Just seen this while reading Groups online...is done today.
Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it
Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content.
Just seen this while reading Groups online...is done today.
Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it
The bean-counters didn't see any profit, so ...
On the plus, it means fewer annoying little spammers.
Just seen this while reading Groups online...
Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new
content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of >historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
STILL hoping Musk will pick it up in the 'free speech'
theme.
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:07:27 -0500, 68g.1499 wrote:
STILL hoping Musk will pick it up in the 'free speech'
theme.
God I hope not!
If that over-hyped fascist twat ever 'picks it up' he'll turn it into a
RIGHT shitshow.
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:07:27 -0500, 68g.1499 wrote:
STILL hoping Musk will pick it up in the 'free speech'
theme.
God I hope not!
If that over-hyped fascist twat
ever 'picks it up' he'll turn it into a RIGHT shitshow.
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:07:27 -0500, 68g.1499 wrote:
STILL hoping Musk will pick it up in the 'free speech'
theme.
God I hope not!
If that over-hyped fascist twat ever 'picks it up' he'll turn it into a
RIGHT shitshow.
In article <uUSvN.194490$Lo1.170680@usenetxs.com>,
Salud <news@privacy.net> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:07:27 -0500, 68g.1499 wrote:
STILL hoping Musk will pick it up in the 'free speech'
theme.
God I hope not!
If that over-hyped fascist twat ever 'picks it up' he'll turn it into a
RIGHT shitshow.
https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2022/05/25/552135/s1200_everyone_i_dont_like_is_a_nazi_the_emotional_childs_28032035.jpg
In article <uUSvN.194490$Lo1.170680@usenetxs.com>,
Salud <news@privacy.net> wrote:
If that over-hyped fascist twat
Gone straight to name calling ad hominem attack. Can you give examples
of his fascist behaviour?
In article <ups29q$h6mt$7@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:48:17 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
In article <uUSvN.194490$Lo1.170680@usenetxs.com>,
Salud <news@privacy.net> wrote:
If that over-hyped fascist twat
Gone straight to name calling ad hominem attack. Can you give examples
of his fascist behaviour?
Where do we start?
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-enabling-turkish-censorship-on-twitter-calling-it-his-choice/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/11/musk-announces-twitter-ban-on-unlabeled-parody-after-celebs-impersonate-him/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-lifts-political-ad-ban-designed-to-stop-misinformation-spread/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-retroactively-changes-developer-agreement-to-ban-third-party-clients/>.
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/musks-x-revokes-paid-blue-check-from-united-auto-workers-after-strike-called/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/as-x-bleeds-cash-musk-threatens-anti-defamation-league-with-defamation-lawsuit/2/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/x-apparently-added-5-second-delay-for-links-to-sites-musk-doesnt-like/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/12/musk-suspends-nyt-and-wapo-reporters-from-twitter-claims-they-doxxed-him/>
1. Far from convinced that this publication is anything like even
handed. Looks like the Guardian in attitude.
2. I think fascist is a word used primarily as an insult, I don't
think Trump fits the definition at all well.
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:48:17 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
In article <uUSvN.194490$Lo1.170680@usenetxs.com>,
Salud <news@privacy.net> wrote:
If that over-hyped fascist twat
Gone straight to name calling ad hominem attack. Can you give examples
of his fascist behaviour?
Where do we start?
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-enabling-turkish-censorship-on-twitter-calling-it-his-choice/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/11/musk-announces-twitter-ban-on-unlabeled-parody-after-celebs-impersonate-him/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-lifts-political-ad-ban-designed-to-stop-misinformation-spread/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-retroactively-changes-developer-agreement-to-ban-third-party-clients/>.
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/musks-x-revokes-paid-blue-check-from-united-auto-workers-after-strike-called/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/as-x-bleeds-cash-musk-threatens-anti-defamation-league-with-defamation-lawsuit/2/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/x-apparently-added-5-second-delay-for-links-to-sites-musk-doesnt-like/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/12/musk-suspends-nyt-and-wapo-reporters-from-twitter-claims-they-doxxed-him/>
done against Trump is seen as moral and good by the Democrats.
Anything, no matter how disgusting done against Trump is seen as
moral and good by the Democrats. Hatred of Trump is close to
destroying any pretence that the USA is democratic if it hasn't done
so already.
In article <ups29q$h6mt$7@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:48:17 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
In article <uUSvN.194490$Lo1.170680@usenetxs.com>,
Salud <news@privacy.net> wrote:
If that over-hyped fascist twat
Gone straight to name calling ad hominem attack. Can you give examples
of his fascist behaviour?
Where do we start?
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-enabling-turkish-censorship-on-twitter-calling-it-his-choice/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/11/musk-announces-twitter-ban-on-unlabeled-parody-after-celebs-impersonate-him/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-lifts-political-ad-ban-designed-to-stop-misinformation-spread/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-retroactively-changes-developer-agreement-to-ban-third-party-clients/>.
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/musks-x-revokes-paid-blue-check-from-united-auto-workers-after-strike-called/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/as-x-bleeds-cash-musk-threatens-anti-defamation-league-with-defamation-lawsuit/2/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/x-apparently-added-5-second-delay-for-links-to-sites-musk-doesnt-like/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/12/musk-suspends-nyt-and-wapo-reporters-from-twitter-claims-they-doxxed-him/>
1. Far from convinced that this publication is anything like even
handed. Looks like the Guardian in attitude.
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:45:37 +0000 (GMT)
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
done against Trump is seen as moral and good by the Democrats.
