Personally, I’m more confused about what in that would be considered “homophobic”. Although I’m not sure “bitch” is misogynist, per se (I’ve seen women use it plenty in the exact same way men do, including the relevant use), I get what you mean since it is most commonly used (as a noun) as a clearly derogatory and offensive slur against a woman/women, so I won’t quibble on that. However, I’m not sure how it’d be homophobic.
I don’t believe that’s quite the reason, partly for reasons outlined by nasch, partly because other drugs capable of causing life-threatening withdrawal aren’t also considered “essential”, and partly because there are other ways to mitigate withdrawal. Instead, I think it’s because of something unique about alcohol compared to other drugs.
You see, as far as I can tell, caffeine and alcohol are the only drugs that one takes by drinking a beverage containing them that are also present in drinkable beverages naturally (rather than being there naturally). At least, they’re the only legal drugs that don’t require a prescription that can be taken that way. Every other drug (legal, controlled, or illegal) gets smoked, snorted, inhaled, stuck on the user’s skin, chewed and spit out, injected, or taken in the form of a pill or tablet that either gets dissolved in the mouth or a beverage that gets consumed or gets swallowed directly.
Now, all foods and beverages—regardless of nutritional value (or lack thereof), benefits or detriments to human health, or ingredients—that haven’t been explicitly banned for reasons other than the pandemic by, say, the FDA or health inspectors or something are considered “essential goods” as far as the stay-at-home orders are concerned. There isn’t really an exception made for alcoholic beverages. Humans need to drink something to live, and as unhealthy as they can be, alcoholic beverages are technically capable of quenching one’s thirst. In that sense, it’s just like caffeinated beverages; whether or not the food or beverage happens to contain alcohol is immaterial to whether or not it is considered “essential”.
It’s also like how candy, snacks, cookies, pastries, ice cream, sherbet, popsicles, and other clearly unhealthy foods are considered “essential”; they are foods, therefore they are essential and are exempt. There is no individual weighing of which specific foods or beverages are deemed “essential”; they all get lumped together for this purpose.
Key part there is “average-sized man”. If you are on the smaller side and/or are female, those can reduce the minimum drinks needed to get to the fifty-fifty chance of having major, life-threatening withdrawals. And there are other factors involved that could further raise or lower the threshold.
Though, it should be noted that for such people, the threshold for dying from drinking too much alcohol too quickly is also lowered, so they would be less likely to survive long enough to get to major withdrawal to begin with.
Largely true, at least regarding local governments, governors, senators (like Tillis), and the POTUS, but not entirely the case where districting is a factor, such as federal or state House Representatives and some or all state senators, since gerrymandering has made it more difficult to get people of certain parties into certain positions. Still, even there, there are at least some solutions that don’t involve the nuclear option.
People are actually arguing about dangers from the radiation (some of whom have been referenced by name in articles and comments on this site), and that’s what I and others here are addressing.
In fact, you yourself made that argument:
Although its nice to see that he acknowledges that the evidence is not conclusive as to whether or not males exposed to 5G radiation are more likely to have daughters rather than sons; or that children might be affected by said radiation
So, yeah. That’s a claim actually being made, not some strawman argument. Issues like being an eyesore, against local zoning laws, privacy concerns, concerns about citizens’ rights vs. corporate power, or ruining hillside views are completely separate issues that we are not addressing or disputing here. In fact, I think we all agree that most or all of those are valid, reasonable concerns to have on the issue of 5G deployment.
Also, none of us are saying that telecom doesn’t do any or all of of what you just said. However, none of that has to do with whether the radiation from the towers is safe or not, and that’s the only issue being argued about here. It is one of the very, very few issues where we don’t side against the telecom industry.
That guy in Australia you mention may have perfectly valid concerns, but we aren’t addressing his concerns. That is a completely different discussion from the one that we are actually having here. This is a discussion about actual disinformation being spread both by trolls and actual living, breathing human beings, some of whom are people that a lot of other actual humans respect and listen to, about health effects and safety of 5G, specifically the radiation.
I like your dance around ionizing v. non-ionizing radiation, but really, that is not the actual argument you are sperging.
When I mentioned “non-ionizing radiation”, it was part of a broader discussion about what potential dangers electromagnetic radiation could actually have. Low-frequency ultraviolet radiation and any EM radiation with a longer wavelength than ultraviolet is “non-ionizing”, so we don’t have to worry about the dangers unique to ionizing radiation. (Ionizing radiation is also the exception to the rule that shorter wavelengths = less penetration. It’s actually kinda the opposite, as shorter wavelengths on the ionizing part of the EM spectrum tend to be better at penetration; though they still don’t travel quite as far and lose energy quickly, they have so much energy that they still have enough to potentially cause damage even after losing some from penetrating a human body or something.) I was heading off potential counterarguments, that’s all.
For non-ionizing radiation (which 5G signals absolutely are), the rule of thumb is that longer wavelengths travel further and are better at penetrating through solid matter. In particular, around the microwave portion of the EM spectrum, there is a metaphorical line that divides non-ionizing radiation that can penetrate through human skin and that which gets blocked by human skin. 5G is around the microwave area, so it doesn’t travel very far and gets blocked by walls, floors, roofs, and human skin. As such, there is no reason to be concerned with the possibility of internal damage or health effects from 5G radiation. (Everything with longer wavelengths than 5G, which can travel pretty far and may be able to penetrate human skin, has been studied extensively to rule out any potential health risks, and none have been found. Really, any wavelengths long enough to penetrate human skin don’t really appear to have any significant effect on the human body at all.)
Null....wut?
“it still leans more towards the null hypothesis than not, and there is no strong reason to believe the results will differ from that”
Keyword "error".
Huh? I never said “error” there.
As for the null hypothesis, it’s basically the default assumption, which is something like “X doesn’t cause Y,” “X doesn’t correlate significantly with Y,” and/or “X has no significant connection with Y”. Scientists, researchers, engineers, and statistians often base a significant part of their conclusions on whether the data is sufficient to rule out the null hypothesis as a reasonable explanation for their observations. It’s basically the thing that can theoretically be disproven beyond a doubt but not 100% definitively proven beyond a doubt, at least from a logical standpoint. You can’t really prove a negative, after all.
