection process and this is what has driven him to high plant numbers, it works for his objectives
the numbers themselves are not what sets him apart but it is also what levels the playing field by making everything relative to the desires of the selector
its the value the selector adds to breeding that makes them great not the act of breeding itself and because its not a defined science even horticulture is considered part "art" http://www.bergen.edu/pages1/Pages/4763.aspx but let me focused here
my simple aim is to give enough anecdotal evidences that EVERYONE participating can take a look around them, put mathematical values to observational variables around them and provide a margin of difference between breeders with many plants and breeders with less plants
now riddle me this
if a breeder with poor selection techniques uses the same exact genetic stock in the same environment as a breeder with superior techniques, what will the difference be in the resulting progeny?
let me make it even simpler
if both Tom and a no name breeder took the same exact clones both male and female and bred them in the same exact environment what would be the difference in their results?
how much better would Tom's plants be?
see the value is in the selection process, not in the act of breeding itself. this is why they call it selective breeding, which is influenced by big numbers, thus the "numbers game"
now if Tom (using bigger plant numbers but same traits for plant selection) and the no name breeder (using smaller plant numbers but same traits for plant selection) took the resulting progeny and grew them in identical environments and selected the best of the offspring and bred them again what would the difference be in THAT generation of seed?
this is the value add of bigger numbers on selection technique
how much different will the plants be if each one repeats the above process for a number of generations?
how many and what traits will be lost to the no name growers line versus Tom's?
The other variables are selection technique and environment which are important as well (a value that can also be determined)
I understand how genetics operate. But if your claiming expertise them you can qualify and quantify the loss of traits due to lack of selection, versus which ones are lost due to environmental influence.
how can science make all the difference in the quality of breeding if it cannot be used to qualify the difference in quality?
or is it simply not that exact?
ONCE AGAIN it becomes a matter of ANECDOTAL observation that the stability of lines bred with superior plant numbers and selection technique
how many of the breeders in question discover an indigenous strain and breed it in that same exact environment?
you might prefer stability because you need stability more than anything else. That is YOUR preference.
However, look at the market, look at the success of unstable lines from "no name" breeders
why do people flock to their wares? its simple AVAILABILITY
ask the guys who are running chem lines or sweet tooth or any number of old school strains that were reintroduced by some no names and ask them why they didn't wait for a more stable line
Now I myself find every stain has very unique properties, every smoke has distinct different characteristics, and its my sense of these properties that biases my choice in selection
what I want, what drives my selection process is mine to choose as is yours, it is not a scientific constant that any one specific combination of traits, especially cannibinoid profiles that is universally accepted as superior for all beings
this is were the "art of selection" comes in because it is personal anecdotal evidence that drives the selection process.
Now tell me how a scientific thesis from a PHd will help me know what I want more than my anecdotal capacities haven't already shown me?
tell me the scientific qualifications to YOUR selection technique and Ill share my anecdotal ones and we can see if the "math" hold up
im down for this. are you? because the minute i suggest extrapolating the math here everyone starts to claim they don't get what i'm saying
if you know math that well you can turn anything into an equation or algorithm, his is how Google generates revenues
No I do understand diversity in a gene pool and I also understand the math, it is the inclusion of relativity and context that have you confused
I do I think I made my very clear argument in my responses to your critiques above so my question yo you is will you answer them all statement by statement, point by point?
no it book of testimony of anecdotal evidence, the meaning of its contents would be lost on you
Well if that is what you get from this, I argue you are the one who doesn't understand
An individuals biological make up will dictate how they will respond to the cannabinoid profile when smoked
we are breeding for several traits, and while it may be of no import to you, how a selection smokes is an important part of the process as any other trait
in fact i am going to go out on limb here (i dont even think Tom will try to knock me off this one) that for most breeders, it is cannibinoid profile they after as well as plant shape, size maturation rate, yield, etc that how a selection smokes is indeed important
in fact, I begs the question, how does a big plant numbers breeder thoroughly test a larger selection of plants by smoking them? but lets not deviate, not yet, i saved all that for later, when people continue to "travel through the rabbit hole"
so yes an individuals biological make up maters because what "tickles" one persons receptors the right way might not "tickle" the others receptors the right way
this is no perfect cannibinoid profile, this is why diversity is so important, different profiles have different effects and different people have different preferences, and this is why diversity among breeders is important. More breeders means more strain diversity, more cannibinoid profiles, more "personalized" medicines (different medical conditions require different cannbionids)
do you know a serious botanist that will back your claim?
or how about a mathematician who will say I don't know math?