It is a sad commentary on the United States that out of over 340
million people Biden and Trump are their options for leaders, are they *really* the best the country has to offer ?
Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
1) Not controlling guns severely
2) Believing *rigidly* in the Constitution, instead of being more flexible >about it
3) Allowing any tuppenny-ha'penny jurisdiction to "incorporate" (whatever that >means) and thus have its own police department and mayor - with the chief of >the former being elected like the latter. A good recipe for corruption and >incompetence. The US has over 15,000 police departments for 350 million >people, we have 45 for 60 million.
4) Having judges be elected, and having them be allowed to decide policy >matters such as abortion based on some spurious interpretation of the >Constitution, instead of such questions being decided by the legislatures, >where they belong.
5) Allowing political advertising on TV and radio.
A much better fit to fascism is BLM, Extinction rebellion, Greta,
etc etc. The real problem with Trump is that he is stupid. But there again, the Democrats in the US have only themselves to blame for the rise of Trump: they've spent the last several years sneering at and belittling the lower and lower-middle class in the US. Which has now had enough of it.
In article <l2fnmrFugagU1@mid.individual.net>,
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
1) Not controlling guns severely
...because that's working so well for you. /rolleyes
In article <l2fnmrFugagU1@mid.individual.net>,
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
1) Not controlling guns severely
...because that's working so well for you. /rolleyes
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:45:37 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
1. Far from convinced that this publication is anything like even
handed. Looks like the Guardian in attitude.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of what we
call circular reasoning.
On 2024-02-07, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <upua17$12n7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:45:37 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
1. Far from convinced that this publication is anything like even
handed. Looks like the Guardian in attitude.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of what we
call ?circular reasoning?.
I know nothing of arstechnica but I am very aware that the Guardian
like the BBC is not interested in the truth at all. They are only
interested in pushing a narrative. Subversion really.
On 2024-02-07, Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <upua17$12n7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:45:37 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
1. Far from convinced that this publication is anything like even
handed. Looks like the Guardian in attitude.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of what we
call ?circular reasoning?.
I know nothing of arstechnica but I am very aware that the Guardian
like the BBC is not interested in the truth at all. They are only
interested in pushing a narrative. Subversion really.
mmmmm a nuanced approach to truth, not!
In article <upua17$12n7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:45:37 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
1. Far from convinced that this publication is anything like even
handed. Looks like the Guardian in attitude.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of what we
call ?circular reasoning?.
I know nothing of arstechnica but I am very aware that the Guardian
like the BBC is not interested in the truth at all. They are only
interested in pushing a narrative. Subversion really.
Bob.
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
done against Trump is seen as moral and good by the Democrats.
.It is a sad commentary on the United States that out of over 340
million people Biden and Trump are their options for leaders, are they *really* the best the country has to offer ?
Anything, no matter how disgusting done against Trump is seen as
moral and good by the Democrats. Hatred of Trump is close to
destroying any pretence that the USA is democratic if it hasn't done
so already.
That is what worries me. It started in the UK with Blair, who defended supporting the USA using faked dossiers to bring the UK parliament
onside with the famous 'I believed what I was doing was right'...
It was illegal, it was a high level state crime to deceive parliament,
but as long as he believed it was right, then it was OK.
Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
2) Believing *rigidly* in the Constitution, instead of being more flexible about it
4) Having judges be elected, and having them be allowed to decide policy matters such as abortion based on some spurious interpretation of the Constitution, instead of such questions being decided by the legislatures, where they belong.
5) Allowing political advertising on TV and radio.
etc etc. The real problem with Trump is that he is stupid. But there again, the Democrats in the US have only themselves to blame for the rise of Trump: they've spent the last several years sneering at and belittling the lower and lower-middle class in the US. Which has now had enough of it.
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 04:52:58 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:
In article <l2fnmrFugagU1@mid.individual.net>,
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
1) Not controlling guns severely
...because that's working so well for you. /rolleyes
It’s worked really well in Australia. That’s what scares the US
gun nuts.
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 04:52:58 GMT
scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) wrote:
In article <l2fnmrFugagU1@mid.individual.net>,
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
1) Not controlling guns severely
...because that's working so well for you. /rolleyes
Nobody here sees their child die because someone back along the
road got angry and missed when they shot at the driver who annoyed them.
America most certainly does have a gun problem.
Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
4) Having judges be elected, and having them be allowed to decide policy
matters such as abortion based on some spurious interpretation of the
Constitution, instead of such questions being decided by the legislatures, >> where they belong.
In the case of abortion, unelected, appointed justices decided to do just that... turn it back to the states and their legislatures.
If you are pro-choice, this has turned out to be a bad thing for you in many states.
I am not sure that having judges be elected is a bad thing so long as they have to meet qualifications in order to be on the ballot.
The alternative is to have them appointed, which means they will still have biases... it
would be the biases of those who appoint vs. those who elect.
5) Allowing political advertising on TV and radio.
In article <l2fnmrFugagU1@mid.individual.net>,
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
1) Not controlling guns severely
...because that's working so well for you. /rolleyes
On 07 Feb 2024 at 04:52:58 GMT, "Scott Alfter" <Scott Alfter> wrote:
In article <l2fnmrFugagU1@mid.individual.net>,
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
1) Not controlling guns severely
...because that's working so well for you. /rolleyes
Certainly is. I just compare the annual number of murders by firearms in the UK (35 in 2021) with that of the US (7,500 to 10,000 or so).