If you wish to err on the side of probably most likely, ok, wut the heck, that's your business.
I was just being careful with language. Most researchers and scientists almost never say things like “absolutely,” “100%,” “impossible,” “certain,” “always,” or “never” without an extremely overwhelming amount of evidence to support it, if then. They tend to be very careful with their words, which suggests more uncertainty on their part than what other people think they have. I’m the same way. Don’t read too much into it.
As for daughters, I can only say that girls rule, dude. Again, you are jousting your phony phallus at strawmen that you in-house trolls build yourselves.
Again, from your comment:
Although its nice to see that he acknowledges that the evidence is not conclusive as to whether or not males exposed to 5G radiation are more likely to have daughters rather than sons
“when men, who work in developing radar systems, have children, they tend to have daughters rather than sons”
I was responding to a specific argument that you made. I wasn’t putting words into anyone’s mouth. I said that to make clear that I have no concerns about a hypothetical 5G tower being on the roof of my house. I don’t consider that allegation about 5G’s potential effects on humans to be a valid concern in any sense, so that it may not have been explicitly and overwhelmingly disproven doesn’t weigh against my decision at all. Whether or not you, personally, actually believe that allegation to be true, the fact is that you brought it up first, so it was fair game for me to address it.
None of you have an actual Don Quixote bone in your body, because you are all i/o zombies.
Considering the fact that Don Quixote was the inspiration for the phrase “tilting at windmills” (an encounter that did not end well for him, to be blunt) and was legitimately delusional, I’m okay with not “hav[ing] an actual Don Quixote bone in [my] body.” Sure, he was brave and had pure, good intentions, and he was an idealist, but he was also delusional and foolish. I have no intention of tilting at windmills.
What the actual fuck is "avoh" anyways? I am putting that out to the group. Can anyone find me a [citation] on the meaning of avoh?
I think what was intended was this:
[…]you look like an asshole when you do it, and you’d probably want to av— Oh, what am I saying; you’re going to look like an asshole no matter what you do.
That is, he was interrupting the word “avoid” to say “oh”. The lack of space or punctuation in between was likely meant to suggest that the transition was abrupt and instantaneous, with no pause or trailing ending.
And for those looking over my shoulder right now, note this:
“You are responding to specific people in your posts”
Most of you are aware of my thesis on that one, as well as the history of his conduct here, so I won't elaborate.
If this is a reference to your unsubstantiated theories and claims of bots on this site, then just substitute “entities”, “accounts”, “users”, “comments”, “posts”, or something along those lines for “people”. Whether or not there is a particular, actual, live human being behind the online persona is immaterial to this particular point. None of what you just said in that quote actually refutes the point being made here. It improves readability for everyone to use “reply to this” when you are clearly addressing a particular comment and/or user, so everyone has an easier time following the discussion of you do.
Now: only the vain, the conceited and the fraudster care what they look like. I could care less how I appear to anyone, though its been said I am even quite appealing on stage and in film.
I don’t think anyone mentioned physical appearances, but I think many people would argue that what you say here makes you seem vain, conceited, and/or a fraudster, and that makes it less likely that anyone will actually take what you say seriously or believe it to be truthful or accurate.
Real humans know my story, where to find it, and how to cite it. TD forum dialectic creeps, spergs and K4 styled bullies, and word rapists, not so much.
Still waiting for that explanation of “K4”.
Also, you have yet to provide any information regarding where you or your story can be found, and there is no evidence available to us to support your claims that anyone, real human or not, can find you. As such, I have no reason to believe this claim at all.
First of all, it’s, “To err is human.” I wouldn’t point that out normally, but whatever. More importantly, what error are you referring to here?
Pure Spergold from a known troll and derailer:
Considering the fact that you have previously admitted to trollish behavior and motives and that you are always derailing threads by constantly bringing up unrelated and irrelevant topics, this seems like projection to me.
“It’s just good manners and basic common sense to use the ‘reply to this’”
Not here at TD its not.
The fact that—as far as I can tell—everyone else who comments on TD—including regulars, trolls, and ACs—nearly always do so suggests otherwise. You’re the only one I know of who avoids using “reply to this” on multiple occasions or who has attempted to justify not using it where it would be appropriate to use it. I have no idea why you think it’s not good manners and common sense here, but it is.
Doing so makes one a flag target of TDs in-house spergs. My job is not to make online bullying any easier than it is already.
First, most people who comment and/or flag comments here aren’t “in-house”, and I’m pretty sure that I’m one of the few—if not only—people with Asperger’s who comments regularly here. As such, there are no “in-house spergs” at TD who target people for flagging.
Second, based on past and present observations, the idea that using “reply to this” to post a reply to a comment rather than making a new thread creates any observable increase in how many people will flag the reply doesn’t appear to be accurate. In fact, your replies-not-posted-as-replies seem to be getting hidden at least as quickly as your replies-posted-as-replies in the same comment section, so if this was an experiment, it seems clear the hypothesis has been disproven. Perhaps you were under the impression that, when someone opts in to getting email alerts when new comments get posted, they only get alerted to new replies in that particular thread. That is not the case; we get an email alert any time anyone posts a new comment—whether it’s the start of a new thread or a reply to an existing comment, and whether the person posts as a registered user, an AC, or not signed in but with a pseudonym—on that article. Or perhaps you thing that most regular commenters here only read specific threads in the comments section after the first time. Again, this is untrue.
Third, flagging your comments to be hidden is not online bullying. That your comments frequently get flagged says more about you and your comments than any of us.
Honestly, had I encountered people here with good manners, I would have returned the favor. That wasn't the case. So, really, easy on the Dear John letters to reason and etiquette.
The first comment of yours that I could find wasn’t exactly polite, and I have tried to remain polite with you since I first encountered you. As such, I find your claim unlikely to be true at best. At the very least, I have yet to see any evidence of such.