or a breeder who can say I don't know how to breed, because I am tired of hearing you judge me based on other peoples criteria
See all the shit I spew from my mouth is my real life observable experience
I am not regurgitating the meaning of what i have read without the applications of practical experience
this is why I ended up putting my two cents in this thread
and at first i was very abstract purposely because I didnt want to directly put anyone on the spot
it is wiser to give the people the information to come to an understanding on their own
see im not selling people on "my version" of the truth, simply sharing what I observe to come to my own conclusions
if you need science to help you come to your own I suggest you apply it correctly, because so far you have not
i did more than research I bred my own meds years ago and still run them today
nothing like reality as a litmus
actually the act of breeding make me a breeder as defined in the dictionary and perhaps unbeknownst to you I have over 30 practical experience breeding both flora and fauna
my ego is certainly invested in this argument because all i have done seen and experienced tells me that my observable reality has a weight in this conversation as well
Once again I am not arguing science but the narrow applications thereof
Your ego in this consists of an internet education and summation based on assumption but lacking any real substance because it you have no practical experience upon which to prove even anecdotal what you are asserting
im not the one demeaning people based on a perceived definition
im simply stating the facts as ive observed them
I could be a complete dick and really lower the bar and humiliate people at the same time, in fact im expert at it
first there is no horticultural standards or standards commission for cannabis cultivation
It's illegal status is what keeps formal researchers at bay
and these imaginary standards you think exist don't exist in most agricultural markets
it is the end product that is regulated not trait selection during breeding and if the horticulturists set the standards the breeders would be offering even less value since the selection would be dictated purely by set criteria
regardless the criteria are up to the breeders themselves and are made based on the desired result which then include variables such as environmental (outdoor, indoor, latitude, longitude, temp variance, humidity, soil depth, etc, etc,) desired flowering times, cannibinoid profile, flavanoid profile , plant shape and structure, resin production, bag appeal, disease and pest resistance, etc, etc, etc
i understand enough that I had bred my own lines and ran them and still do
Ill take the 20 years of growing and breeding experience it has given me far superior results than reading the web and wondering
i never paid for genetics and i never will because it is simply unnecessary and i have had a high percentage of the elites in my stable most of the others at my disposal and still grow the same shit i bred years ago
I never came on line to get genetics, I came because after 15+ years of growing clandestinely got a bit lonely
This is why I say breeding is something every grower should practice because what you will learn is invaluable
and not for nothing if this were even 60 + years ago (before indoor horticulture and flourishing black market) most everyone cultivating cannabis was breeding their own or using natural occurring breeding stock
our forefathers as all the cultures who cultivated before them did the same, all without Google and science you suggest I require
really? so they made all the strains i bred out from import land race and bag seed strains?
why school obviously didn't teach you how to be self sufficient it taught you to be reliant
H
huarmiquilla
howdy bushweed
how you do?
respect
one perspective am keen to think human to farm
similar
human to garden
similar human to save, sow, and share seed
such and such to read and analysis within jungle
such textbook to environment within experience indeed, not within text
such experience form to being text, such inverse impossible....hehehe
similar to read and analysis within season to season
such textbook with analysis with respect to season to season
such analysis form to being text, such inverse impossible....hehehe
to share knowledge to experience across generation with respect to intimate connection to such variety
similar much intimate connection to such environment
infinite share to experience such knowledge
one perspective am keen to think
such and such geneetic textbook require such thinks
with not such thinks, not genetic textbook form to being
such to think, textbook not require
rather such text simple to analysis with much generalization
form to being within experience, within energy, within motion
one perspective, am keen to read much
within such analysis within text am difficult for discover herb for toke....hehehe
such herb within energy within motion
respect you thinks bushweed
supreme respect
santa marta gold nom nom nomi....hehehe
am keen to analysis with much genetic textbook
with such bias indeed
with respect to such textbook am rare to read within with respect to most important ingredient
love
love much important one perspective
respect
positive vibrations
positive vibrations
how you do?
respect
one perspective am keen to think human to farm
similar
human to garden
similar human to save, sow, and share seed
such and such to read and analysis within jungle
such textbook to environment within experience indeed, not within text
such experience form to being text, such inverse impossible....hehehe
similar to read and analysis within season to season
such textbook with analysis with respect to season to season
such analysis form to being text, such inverse impossible....hehehe
to share knowledge to experience across generation with respect to intimate connection to such variety
similar much intimate connection to such environment
infinite share to experience such knowledge
one perspective am keen to think
such and such geneetic textbook require such thinks
with not such thinks, not genetic textbook form to being
such to think, textbook not require
rather such text simple to analysis with much generalization
form to being within experience, within energy, within motion
one perspective, am keen to read much
within such analysis within text am difficult for discover herb for toke....hehehe
such herb within energy within motion
respect you thinks bushweed
supreme respect
santa marta gold nom nom nomi....hehehe
am keen to analysis with much genetic textbook
with such bias indeed
with respect to such textbook am rare to read within with respect to most important ingredient
love
love much important one perspective
respect
positive vibrations
positive vibrations
This thread breeds long winded rants. 