On 07/02/2024 17:45, TimS wrote:
On 07 Feb 2024 at 04:52:58 GMT, "Scott Alfter" <Scott Alfter> wrote:
In article <l2fnmrFugagU1@mid.individual.net>,
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
1) Not controlling guns severely
...because that's working so well for you. /rolleyes
Certainly is. I just compare the annual number of murders by firearms in the >> UK (35 in 2021) with that of the US (7,500 to 10,000 or so).
In the UK disputes tend to end in grievous bodily harm, at worst. There
are a lot of stabbings on the streets but no one gets shot.
Guns are hard to come by and carry extreme penalties if convicted with one.
The problem is not that NRA dudes are rampant murderers, but that guns
are so available it becomes the weapon of *choice*. For any nutcase.
Here it tends to be machetes these days...or a stolen vehicle
Central government appoints ours. And don't imagine that this means that our judges are political.
Friend Scott overlooks that with a knife, there is some chance of running away from the situation. Rather less so if Chummy can plug you with his handgun from a distance.
.It is a sad commentary on the United States that out of over 340
million people Biden and Trump are their options for leaders, are they
*really* the best the country has to offer ?
I would like to think not, as an American, but I am afraid they are
going to be our choices again. Biden wouldn't step aside, and Trump has
too many followers for anyone else to get nominated.
I know nothing of arstechnica but I am very aware that the Guardian like
the BBC is not interested in the truth at all.
On 07/02/2024 17:23, TimS wrote:
Central government appoints ours. And don't imagine that this means
that our judges are political.
All the ones appointed by Bliar are.
As hard left and bolshy as can be.
In article <upvb9o$1b4u9$1@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
It’s worked really well in Australia. That’s what scares the US gun >>nuts.
By "worked really well," you meant to say that crime has skyrocketed,
right?
Instead, they get stabbed and cut with knives.
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 16:26:23 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:
In article <upvb9o$1b4u9$1@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
It’s worked really well in Australia. That’s what scares the US gun >>>nuts.
By "worked really well," you meant to say that crime has skyrocketed,
right?
I mean that mass shootings have become something of a rarity in Australia >now. Whereas they are a weekly occurrence in the USA.
Friend Scott overlooks that with a knife, there is some chance of
running away
from the situation. Rather less so if Chummy can plug you with his handgun >from a distance.
In article <uq0s9j$1jgqa$3@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
I mean that mass shootings have become something of a rarity in
Australia now. Whereas they are a weekly occurrence in the USA.
Hardly, at least not in the civilized parts of the country. Somewhere
like Chicago or DC (to pick a couple)?
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 09:27:44 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
I know nothing of arstechnica but I am very aware that the
Guardian like the BBC is not interested in the truth at all.
Did you hear this from some random loony on Facebook?
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 09:27:44 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
I know nothing of arstechnica but I am very aware that the Guardian like
the BBC is not interested in the truth at all.
Did you hear this from some random loony on Facebook?
Friend Scott overlooks that with a knife, there is some chance of running away
from the situation. Rather less so if Chummy can plug you with his handgun from a distance.
In article <uq0s9j$1jgqa$3@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 16:26:23 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:
In article <upvb9o$1b4u9$1@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
It’s worked really well in Australia. That’s what scares the US gun >>>> nuts.
By "worked really well," you meant to say that crime has skyrocketed,
right?
I mean that mass shootings have become something of a rarity in Australia
now. Whereas they are a weekly occurrence in the USA.
Hardly, at least not in the civilized parts of the country. Somewhere like Chicago or DC (to pick a couple)? They're getting what they voted for, good and hard, and them doing more of the same isn't going to improve their lot.
On 07/02/2024 18:03, TimS wrote:
Friend Scott overlooks that with a knife, there is some chance of
running away from the situation. Rather less so if Chummy can plug you
with his handgun from a distance.
It is extremely difficult to 'plug someone from a distance' with a
handgun.
In fact many fatalities are from handguns rounds that hit entirely the
wrong person altogether, by sheer chance.
On 07/02/2024 19:44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 09:27:44 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
I know nothing of arstechnica but I am very aware that the Guardian like >>> the BBC is not interested in the truth at all.
Did you hear this from some random loony on Facebook?
No, its an opinion framed by reading/listening to them.
There is an apocryphal statement allegedly made by I think Mark Twain,
more or less along the lines that :
"One can rely on the accuracy of newspapers except in a subject one has >direct and comprehensive knowledge of".
On 07 Feb 2024 at 23:36:18 GMT, "Scott Alfter" <Scott Alfter> wrote:
In article <uq0s9j$1jgqa$3@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 16:26:23 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:
In article <upvb9o$1b4u9$1@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
It’s worked really well in Australia. That’s what scares the US gun >>>>> nuts.
By "worked really well," you meant to say that crime has skyrocketed,
right?
I mean that mass shootings have become something of a rarity in Australia >>> now. Whereas they are a weekly occurrence in the USA.
Hardly, at least not in the civilized parts of the country. Somewhere like >> Chicago or DC (to pick a couple)? They're getting what they voted for, good >> and hard, and them doing more of the same isn't going to improve their lot.
I assume you refer to the "defunding of the police"?
I think the effective accurate range of a handgun is probably little
more than 5 meters, and in the hands of the average person, not even that.
In article <uq289f$1tfdb$7@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
I think the effective accurate range of a handgun is probably little
more than 5 meters, and in the hands of the average person, not even that.