What I encountered with you and about six other nameable Techdirt in-house trolls was anything BUT manners, targeting my posts for well over two years with the flag button, maligning, and smearing me personally, every time I cracked your pet oyster: Israeli IDF meddling in US activists lives and elections,the K4 mobs, the ADL and its related NGOs online trolling tactics, or real world crimes, like using redirection and forum trolling to assist in the creation of mass shooters offline in the real world.
Again, I’m not “in-house”, and as for targeting your posts, I didn’t even know you existed until a few months ago, so there clearly hasn’t been anything I’ve been doing to you for two years. I also haven’t maligned or smeared you personally. I may have said negative things about your claims, arguments, and tone, but I have actively avoided saying anything about you, personally. Heck, I originally focused on just asking for clarification, evidence, or decorum or pointing out flaws in your arguments, but then you began insulting me for no apparent reason. Since then, I’ve been less polite, but I’ve still avoided calling you names or saying bad things about you.
As for why your posts about that topic tend to get flagged or called out, there a number of good reasons for that.
Poor tone, name-calling, and bad manners without apparent, sufficient justification.
You have previously admitted to having trollish motives and have engaged in troll-like behavior.
You come off as sounding like as a conspiracy theorist.
Such posts have generally had little to no relation to the conversation at hand or the article on which they are posted, often derailing the discussion greatly.
You tell people they should kill themselves in an online forum open to the public.
You commonly appear to engage in projection and hypocrisy.
You have a long, clear history of engaging in all of the above.
Any one of those reasons would be sufficient for many to flag your posts. There is no need to presume conspiracy, harassment, organization, or anything like that.
SO, yeah, that said, I know that you are a representation of something calling itself "bhul" online.
Perhaps you are the sweaty socks, pizza-staining on momma's couch sperg persona version of Siriworking out some issues with machine learning and pseudo scepticism v. rational discourse v. actual human centered discourse.
That's all I know with any certainty. As you noted it still leans more towards the null hypothesis that you are a bot, because I cannot rule you in as an actual sentient human in my hypothesis, and most evidence points the timesucker/bot/sperg/other direction.
Again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the null hypothesis. The idea that the other entity is human (i.e. not a bot) is the null hypothesis in this situation. You would have to find evidence proving or at least suggesting that I’m not a human. (Also, having Asperger’s (or, as you call it, being a “sperg”) would mean that I am an actual sentient human, not a bot. Bots don’t have mental disorders.)
Seriously, stop trying to use ideas you clearly don’t understand.
SO, exactly what logical fallacy is it that I need to look at in my manual for online discourse-the "how to argue disingenuously online for crisis PR and NGO causes" one?
I, for one, haven’t argued at all “for crisis PR and NGO causes”, or at least not as far as I can tell. At any rate, logical fallacies aren’t based on motives but on content and form. I’d need examples of specific arguments to point out any fallacies that they may or may not have used.
You are consistently a aowrd bombing time sucker, and I don't have time today to engage with your sperg rulesets based in crisis PR manuals and military grade disinformation online tactical assaults against actual human speech which sometimes has a hidden, non-binary meaning; its own para-language and semantic cues.
And yet you already are, in quite the lengthy comment at that.
Also, I haven’t read any “crisis PR manuals”, nor have I personally dealt with or been involved with “military[-]grade disinformation online tactical assaults” of any sort.
And yes, I’m well aware that “actual human speech […] sometimes has a hidden, non-binary meaning; its own para-language and semantic cues.” It is something I have had to grapple with my whole life. I’m not perfect at it, but I still have a pretty decent grasp on the concept. However, actual human speech can also be blunt and/or binary sometimes, and there are non-binary frameworks for logic that work well even for the situations you reference. Sure, it may be important to “read between the lines”, but it’s also important to “not read to much into things”.
You bots will never master that, to whit:
“Oh, and this is the wrong thread for that, buddy”
Number one, I ain't your buddy, and number two, I deliberately break such arbitrary rules because I know what and who is online and what they do with information. I am a systems disruption fan myself if you get my drift. And, I have a theory about you, too.
Number one, you called me (or at least someone) “pal” earlier, so you know full well that this is just a rhetorical flourish, not a statement that you are actually a buddy of mine. I was just using something you did earlier in my response, just like I’m using the “Number one,” “Number two” thing that you just used. Seriously, you read way too much into things.
Number two, it’s not “arbitrary”. The forum was specifically meant to provide a space for people to discuss and provide feedback on the article and its subject, not to bring up whatever pet cause or theory you support or want to bring attention to, even if it has nothing to do with anything. In fact, that’s exactly what you keep accusing others of: derailing the discussion. Haven’t you also been accusing bots and NGOs of engaging in tactics intended to disrupt rational discourse, the same thing you just admitted to being a fan of doing yourself? See, this is what I mean when I say you admit to trollish motives and engage in troll-like behavior; and it’s also a great example of apparent projection/hypocrisy on your part.
And this
“none of what you just said was accurate or relevant”
Imagine if I tailored all my posts just for you, instead of the few others who have written to me laughing their asses off about you and a few others here, who I am dead accurate about in my commentary (that commentary directed at your online persona, which may or may not be a legend of some kind).
Well, regarding relevance, you were attempting to address a particular comment in the comment section of a particular article, so relevance is kinda important. And if you aren’t directing your comment towards anyone here, then you shouldn’t be posting it here to begin with. As for your accuracy, I have pointed out a number of inaccuracies in your commentary, so no, you are not “dead accurate”.
Time suckers are well documented in activist circles as exactly that: complete dead ends. In fact, NGOs, Big Pharma, the DoD and CIA, et alphabet all use them to suck time from real people like me, while gleaning the derivatives for data they can use later to sell intelligence products.
Sounds like a pretty good description of what you are doing: sucking time and acting as a complete dead end. Also, again, I have no evidence supporting the idea that you are a real person that you don’t have supporting the idea that I am a real person. Same goes for being a bot.