H
huarmiquilla
howdy HidingInTheHaze
how you do?
respect
indeed word usual to distract....hehehe
such form to being text, word....much ambiguity
similar much bias within at how to analysis such word
am keen to think such bias with respect to word definition and title and bias within such difference to opinion within analysis
such to think
Mendel math preference vs Fisher math preference
such example to illustrate variance within perspective
such example not to illustrate finite opinion
opinion finite with respect to unique individual preference to bias
unique within total individual....hehehe
such complex chaos within unity
respect
positive vibrations
how you do?
respect
indeed word usual to distract....hehehe
such form to being text, word....much ambiguity
similar much bias within at how to analysis such word
am keen to think such bias with respect to word definition and title and bias within such difference to opinion within analysis
such to think
Mendel math preference vs Fisher math preference
such example to illustrate variance within perspective
such example not to illustrate finite opinion
opinion finite with respect to unique individual preference to bias
unique within total individual....hehehe
such complex chaos within unity
respect
positive vibrations
now maybe since it is their business to sell seed the big #'s breeders will share with me here and the absolute measurable difference in their stock versus the "competition"
if the difference is in the numbers, show it
define the measurable result, define it as scientifically as you sell the premise
show me empirically how numbers alone make all the difference
if we go with the "numbers" game the numbers simply hasten the rate in which you will find the phenotype with all the traits you desire
a small plant number breeder can run a greater selection it just takes more time so in the end
the numbers DO NOTHING in regards to CHOOSING THE BEST TRAITS
they only make the odds of finding it faster
in the end it comes down to who is choosing them and why they choosing those traits.
that is the value add that a breeder brings to the table not the abiltiy to scale it and hedge numbers
in the end however they wont have a formula for what people like best because its not the same for everyone, were not homogenous, so why should what we desire and require be homogenous?
that is why ill take a "hippy" education over a formal one because i spent decades filing cannabinoid profiles in my brain through smoking pot through smoking and its that "education" that drives me to make the selections that I do
Once this is completely legal PHd's will run the number game and with much more capital anyway so I don't even get the logic behind trying to tout it, let alone the irony, because in reality that many of these "big plant breeders" sub out a alot of their work to bunch of small garden breeders to make their numbers
we can get more granular on the effects of selection process and breeding environment which I think are equally important as the pool you are selecting from BUT will we?
that is the question
and that is where imho and if i'm wrong Tom I apologize in advance most of the best breeders values lie, in their wealth of experience smoking, growing, selecting, growing and smoking again, wash, rinse, repeat.
that can't be taught bottled or sold and it will be one of the hottest commodities to come
math, computers can do that
if the difference is in the numbers, show it
define the measurable result, define it as scientifically as you sell the premise
show me empirically how numbers alone make all the difference
if we go with the "numbers" game the numbers simply hasten the rate in which you will find the phenotype with all the traits you desire
a small plant number breeder can run a greater selection it just takes more time so in the end
the numbers DO NOTHING in regards to CHOOSING THE BEST TRAITS
they only make the odds of finding it faster
in the end it comes down to who is choosing them and why they choosing those traits.
that is the value add that a breeder brings to the table not the abiltiy to scale it and hedge numbers
in the end however they wont have a formula for what people like best because its not the same for everyone, were not homogenous, so why should what we desire and require be homogenous?
that is why ill take a "hippy" education over a formal one because i spent decades filing cannabinoid profiles in my brain through smoking pot through smoking and its that "education" that drives me to make the selections that I do
Once this is completely legal PHd's will run the number game and with much more capital anyway so I don't even get the logic behind trying to tout it, let alone the irony, because in reality that many of these "big plant breeders" sub out a alot of their work to bunch of small garden breeders to make their numbers
we can get more granular on the effects of selection process and breeding environment which I think are equally important as the pool you are selecting from BUT will we?
that is the question
and that is where imho and if i'm wrong Tom I apologize in advance most of the best breeders values lie, in their wealth of experience smoking, growing, selecting, growing and smoking again, wash, rinse, repeat.
that can't be taught bottled or sold and it will be one of the hottest commodities to come
math, computers can do that
H
huarmiquilla
howdy Weird
how you do?
am keen to think similar with respect to maths....hehehe
easy peasy....hehehe Mendel to peas joke
one perspective with respect to such genetic text knowledge
such to arise within form to being within experience
at how to quantify such genetic thinks proir to write within text?
simple am keen to think simple experience
energy within motion
ironic such thinks to require genetic textbook
perhap indeed Mendel to read within future such genetic textbook
with not such genetic textbook at how Mendel to analysis such experience?
hehehe
indeed experience to equal such matter form to being text
inverse impossible
respect you thinks Weird
lovely thinks indeed
positive vibrations
how you do?
am keen to think similar with respect to maths....hehehe
easy peasy....hehehe Mendel to peas joke
one perspective with respect to such genetic text knowledge
such to arise within form to being within experience
at how to quantify such genetic thinks proir to write within text?
simple am keen to think simple experience
energy within motion
ironic such thinks to require genetic textbook
perhap indeed Mendel to read within future such genetic textbook
with not such genetic textbook at how Mendel to analysis such experience?
hehehe
indeed experience to equal such matter form to being text
inverse impossible
respect you thinks Weird
lovely thinks indeed
positive vibrations
- Status