I usually set up man-sized silhouette targets 7-10 yards out when shooting handguns. It's not that difficult to keep most of your hits within the silhouette, even though I don't practice nearly as much as I should.
In article <uq0miv$1iire$1@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 09:27:44 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
I know nothing of arstechnica but I am very aware that the Guardian
like the BBC is not interested in the truth at all.
Did you hear this from some random loony on Facebook?
I don't have a Facebook account.
My opinion was formed by own experiences and observations.
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 08:55:22 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
In article <uq0miv$1iire$1@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 09:27:44 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
I know nothing of arstechnica but I am very aware that the
Guardian like the BBC is not interested in the truth at all.
Did you hear this from some random loony on Facebook?
I don't have a Facebook account.
My opinion was formed by own experiences and observations.
Does that mean you have actually researched Elon Musk?
Or are you relying on other second-hand accounts of him,
that you, for some reason, deem more reliable than these?
I read what he posts and see what he blocks and what he doesn't.
He's not perfect but seems to be far more free speech than any of
the other major platforms. That's a big plus for me.
How much disinformation should we tolerate in the interests of free
speech?
In article <uq4b07$2fjnu$6@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 17:06:21 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:
Both have blatantly unconstitutional gun-control regimes in place...the
sort of laws that the hoplophobes assert without evidence would reduce
crime.
It worked in Australia. The secret is, it’s not enough to outlaw the
assault-style weapons, you also need to have a buyback scheme to force
them out of circulation.
"Buybacks" are nothing of the sort. The government can't "buy back" that which it never owned. Be honest and call it what it is: confiscation, usually at nowhere near what the firearms involved are worth.
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 17:06:21 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:
Both have blatantly unconstitutional gun-control regimes in place...the
sort of laws that the hoplophobes assert without evidence would reduce
crime.
It worked in Australia. The secret is, it’s not enough to outlaw the >assault-style weapons, you also need to have a buyback scheme to force
them out of circulation.
nowhere near what the firearms involved are worth.
We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
I read what he posts and see what he blocks and what he
doesn't.
There is an old Latin quote. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"?
It means "Who will guard the guardians?".
The cool thing about having to justify having things is that,
fundamentally, people does not need much.
"Buybacks" are nothing of the sort. The government can't "buy back" that which it never owned. Be honest and call it what it is: confiscation, usually at nowhere near what the firearms involved are worth.
The cool thing about having to justify having things is that, fundamentally, people does not need much.
You could keep a guy trapped in a hole and feed him with a nasograstric tube, and if he asked for anything we could deny it to him based on the assumption he
already has everything he needs in the hole you provided to him.
On 12 Feb 2024 19:10:53 GMT
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
Questionable justification for them to be in any hands IMHO.
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 13:51:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
There is an old Latin quote. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"?
It means "Who will guard the guardians?".
This is why we have things like “checks and balances” and “rule of law”,
to govern how we live together with others who may disagree with us, in peace.
Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
On 12 Feb 2024 at 18:50:58 GMT, "Scott Alfter" <Scott Alfter> wrote:
In article <uq4b07$2fjnu$6@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 17:06:21 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:
Both have blatantly unconstitutional gun-control regimes in place...the >>>> sort of laws that the hoplophobes assert without evidence would reduce >>>> crime.
It worked in Australia. The secret is, it’s not enough to outlaw the
assault-style weapons, you also need to have a buyback scheme to force
them out of circulation.
"Buybacks" are nothing of the sort. The government can't "buy back" that
which it never owned. Be honest and call it what it is: confiscation,
usually at nowhere near what the firearms involved are worth.
We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 09:45:56 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
I read what he posts and see what he blocks and what he
doesn't.
And yet when I give you information about that, you somehow
disbelieve it.
Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
As I've learnt that pretty much all media lies continuously in order
to subvert public opinion I'm sceptical to say the least.
In article <uqf4j8$1vsp3$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the truth?
During covid we were continuously told this and that were
"misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.
Since then, drip by drip so much of that misinformation turns out to
be true.
Fancy that.
In article <uqf4j8$1vsp3$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the truth?
During covid we were continuously told this and that were
"misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.
On 12/02/2024 20:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024 19:10:53 GMT
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
Questionable justification for them to be in any hands IMHO.
I think what is happening in Ukraine fully justifies their existence and
use. Because if the other side has them, you are going to be walked all
over unless you have them, too.
Unless you have access to the 'weapon shops of Isher' :-)
Example: Covid was real, and it was and still is a killer. But was
lockdown the appropriate reaction? Who made money selling masks whose
effect seems mainly symbolic? And just why was the 'free' vaccine deemed ineffective or unsafe and the massively profit making ones deemed de rigeur?
On 12/02/2024 19:10, TimS wrote:
We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
The problem with that, is where do you draw the line?
Is this a sensible place to draw the line?
And whilst gangland shootings may be scarce, our middle eastern friends
have brought with them a culture of knives, the larger and more vicious
the better.
On 12/02/2024 20:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024 19:10:53 GMT
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
Questionable justification for them to be in any hands IMHO.
I think what is happening in Ukraine fully justifies their existence and
use. Because if the other side has them, you are going to be walked all
over unless you have them, too.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:29:08 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/02/2024 20:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024 19:10:53 GMT
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
Questionable justification for them to be in any hands IMHO.
I think what is happening in Ukraine fully justifies their existence and
use. Because if the other side has them, you are going to be walked all
Yes that's always the justification - "the bad guys have them",
therein lies the problem.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:29:08 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/02/2024 20:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024 19:10:53 GMT
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
Questionable justification for them to be in any hands IMHO.