Seriously, I am just using you as an example, because you stepped on my square, sometime just after highbrow Wendy Cockblox called me a wanker of some kind or another (remember that?).
No, I don’t remember that. I recall you mentioning on several occasions that she did that once, years ago, but I have never actually seen that alleged comment. My first encounter with you wasn’t “just after” the alleged incident, either; it was over a year later by your own telling of the facts. Also, why does it still bother you so much so long after the fact?
As for me “stepping on your square”, as I recall, what actually happened was that you butted in on an existing discussion that I was already involved in. (That discussion had already been derailed by an AC troll, who you claimed at the time was not you.)
So no, I do not recall that event as happening as you described. Even if it did, who cares?
As for understanding how absurd this whole discussion has been since I first stepped in you here at TD, you might appreciate the humor in your own statements.
“I highly doubt that anyone be happy with having any large pole in their kitchen, regardless of its function or safety.”
It depends on whether or not that pole was installed in the location where I recommended it be installed, just so that you get the full effect. In real people world, some find kitchens to be alluring places, where poles in their asses take on a different, more human context.
I assumed you wouldn’t stoop to such lowbrow humor, especially since nothing in the original comment had any overtly sexual connotations or signals, nor any mention of posteriors or any other body parts. My mistake for assuming you had standards, I suppose. It also wouldn’t make sense given the mention of using it as a replacement for a kitchen microwave. Though, I imagine that a 5G pole would be too large to be used in such a manner.
At any rate, that was intended to be humorous in a way, so if you got some humor out of it, that’s great.
But what would you know about that anyways, Sweaty-Sox Siri? Sadly, AI Bots will never know actual intimacy.
Setting aside the fact that I’m not an AI bot, given the current state of the internet, I wouldn’t be surprised if AI bots actually had a pretty good idea of that sort of “intimacy”, even if they never personally experience. (And yes, that was also a joke.)
Lastly
“refusal to deviate from the null hypothesis without more evidence”
Yeah, yeah, I know. Professional Sceptics fill the ranks of every crisis PR firm that recommends we eat Tholidimide, STFU about depleted uranium, and manufactured terror; and let corporations install 5G masts up our asses.
First, I was explaining the definition of a skeptic. Profession and “crisis PR firms” have nothing to do with it.
Now, I don’t know about Tholidimide, whatever that is; most corporations want something to be done about depleted uranium (disposing of them in a “nuclear toilet” to keep people safe from being exposed to the radiation), but the government wouldn’t let them do so; manufactured terror does exist, but it’s not as prevelant as you claim (or at least you don’t provide sufficient reliable evidence that actually supports such a claim); and there is actually evidence supporting the idea that 5G poles are at least reasonably safe and no evidence or not-disproven, plausible hypotheses suggesting particular dangers from them (as long as something doesn’t go horribly wrong like it falling over or, I dunno, getting shoved up someone’s ass).
Then, when we refuse, they all tell us that we are crazy, and to take yer meds, bhull
I don’t really support the abuse of language about mental health like that, but it is pretty common, so I don’t understand why you find that surprising. Ultimately, it’s a statement about their opinion of your claims, arguments, and annoying persistence. I’d say not to take it too personally, but it’d probably fall on deaf ears, and I can definitely understand why you would, so whatever.
I don't know which is more sad, philosophically: bots that cannot feel, or humans that do. BUt caution has nothing to do with my approach, which is batting around .1000 so far.
I meant with regards to conclusions about safety, specifically, you are cautious.
Um, can you cite the rule that says I have to reply to a specific in-house TD troll, rather than the group think that is on display with some of you here?
The comments I mentioned this on were clearly about one specific comment each, clearly addressed to a specific user, and clearly meant as a response to that comment. It’s just good manners and basic common sense to use the “reply to this” function in such a case, and there is literally no good reason not to do so in such a case. Everyone will still see it either way, but using “reply to this” improves readability at no additional effort on your part.
If you want to address other comments, make multiple comments. It’s not like you weren’t already doing so, anyways.
That said, some sperg idiot (bhull)said this in another thread, and it seems to apply here:
“it still leans more towards the null hypothesis than not, and there is no strong reason to believe the results will differ from that”
Yeah, I like how you cherry pick your evidence to fit your narrative.
You do realize that I’m bhull, right?
As for that comment, it is on a completely different subject, doesn’t involve cherrypicking evidence (lacking evidence means that we generally default to the null hypothesis), is entirely consistent with everything I said in this thread, and doesn’t really apply here at all, nor do you explain how it does.
So, yeah, um, no. In my newsroom, Winners BS would have been put into the political opinion column, not a deep investigative lead at all.
No idea what that’s addressing, exactly.
As for Captain COVID, his story does touch a nerve, because it is an example of how our (bi-partisan) military has eroded protections for soldiers/sailors, and how that thin blue line mentality starts there, and leaks out into policing across America.
I’m not 100% certain there’s a strong connection there, but whatever. I can’t say I disagree with any of that.
But if that's the case, why don't you and a few other cockblocks here get off your Liketivist asses and get out in the real world to fight against these things?
You presume without that none of us do anything to fight in “the real world” (and you expect us to assume without evidence or even examples that you do), but for the record, what do you expect us to do while quarantined anyways?
In the meantime, I was being gang stalked across several US states because I investigated friendly fire incidents and how those who want to blow the whistle are frequently driven to acts of irrationality (Walter Laak, one of the fall guys in the Abu Ghraib scandal is a prime example) helped build the manufactured terrorists narrative, and more,
Again, this is completely irrelevant. Are you completely incapable of sticking to a single topic for just one comment?
while you spergs were playing Yugioh on your moms computer, and wanking it to Manga.
Also derailing and an ad hominem argument, as well as being inaccurate. The least significant issue: my mom never owned a computer that I would have had access to. I also never played Yugioh on a computer (though I would have liked to have done so), and I don’t wank to manga (which isn’t capitalized). Basically, none of what you just said was accurate or relevant.
You complain about others being impolite here, but you have never shown anyone the same courtesy you expect of us.