I think what is happening in Ukraine fully justifies their existence and
use. Because if the other side has them, you are going to be walked all
Yes that's always the justification - "the bad guys have them",
therein lies the problem.
over unless you have them, too.
The ideal (almost certainly unreachable) state is that nobody has
them. I can't help feeling that there should be a better solution to some people having them than everyone having them - because that's not a
solution.
On 13 Feb 2024 at 09:50:25 GMT, "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <uqf4j8$1vsp3$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the truth?
During covid we were continuously told this and that were
"misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.
Well, you figure it out. We were told the vaccines were coming, and they
did, and I've taken every one that has since been offered, and guess
what, I've never had Covid. Meanwhile we were also told that the vaccines didn't work, caused millions of fatalities, were the spawn of Satan, were
an attempt to control us all with microchips, etc.
So no prizes for guessing which viewpoint I support.
In article <uqf4j8$1vsp3$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the truth?
During covid we were continuously told this and that were
"misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.
Since then, drip by drip so much of that misinformation turns out to
be true.
Fancy that.
On 13 Feb 2024 at 12:14:57 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
The ideal (almost certainly unreachable) state is that nobody has
them. I can't help feeling that there should be a better solution to
some people having them than everyone having them - because that's not a solution.
Sure it's a solution. You may not like it, but it's a solution. All you're doing is belling the cat.
On 13 Feb 2024 at 09:50:25 GMT, "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <uqf4j8$1vsp3$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the
truth?
During covid we were continuously told this and that were
"misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.
Well, you figure it out.
We were told the vaccines were coming, and they did,
and I've taken every one that has since been offered, and guess
what, I've never had Covid.
Meanwhile we were also told that the vaccines didn't work,
caused millions of fatalities,
were the spawn of Satan, were an attempt to control us all with
microchips, etc.
So no prizes for guessing which viewpoint I support.
On 13 Feb 2024 at 09:50:25 GMT, "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <uqf4j8$1vsp3$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the truth?
During covid we were continuously told this and that were
"misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.
Well, you figure it out. We were told the vaccines were coming, and they did, and I've taken every one that has since been offered, and guess what, I've never had Covid. Meanwhile we were also told that the vaccines didn't work, caused millions of fatalities, were the spawn of Satan, were an attempt to control us all with microchips, etc.
So no prizes for guessing which viewpoint I support.
Certainly I can't think of anyone I know that hasn't had covid, not
one. A good proportion have had it twice and some 3 times. I don't
know anyone who didn't have the first 3 jabs at least.
In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Vaccinations certainly did work,
Well I'm very sure they do not prevent transmission.
Bob.
On 13 Feb 2024 at 12:14:57 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:29:08 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/02/2024 20:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024 19:10:53 GMT
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any >>>>> justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
Questionable justification for them to be in any hands IMHO.
I think what is happening in Ukraine fully justifies their existence and >>> use. Because if the other side has them, you are going to be walked all
Yes that's always the justification - "the bad guys have them",
therein lies the problem.
It's usually a single bad guy. WW2 only happened because of Adolf, Ukraine only happened because of Putin. If we get trouble in the Pacific, it will be because of Xi.
It only takes one to make war; it takes two to make peace. After 1991, we all thought Russia was on a peaceful/democratic trajectory, and we were encouraged
by the Chinese changing leaders every ten years. Thats all gone by the board now, and we have to adapt accordingly, just as we eventually did in the 1930s.
On 12 Feb 2024 at 18:50:58 GMT, "Scott Alfter" <Scott Alfter> wrote:
"Buybacks" are nothing of the sort. The government can't "buy back" that
which it never owned. Be honest and call it what it is: confiscation,
usually at nowhere near what the firearms involved are worth.
We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any >justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
Vaccinations certainly did work,
On 13/02/2024 15:32, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Vaccinations certainly did work,
Well I'm very sure they do not prevent transmission.
Bob.
They reduce the likelihood of onward transmission.
In article <uqf4j8$1vsp3$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the truth?
During covid we were continuously told this and that were
"misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.
Since then, drip by drip so much of that misinformation turns out to
be true.
In article <5b31fc9be8bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the
truth?
During covid we were continuously told this and that were
"misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.
Since then, drip by drip so much of that misinformation turns out
to be true.
...and much of what governments were spewing out proved to be total
bullshit. Probably the worst offender in this regard was Jacinda
Ardern insisting that the Kiwis only trust her misbegotten regime,
but there was plenty of authoritarian big-government nonsense to go
around.
Vaccinations certainly did work
but we got the ones Big Pharma made the most cash out of...
Anthony Fauci also made a killing
They also "worked" to give big-government authoritarians their wet
dream of near-absolute control over society.
In article <FNMyN.223034$yEgf.108859@fx09.iad>,
Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
Probably the worst offender in this regard was Jacinda
Ardern insisting that the Kiwis only trust her misbegotten regime,
but there was plenty of authoritarian big-government nonsense to go
around.
Yes, indeed fully agree and she is awful.
In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Vaccinations certainly did work
For certain values of "work" that have little to do with your health...see below.
but we got the ones Big Pharma made the most cash out of...
Absolutely. They "worked" to line the pockets of Pfizer and Moderna execs. Anthony Fauci also made a killing off of royalties regarding the poison jabs...never mind that his government paycheck was already bigger than the President's.