And to boot, I was well aware of your type of useful idiots going back as far as the Agent Orange (Eat some for Breakfast!) thingy, and tholidimide, and depleted uranium dropped on children's playgrounds all across the ME. I knew some of Dr. D.E. Camerons research subjects who had electroshock therapy.
SO, null hypotheses up your ass, pal.
Again, that has nothing to do with this. You’re also arguing from (predicted) adverse consequences, which is a logical fallacy. Also, should I bother pointing out that the dangers of all those things were known about long before anyone did anything about them and/or were highly unethical, making them terrible examples to compare against the 5G thing? Because you clearly don’t understand how the null hypothesis works.
Oh, and this is the wrong thread for that, buddy.
And enjoy that 5g mast on your roof. Hell, put one in the kitchen, and save money, and electricity by tossing out your kitchen microwave.
If it’s in a kitchen, the 5G mast probably wouldn’t actually work (at least the 5G part) for anyone but people in the house. (The wavelengths used for 5G aren’t good at penetrating things like walls.) It also wouldn’t work as a kitchen microwave because that’s not how either device works. And while I haven’t done the math yet, I’m fairly confident that a 5G mast does not use less electricity than a kitchen microwave. I think it’s safe to say you don’t understand 5G or microwaves (either the spectrum of radiation or the appliances) at all. Plus, I highly doubt that anyone be happy with having any large pole in their kitchen, regardless of its function or safety. (This is all setting aside whether a 5G mast would even fit in an average kitchen.)
Now, I’d be perfectly safe even if I was locked in the kitchen with the mast while it operates (assuming it fits and doesn’t just fall over), but the idea is ridiculous.
(Yes, I’m aware that you were probably just joking. However, I’m not sure you understood just how absurd the idea was.)
But for me, I would rather err on on the side of sceptical until all the evidence is in.
I suppose we can add “skepticism” to the list of things you talk about without actually understanding them. Skepticism can essentially be boiled down to “refusal to deviate from the null hypothesis without more evidence”. Assuming danger from something despite the overwhelming evidence that it’s safe and no evidence of danger is not skepticism; it’s the exact opposite. I think the work you want is “caution”, which is another thing entirely.
I would, as long as I don’t have to pay extra for the fact the home/business has a 5G mast on the roof. I have no reason to believe that it’s dangerous and every reason to believe it’s safe.
I’ve read the research and understand the mechanics behind 5G and damage from radiation enough to understand that it wouldn’t really make sense for children to be susceptible to damage or that males exposed to 5G are more likely to have daughters than sons. (I also wouldn’t really care about the latter since I don’t consider “having more daughters than sons” to be an injury, but I doubt 5G would have any effect on daughter-to-son ratios anyways.) That the evidence is not conclusive on those issues is irrelevant; it still leans more towards the null hypothesis than not, and there is no strong reason to believe the results will differ from that. There is no plausible mechanism for 5G to cause those harms that has yet to be disproven.
Look, radio waves aren’t capable of causing radiation poisoning (they aren’t ionizing), the higher frequency radiation (closer to microwaves) doesn’t travel as far and is easily blocked by solid objects, and even damage that could be caused by high-frequency radio waves like 5G or microwaves would not penetrate further than skin-deep. (Lower frequencies than, say, 5G don’t interact with any part of the human body at all, really, so there’s no reason to expect damage there, either.)
Basically, if neither the existing radiation from 2G, 3G, and/or 4G towers, any other radio waves we already get exposed to all the time, nor microwaves or low-frequency infrared can or do cause some particular alleged harm, 5G almost certainly won’t do so, either.
Yeah, that’s not bragging about posting the correspondence. Nothing in that email would be “something that, presumably, only Montgomery or someone else at Mycroft could have done.” Nor does anything about it suggest that Mycroft had any involvement in that email at all.
What does the foreign origin (if any) have to do with anything? If Montgomery or MyCroft was directly responsible for the alleged harassment, that doesn’t matter as long as the court has jurisdiction over them in the specific case that was filed.
He should have spoken up when the Navy was busted listening to US citizens from offshore in 2003-2020, but he didn't.
Is there any specific reason to believe this guy in particular was personally involved in those incidents or had particular knowledge of them prior to the leaks?
Also, it sounds like you just have a problem with the fact that he didn’t speak up about some other, completely unrelated issue and so won’t give credit when he does speak up. Dude, a whistleblower can still be beneficial even if they don’t blow the whistle on every issue.
Finally, I don’t see anything political about the captain or his actions here.
What does Reality Winner, the Intercept, the ADL, or tech platforms and cyber experts have to do with this article in particular or the events described in this article?
That's why I raise awareness differently than those idiots. I know what I am up against, and who.
Do you?
I think a lot of people are perplexed about what or who you think you’re up against, but those who do know generally think that you have a tendency to bark up the wrong tree in a way that, even if you were barking up the right tree, would be—at best—completely ineffective (and is often counterproductive).
On the post: Court Tells Pro-Trump 12-Year-Old That Calling Him A Defender Of Racism And Sexual Assault Is Protected Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I’m more confused about what in that would be considered “homophobic”. Although I’m not sure “bitch” is misogynist, per se (I’ve seen women use it plenty in the exact same way men do, including the relevant use), I get what you mean since it is most commonly used (as a noun) as a clearly derogatory and offensive slur against a woman/women, so I won’t quibble on that. However, I’m not sure how it’d be homophobic.
On the post: Senator Tillis Angry At The Internet Archive For Helping People Read During A Pandemic; Archive Explains Why That's Wrong
Re: Re:
I don’t believe that’s quite the reason, partly for reasons outlined by nasch, partly because other drugs capable of causing life-threatening withdrawal aren’t also considered “essential”, and partly because there are other ways to mitigate withdrawal. Instead, I think it’s because of something unique about alcohol compared to other drugs.