They also "worked" to give big-government authoritarians their wet dream of near-absolute control over society.
In article <uqg36u$258bd$1@dont-email.me>,
mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:
On 13/02/2024 15:32, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Vaccinations certainly did work,
Well I'm very sure they do not prevent transmission.
Bob.
They reduce the likelihood of onward transmission.
That's a new one, where did you get that from?
Do I take that as a tacit admission that vaccines don't protect you
from infection? Have we also dropped the notion that it helps if you
get infected?
So beforehand we were told - asymptomatic transmission, very
important, anyone, even perfectly well people can give you covid but
now, even people who are ill and infected are safer because of the
vaccine?
Do people cough, sneeze and breath less ?
Why then hasn't covid stopped?
My friends wife had covid for at least the second time a month ago.
My cousin who honestly is a GP somewhere in the Monmouthshire/Bristol
border has just had it for the first time. Fully jabbed of course.
I'll quote what she wrote...
Cousin wrote"
So sorry to be late replying .
I have had Covid for the last week and have actually felt quite
poorly . It‘s amazing that I have managed to dodge it for so long -
my first Covid of the pandemic. Thinking that I‘ve had all the
vaccinations offered and peoples comments that‘s it‘s ‘ like a bad
cold now lulled me into complacency.
I am starting to improve but along the way I have felt pretty unwell, breathless and lost my sense taste / smell .
I have had to cancel 3 days of work which I hate as I don‘t like
admitting illness .
To someone who loves their food and adores eating experiences‘ I am going to be mighty upset if the sense of taste doesn‘t come back . Obviously I can‘t moan too much as being left on ITU on a ventilator
is much worse !!
Anyway I do feel I‘ve turned a bit of a corner today but (husband)
has started sniffing and sneezing Œ..Oh dear .
" end quote.
I've seen no evidence vaccines do much good but they do do harm.
Bob.
In article <FcNyN.284157$Ama9.135706@fx12.iad>,
Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
Anthony Fauci also made a killing
And allegedly funding 'gain of function' work on viruses at the Wuhan
lab.
They also "worked" to give big-government authoritarians their wet
dream of near-absolute control over society.
Some people in governments and in society revealed themselves as
ruthless authoritarian bullies. I understood for the first time some
of what happened to the German people in the early 1930s. How on
mass, people lost it and became an uncivilised mob.
Bob.
On 13/02/2024 16:26, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <uqg36u$258bd$1@dont-email.me>,
mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:
On 13/02/2024 15:32, Bob Latham wrote:
Do I take that as a tacit admission that vaccines don't protect
you from infection? Have we also dropped the notion that it helps
if you get infected?
Oh dear. We have an ArtStudent mind. Stuck in Boolean logic.
You are asking an ArtStudent question.
The scientific questions is *how much* do vaccines reduce the risk
of infection, and the severity of the subsequent disease, and the
answer is, shitloads.
Anyone of any minor intelligence who actually thinks about it,
understands that. Vaccines increase natural immunity. It takes more
of someone else's virus load to make you sick and you wont get
*as* sick.
So leave you stupid 'is it perfect?, if not it doesn't work' logic
at home.
Do people cough, sneeze and breath less ?
Yes, they cough, sneeze and breath less virus load.
Why then hasn't covid stopped?
It *has* stopped. Killing people.
Vaccines have brought it down to flu level - a bad week maybe in
bed with painkillers, and that's it. Not a life threatening
infection with people gasping for breath and dying.
I suffer when my blood oxygen goes below 90%, which it has done at
times when I was being loaded into an ambulance.
The [paramedics said 'its when its down at 50% an te patient is
blue and gasping for breath, that we put on the blue lights and
sirens' I saidf'whgen does that happen?'
'Covid'.
Almaist everybody has had it by now
Lucky cousin. Without vaccinations she would probably be dead.
I've seen no evidence vaccines do much good but they do do harm.
The evidence is that the episode your cousin has is now as bad as
it gets.
If you cant see that, don't get jabbed and die in a respirator
gasping for breath, like so many others have.
On 13/02/2024 12:41, TimS wrote:
On 13 Feb 2024 at 12:14:57 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net>No. That is criminally naive. The reasons why Adolf, Putin and Xi became leaders are rooted in many other economic and geopolitical factors.
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:29:08 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 12/02/2024 20:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:Yes that's always the justification - "the bad guys have them",
On 12 Feb 2024 19:10:53 GMT
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any >>>>>> justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
Questionable justification for them to be in any hands IMHO.
I think what is happening in Ukraine fully justifies their existence and >>>> use. Because if the other side has them, you are going to be walked all >>>
therein lies the problem.
It's usually a single bad guy. WW2 only happened because of Adolf, Ukraine >> only happened because of Putin. If we get trouble in the Pacific, it will be >> because of Xi.
They were and are products of their time and place. Just like Donald
Trump is.
It only takes one to make war; it takes two to make peace. After 1991, we allPutin wont hand in his guns just because you do. That's all I am saying.
thought Russia was on a peaceful/democratic trajectory, and we were encouraged
by the Chinese changing leaders every ten years. Thats all gone by the board >> now, and we have to adapt accordingly, just as we eventually did in the 1930s.
In article <l313evF4k5pU1@mid.individual.net>,
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
On 13 Feb 2024 at 09:50:25 GMT, "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <uqf4j8$1vsp3$5@dont-email.me>,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the
truth?
During covid we were continuously told this and that were
"misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.
Well, you figure it out.