You see, as far as I can tell, caffeine and alcohol are the only drugs that one takes by drinking a beverage containing them that are also present in drinkable beverages naturally (rather than being there naturally). At least, they’re the only legal drugs that don’t require a prescription that can be taken that way. Every other drug (legal, controlled, or illegal) gets smoked, snorted, inhaled, stuck on the user’s skin, chewed and spit out, injected, or taken in the form of a pill or tablet that either gets dissolved in the mouth or a beverage that gets consumed or gets swallowed directly.
Now, all foods and beverages—regardless of nutritional value (or lack thereof), benefits or detriments to human health, or ingredients—that haven’t been explicitly banned for reasons other than the pandemic by, say, the FDA or health inspectors or something are considered “essential goods” as far as the stay-at-home orders are concerned. There isn’t really an exception made for alcoholic beverages. Humans need to drink something to live, and as unhealthy as they can be, alcoholic beverages are technically capable of quenching one’s thirst. In that sense, it’s just like caffeinated beverages; whether or not the food or beverage happens to contain alcohol is immaterial to whether or not it is considered “essential”.
It’s also like how candy, snacks, cookies, pastries, ice cream, sherbet, popsicles, and other clearly unhealthy foods are considered “essential”; they are foods, therefore they are essential and are exempt. There is no individual weighing of which specific foods or beverages are deemed “essential”; they all get lumped together for this purpose.
On the post: Senator Tillis Angry At The Internet Archive For Helping People Read During A Pandemic; Archive Explains Why That's Wrong
Re: Re: Re:
Key part there is “average-sized man”. If you are on the smaller side and/or are female, those can reduce the minimum drinks needed to get to the fifty-fifty chance of having major, life-threatening withdrawals. And there are other factors involved that could further raise or lower the threshold.
Though, it should be noted that for such people, the threshold for dying from drinking too much alcohol too quickly is also lowered, so they would be less likely to survive long enough to get to major withdrawal to begin with.
On the post: Senator Tillis Angry At The Internet Archive For Helping People Read During A Pandemic; Archive Explains Why That's Wrong
Re: Re: Re:
Largely true, at least regarding local governments, governors, senators (like Tillis), and the POTUS, but not entirely the case where districting is a factor, such as federal or state House Representatives and some or all state senators, since gerrymandering has made it more difficult to get people of certain parties into certain positions. Still, even there, there are at least some solutions that don’t involve the nuclear option.
On the post: Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
I mean, weren’t you the one who started talking about Jews and Jerry Falwell here?
I have noticed that many of your comments disappear before any of the three of us reply to you.
On the post: 5G Isn't Interesting Enough To Warrant These Stupid Conspiracy Theories
Re: Re: Re: Wanna bet?
People are actually arguing about dangers from the radiation (some of whom have been referenced by name in articles and comments on this site), and that’s what I and others here are addressing.
In fact, you yourself made that argument:
So, yeah. That’s a claim actually being made, not some strawman argument. Issues like being an eyesore, against local zoning laws, privacy concerns, concerns about citizens’ rights vs. corporate power, or ruining hillside views are completely separate issues that we are not addressing or disputing here. In fact, I think we all agree that most or all of those are valid, reasonable concerns to have on the issue of 5G deployment.
Also, none of us are saying that telecom doesn’t do any or all of of what you just said. However, none of that has to do with whether the radiation from the towers is safe or not, and that’s the only issue being argued about here. It is one of the very, very few issues where we don’t side against the telecom industry.
That guy in Australia you mention may have perfectly valid concerns, but we aren’t addressing his concerns. That is a completely different discussion from the one that we are actually having here. This is a discussion about actual disinformation being spread both by trolls and actual living, breathing human beings, some of whom are people that a lot of other actual humans respect and listen to, about health effects and safety of 5G, specifically the radiation.
When I mentioned “non-ionizing radiation”, it was part of a broader discussion about what potential dangers electromagnetic radiation could actually have. Low-frequency ultraviolet radiation and any EM radiation with a longer wavelength than ultraviolet is “non-ionizing”, so we don’t have to worry about the dangers unique to ionizing radiation. (Ionizing radiation is also the exception to the rule that shorter wavelengths = less penetration. It’s actually kinda the opposite, as shorter wavelengths on the ionizing part of the EM spectrum tend to be better at penetration; though they still don’t travel quite as far and lose energy quickly, they have so much energy that they still have enough to potentially cause damage even after losing some from penetrating a human body or something.) I was heading off potential counterarguments, that’s all.
For non-ionizing radiation (which 5G signals absolutely are), the rule of thumb is that longer wavelengths travel further and are better at penetrating through solid matter. In particular, around the microwave portion of the EM spectrum, there is a metaphorical line that divides non-ionizing radiation that can penetrate through human skin and that which gets blocked by human skin. 5G is around the microwave area, so it doesn’t travel very far and gets blocked by walls, floors, roofs, and human skin. As such, there is no reason to be concerned with the possibility of internal damage or health effects from 5G radiation. (Everything with longer wavelengths than 5G, which can travel pretty far and may be able to penetrate human skin, has been studied extensively to rule out any potential health risks, and none have been found. Really, any wavelengths long enough to penetrate human skin don’t really appear to have any significant effect on the human body at all.)
Huh? I never said “error” there.
As for the null hypothesis, it’s basically the default assumption, which is something like “X doesn’t cause Y,” “X doesn’t correlate significantly with Y,” and/or “X has no significant connection with Y”. Scientists, researchers, engineers, and statistians often base a significant part of their conclusions on whether the data is sufficient to rule out the null hypothesis as a reasonable explanation for their observations. It’s basically the thing that can theoretically be disproven beyond a doubt but not 100% definitively proven beyond a doubt, at least from a logical standpoint. You can’t really prove a negative, after all.
I was just being careful with language. Most researchers and scientists almost never say things like “absolutely,” “100%,” “impossible,” “certain,” “always,” or “never” without an extremely overwhelming amount of evidence to support it, if then. They tend to be very careful with their words, which suggests more uncertainty on their part than what other people think they have. I’m the same way. Don’t read too much into it.