I do remember a tremendous number of people demanding all sorts of
extreme actions against those that didn't want the vaccine. It opened
my eyes to how quickly normal people could become unhinged and
barbaric. People should be able to decide if they want the medication
or not, extreme pressure placed on people was disgusting.
video) the manufacturer Pfizer if I recall correctly, said that no
testing of transmission was ever done. There was never any basis for
the madness. Some have since apologised most have not, most notably
the unhinged media.
Certainly I can't think of anyone I know that hasn't had covid, not
one. A good proportion have had it twice and some 3 times. I don't
know anyone who didn't have the first 3 jabs at least.
I'm 90% sure that the vaccine does not affect transmission.
They *may* help if you get infected not seen enough data.
Vaccines have caused many people serious injury.
Masks even N95 masks are useless they're just theatre.
Asymptomatic transmission was never a serious factor, I will not
claim it didn't happen but for the most part it was propaganda from
the nudge units.
PCR testing in the UK used double the sensible levels of
amplification cycles. People who should know said you could find
anything in anyone with that level of amplification.
Remember the videos from China of people dropping dead at bus stops.
We were told the vaccines were coming, and they did,
Yes, remarkably quickly, too quickly.
My wife and I had the first 3 jabs. Had we known then what we think
we know now, including what happened to us, we would not have done so.
On 13/02/2024 15:32, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1@dont-email.me>,They reduce the likelihood of onward transmission.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Vaccinations certainly did work,
Well I'm very sure they do not prevent transmission.
In article <l2v8ptFomvlU1@mid.individual.net>,
TimS <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
On 12 Feb 2024 at 18:50:58 GMT, "Scott Alfter" <Scott Alfter> wrote:
"Buybacks" are nothing of the sort. The government can't "buy back" that >>> which it never owned. Be honest and call it what it is: confiscation,
usually at nowhere near what the firearms involved are worth.
We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
...and that is why you're a subject of your country, not a citizen.
The vaccines don't stop you getting infected, absolute fact !!
I've seen no evidence the vaccines improve your recovery.
It *may* do but I've seen zero evidence only conjecture and wishful
thinking by the guilty.
I've seen no evidence that it reduces transmission at all. The
manufacturers have admitted that no testing on transmission was done.
Perhaps you've forgotten , the virus mutated to a much milder forms
again and again, Alpha, Beta, Delta, Omicron.
The
manufacturers have admitted that no testing on transmission was done.
On 13 Feb 2024 at 21:32:57 GMT, "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
The vaccines don't stop you getting infected, absolute fact !!
I've seen no evidence the vaccines improve your recovery.
It *may* do but I've seen zero evidence only conjecture and wishful
thinking by the guilty.
I've seen no evidence that it reduces transmission at all. The
manufacturers have admitted that no testing on transmission was done.
Perhaps you've forgotten , the virus mutated to a much milder forms
again and again, Alpha, Beta, Delta, Omicron.
Look, we know all this. Why d'ye keep trotting it out as if it's profound in some fashion?
a) vaccines prime your immune system. So if you do get it, covid won't be as bad as it would otherwise have been.
b) viruses mutate. Which is why I keep taking the jabs as they are offered. It's routine now: I get a message from the climic and I go there are they give
me a covid jab in one arm, and flu in the other, at the same time. This will now happen every winter. Prior to covid, I was getting the annual flu jab late
every year. Only had flu once in the last 20 years - and that was because that
particular jab was only goodd for 3 of the 4 strains going around, and I was unlucky.
c) Vaccines/transmission. Just because I'm vaccinated doesn't affect the virus
load someone coughs on me. What vaccination *does* affect is subsequent events. Which is what counts. So stop bleating that the manufacturers did no transmission tests. Why would they? Why would anyone expect them to?
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:36:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
... it will remind people of why there used to be a
balance between their Lord's temporal - the judiciary - their Lords
Spiritual - the Church, and the actual pragmatic government, which was
electable, in charge of keeping the peace and protecting the realm, not
of engaging in moral dictatorship.
Were there reliable, independent sources of information back in those
days?
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:50:25 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the truth?
The question is not “who”, the question is “how”. There are well-known
techniques for verifying information. The good journalists know about
those.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 16:29:25 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:
Probably the worst offender in this regard was Jacinda Ardern
insisting that the Kiwis only trust her misbegotten regime ...
She got us through the pandemic, much more successfully than some other countries (I can mention names, if you like). That took the courage to act quickly and decisively, which she had.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:14:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Vaccinations certainly did work ...
Wow, I guess we can count that as a step forward, at least.
... but we got the ones Big Pharma made the most cash out of...
There’s always a new twist on the “conspiracy”, isn’t there?
On 14/02/2024 20:56, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:36:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
... it will remind people of why there used to be a balance between
their Lord's temporal - the judiciary - their Lords Spiritual - the
Church, and the actual pragmatic government, which was electable, in
charge of keeping the peace and protecting the realm, not of engaging
in moral dictatorship.
Were there reliable, independent sources of information back in those
days?
Of course not.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 07:44:46 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/02/2024 20:56, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:36:54 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
... it will remind people of why there used to be a balance between
their Lord's temporal - the judiciary - their Lords Spiritual - the
Church, and the actual pragmatic government, which was electable, in
charge of keeping the peace and protecting the realm, not of engaging
in moral dictatorship.
Were there reliable, independent sources of information back in those
days?
Of course not.
So what was this “balance” you were talking about?
On 13/02/2024 16:26, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <uqg36u$258bd$1@dont-email.me>,
mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:
On 13/02/2024 15:32, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Vaccinations certainly did work,
Well I'm very sure they do not prevent transmission.
Bob.
They reduce the likelihood of onward transmission.
That's a new one, where did you get that from?
Do I take that as a tacit admission that vaccines don't protect
you from infection? Have we also dropped the notion that it helps
if you get infected?
Oh dear. We have an ArtStudent? mind. Stuck in Boolean logic.
You are asking an ArtStudent? question.
The scientific questions is *how much* do vaccines reduce the risk
of infection, and the severity of the subsequent disease, and the
answer is, shitloads.
It *has* stopped. Killing people. Vaccines have brought it down to
flu level - a bad week maybe in bed with painkillers, and that's
it. Not a life threatening infection with people gasping for
breath and dying.
Lucky cousin. Without vaccinations she would probably be dead.
I've seen no evidence vaccines do much good but they do do harm.
The evidence is that the episode your cousin has is now as bad as
it gets.
If you cant see that, don't get jabbed and die in a respirator
gasping for breath, like so many others have.
In article <uqgids$283df$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 13/02/2024 16:26, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <uqg36u$258bd$1@dont-email.me>,Oh dear. We have an ArtStudent? mind. Stuck in Boolean logic.
mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:
On 13/02/2024 15:32, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Vaccinations certainly did work,
Well I'm very sure they do not prevent transmission.
Bob.
They reduce the likelihood of onward transmission.
That's a new one, where did you get that from?
Do I take that as a tacit admission that vaccines don't protect
you from infection? Have we also dropped the notion that it helps
if you get infected?
You are asking an ArtStudent? question.
The scientific questions is *how much* do vaccines reduce the risk
of infection, and the severity of the subsequent disease, and the
answer is, shitloads.
[Snip]
It *has* stopped. Killing people. Vaccines have brought it down to
flu level - a bad week maybe in bed with painkillers, and that's
it. Not a life threatening infection with people gasping for
breath and dying.
[Snip]
Lucky cousin. Without vaccinations she would probably be dead.
I've seen no evidence vaccines do much good but they do do harm.
The evidence is that the episode your cousin has is now as bad as
it gets.
If you cant see that, don't get jabbed and die in a respirator
gasping for breath, like so many others have.
TNP, as time goes by and more and more truth comes out I'm sure
evidence will overwhelm your statements above, it's already starting.
Take the time to watch these two videos. The first looks at the
effects of midazolam which killed thousands but was attributed to
covid. The second looks at vaccines.. He also, as an aside remark,
points out that it was omicron which finally stopped the covid deaths.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3cqo9V2MzM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMYZg8_22y8
YouTuber, Susan Oliver, and her dog Cindy, deal with John Campbell in multiple videos:
<https://www.youtube.com/@Backtothescience>
She also gives an interesting discussion of AstraZeneca Covid vaccine.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49DjUSD8aWQ>
In article <v49brp$urgb$1@dont-email.me>,
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
YouTuber, Susan Oliver, and her dog Cindy, deal with John Campbell in
multiple videos:
<https://www.youtube.com/@Backtothescience>
She also gives an interesting discussion of AstraZeneca Covid vaccine.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49DjUSD8aWQ>
Reaction as I expected. :-)
He didn't wrte the papers or create the data.
On 11/06/2024 13:19, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <v49brp$urgb$1@dont-email.me>,
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
YouTuber, Susan Oliver, and her dog Cindy, deal with John Campbell in
multiple videos:
<https://www.youtube.com/@Backtothescience>
She also gives an interesting discussion of AstraZeneca Covid vaccine.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49DjUSD8aWQ>
Reaction as I expected. :-)
He didn't wrte the papers or create the data.
There are many bad academic papers, Campbell picks them and
misrepresents the results to boost his YouTube subscribers. If you
watched Susan Oliver's critiques, it might become clearer to you.
No one wants to watch John Campbell repeatedly telling them the
pandemic is over, so he tells them some bollocks, about a vaccine
conspiracy, and they continue subscribing.
I did learn one new pithy idea...
Brandolini's law: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is
an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
In article <v4agua$160mo$1@dont-email.me>,
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 11/06/2024 13:19, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <v49brp$urgb$1@dont-email.me>,
Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
YouTuber, Susan Oliver, and her dog Cindy, deal with John Campbell in
multiple videos:
<https://www.youtube.com/@Backtothescience>
She also gives an interesting discussion of AstraZeneca Covid vaccine.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49DjUSD8aWQ>
Reaction as I expected. :-)
He didn't wrte the papers or create the data.
There are many bad academic papers, Campbell picks them and
misrepresents the results to boost his YouTube subscribers. If you
watched Susan Oliver's critiques, it might become clearer to you.
No one wants to watch John Campbell repeatedly telling them the
pandemic is over, so he tells them some bollocks, about a vaccine
conspiracy, and they continue subscribing.
Several things show up in your text. You refer to him as Campbell so
your opinion is biased before you start.
You make no mention of peer
reviewed. You tell me one persons review is accurate and Dr. Campbell
is bollocks but that just means you like one narrative more than
another. You of course suggest that you opinion is fact but give no
evidence.
You tell me one persons review is accurate and Dr. CampbellChrist on a bike.
is bollocks but that just means you like one narrative more than
another.
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 140:35:58 |
| Calls: | 166 |
| Files: | 5,389 |
| Messages: | 223,239 |