Again, from your comment:
I was responding to a specific argument that you made. I wasn’t putting words into anyone’s mouth. I said that to make clear that I have no concerns about a hypothetical 5G tower being on the roof of my house. I don’t consider that allegation about 5G’s potential effects on humans to be a valid concern in any sense, so that it may not have been explicitly and overwhelmingly disproven doesn’t weigh against my decision at all. Whether or not you, personally, actually believe that allegation to be true, the fact is that you brought it up first, so it was fair game for me to address it.
Considering the fact that Don Quixote was the inspiration for the phrase “tilting at windmills” (an encounter that did not end well for him, to be blunt) and was legitimately delusional, I’m okay with not “hav[ing] an actual Don Quixote bone in [my] body.” Sure, he was brave and had pure, good intentions, and he was an idealist, but he was also delusional and foolish. I have no intention of tilting at windmills.
On the post: Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
Again, do you realize that you are replying to yourself here?
On the post: Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
Re: Re: Re: Re: Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of disc
I have not seen any evidence that Toom1275 is “a big fan of police unions”; quite the opposite, actually.
On the post: Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
Re: Re: in-house TD trolls v the actual "people"
I think what was intended was this:
That is, he was interrupting the word “avoid” to say “oh”. The lack of space or punctuation in between was likely meant to suggest that the transition was abrupt and instantaneous, with no pause or trailing ending.
If this is a reference to your unsubstantiated theories and claims of bots on this site, then just substitute “entities”, “accounts”, “users”, “comments”, “posts”, or something along those lines for “people”. Whether or not there is a particular, actual, live human being behind the online persona is immaterial to this particular point. None of what you just said in that quote actually refutes the point being made here. It improves readability for everyone to use “reply to this” when you are clearly addressing a particular comment and/or user, so everyone has an easier time following the discussion of you do.
I don’t think anyone mentioned physical appearances, but I think many people would argue that what you say here makes you seem vain, conceited, and/or a fraudster, and that makes it less likely that anyone will actually take what you say seriously or believe it to be truthful or accurate.
Still waiting for that explanation of “K4”.
Also, you have yet to provide any information regarding where you or your story can be found, and there is no evidence available to us to support your claims that anyone, real human or not, can find you. As such, I have no reason to believe this claim at all.
On the post: Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
First of all, it’s, “To err is human.” I wouldn’t point that out normally, but whatever. More importantly, what error are you referring to here?
Considering the fact that you have previously admitted to trollish behavior and motives and that you are always derailing threads by constantly bringing up unrelated and irrelevant topics, this seems like projection to me.
The fact that—as far as I can tell—everyone else who comments on TD—including regulars, trolls, and ACs—nearly always do so suggests otherwise. You’re the only one I know of who avoids using “reply to this” on multiple occasions or who has attempted to justify not using it where it would be appropriate to use it. I have no idea why you think it’s not good manners and common sense here, but it is.
First, most people who comment and/or flag comments here aren’t “in-house”, and I’m pretty sure that I’m one of the few—if not only—people with Asperger’s who comments regularly here. As such, there are no “in-house spergs” at TD who target people for flagging.
Second, based on past and present observations, the idea that using “reply to this” to post a reply to a comment rather than making a new thread creates any observable increase in how many people will flag the reply doesn’t appear to be accurate. In fact, your replies-not-posted-as-replies seem to be getting hidden at least as quickly as your replies-posted-as-replies in the same comment section, so if this was an experiment, it seems clear the hypothesis has been disproven. Perhaps you were under the impression that, when someone opts in to getting email alerts when new comments get posted, they only get alerted to new replies in that particular thread. That is not the case; we get an email alert any time anyone posts a new comment—whether it’s the start of a new thread or a reply to an existing comment, and whether the person posts as a registered user, an AC, or not signed in but with a pseudonym—on that article. Or perhaps you thing that most regular commenters here only read specific threads in the comments section after the first time. Again, this is untrue.
Third, flagging your comments to be hidden is not online bullying. That your comments frequently get flagged says more about you and your comments than any of us.
The first comment of yours that I could find wasn’t exactly polite, and I have tried to remain polite with you since I first encountered you. As such, I find your claim unlikely to be true at best. At the very least, I have yet to see any evidence of such.
Again, I’m not “in-house”, and as for targeting your posts, I didn’t even know you existed until a few months ago, so there clearly hasn’t been anything I’ve been doing to you for two years. I also haven’t maligned or smeared you personally. I may have said negative things about your claims, arguments, and tone, but I have actively avoided saying anything about you, personally. Heck, I originally focused on just asking for clarification, evidence, or decorum or pointing out flaws in your arguments, but then you began insulting me for no apparent reason. Since then, I’ve been less polite, but I’ve still avoided calling you names or saying bad things about you.
As for why your posts about that topic tend to get flagged or called out, there a number of good reasons for that.
Poor tone, name-calling, and bad manners without apparent, sufficient justification.
You have previously admitted to having trollish motives and have engaged in troll-like behavior.
You come off as sounding like as a conspiracy theorist.
Such posts have generally had little to no relation to the conversation at hand or the article on which they are posted, often derailing the discussion greatly.
You tell people they should kill themselves in an online forum open to the public.
You commonly appear to engage in projection and hypocrisy.
Any one of those reasons would be sufficient for many to flag your posts. There is no need to presume conspiracy, harassment, organization, or anything like that.
Again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the null hypothesis. The idea that the other entity is human (i.e. not a bot) is the null hypothesis in this situation. You would have to find evidence proving or at least suggesting that I’m not a human. (Also, having Asperger’s (or, as you call it, being a “sperg”) would mean that I am an actual sentient human, not a bot. Bots don’t have mental disorders.)
Seriously, stop trying to use ideas you clearly don’t understand.
I, for one, haven’t argued at all “for crisis PR and NGO causes”, or at least not as far as I can tell. At any rate, logical fallacies aren’t based on motives but on content and form. I’d need examples of specific arguments to point out any fallacies that they may or may not have used.
And yet you already are, in quite the lengthy comment at that.
Also, I haven’t read any “crisis PR manuals”, nor have I personally dealt with or been involved with “military[-]grade disinformation online tactical assaults” of any sort.
And yes, I’m well aware that “actual human speech […] sometimes has a hidden, non-binary meaning; its own para-language and semantic cues.” It is something I have had to grapple with my whole life. I’m not perfect at it, but I still have a pretty decent grasp on the concept. However, actual human speech can also be blunt and/or binary sometimes, and there are non-binary frameworks for logic that work well even for the situations you reference. Sure, it may be important to “read between the lines”, but it’s also important to “not read to much into things”.
Number one, you called me (or at least someone) “pal” earlier, so you know full well that this is just a rhetorical flourish, not a statement that you are actually a buddy of mine. I was just using something you did earlier in my response, just like I’m using the “Number one,” “Number two” thing that you just used. Seriously, you read way too much into things.
Number two, it’s not “arbitrary”. The forum was specifically meant to provide a space for people to discuss and provide feedback on the article and its subject, not to bring up whatever pet cause or theory you support or want to bring attention to, even if it has nothing to do with anything. In fact, that’s exactly what you keep accusing others of: derailing the discussion. Haven’t you also been accusing bots and NGOs of engaging in tactics intended to disrupt rational discourse, the same thing you just admitted to being a fan of doing yourself? See, this is what I mean when I say you admit to trollish motives and engage in troll-like behavior; and it’s also a great example of apparent projection/hypocrisy on your part.
Well, regarding relevance, you were attempting to address a particular comment in the comment section of a particular article, so relevance is kinda important. And if you aren’t directing your comment towards anyone here, then you shouldn’t be posting it here to begin with. As for your accuracy, I have pointed out a number of inaccuracies in your commentary, so no, you are not “dead accurate”.
Sounds like a pretty good description of what you are doing: sucking time and acting as a complete dead end. Also, again, I have no evidence supporting the idea that you are a real person that you don’t have supporting the idea that I am a real person. Same goes for being a bot.
No, I don’t remember that. I recall you mentioning on several occasions that she did that once, years ago, but I have never actually seen that alleged comment. My first encounter with you wasn’t “just after” the alleged incident, either; it was over a year later by your own telling of the facts. Also, why does it still bother you so much so long after the fact?
As for me “stepping on your square”, as I recall, what actually happened was that you butted in on an existing discussion that I was already involved in. (That discussion had already been derailed by an AC troll, who you claimed at the time was not you.)
So no, I do not recall that event as happening as you described. Even if it did, who cares?
I assumed you wouldn’t stoop to such lowbrow humor, especially since nothing in the original comment had any overtly sexual connotations or signals, nor any mention of posteriors or any other body parts. My mistake for assuming you had standards, I suppose. It also wouldn’t make sense given the mention of using it as a replacement for a kitchen microwave. Though, I imagine that a 5G pole would be too large to be used in such a manner.
At any rate, that was intended to be humorous in a way, so if you got some humor out of it, that’s great.
Setting aside the fact that I’m not an AI bot, given the current state of the internet, I wouldn’t be surprised if AI bots actually had a pretty good idea of that sort of “intimacy”, even if they never personally experience. (And yes, that was also a joke.)
First, I was explaining the definition of a skeptic. Profession and “crisis PR firms” have nothing to do with it.
Now, I don’t know about Tholidimide, whatever that is; most corporations want something to be done about depleted uranium (disposing of them in a “nuclear toilet” to keep people safe from being exposed to the radiation), but the government wouldn’t let them do so; manufactured terror does exist, but it’s not as prevelant as you claim (or at least you don’t provide sufficient reliable evidence that actually supports such a claim); and there is actually evidence supporting the idea that 5G poles are at least reasonably safe and no evidence or not-disproven, plausible hypotheses suggesting particular dangers from them (as long as something doesn’t go horribly wrong like it falling over or, I dunno, getting shoved up someone’s ass).
I don’t really support the abuse of language about mental health like that, but it is pretty common, so I don’t understand why you find that surprising. Ultimately, it’s a statement about their opinion of your claims, arguments, and annoying persistence. I’d say not to take it too personally, but it’d probably fall on deaf ears, and I can definitely understand why you would, so whatever.
I meant with regards to conclusions about safety, specifically, you are cautious.
On the post: Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
The comments I mentioned this on were clearly about one specific comment each, clearly addressed to a specific user, and clearly meant as a response to that comment. It’s just good manners and basic common sense to use the “reply to this” function in such a case, and there is literally no good reason not to do so in such a case. Everyone will still see it either way, but using “reply to this” improves readability at no additional effort on your part.
If you want to address other comments, make multiple comments. It’s not like you weren’t already doing so, anyways.
You do realize that I’m bhull, right?
As for that comment, it is on a completely different subject, doesn’t involve cherrypicking evidence (lacking evidence means that we generally default to the null hypothesis), is entirely consistent with everything I said in this thread, and doesn’t really apply here at all, nor do you explain how it does.
No idea what that’s addressing, exactly.
I’m not 100% certain there’s a strong connection there, but whatever. I can’t say I disagree with any of that.
You presume without that none of us do anything to fight in “the real world” (and you expect us to assume without evidence or even examples that you do), but for the record, what do you expect us to do while quarantined anyways?
Again, this is completely irrelevant. Are you completely incapable of sticking to a single topic for just one comment?
Also derailing and an ad hominem argument, as well as being inaccurate. The least significant issue: my mom never owned a computer that I would have had access to. I also never played Yugioh on a computer (though I would have liked to have done so), and I don’t wank to manga (which isn’t capitalized). Basically, none of what you just said was accurate or relevant.
You complain about others being impolite here, but you have never shown anyone the same courtesy you expect of us.
Again, that has nothing to do with this. You’re also arguing from (predicted) adverse consequences, which is a logical fallacy. Also, should I bother pointing out that the dangers of all those things were known about long before anyone did anything about them and/or were highly unethical, making them terrible examples to compare against the 5G thing? Because you clearly don’t understand how the null hypothesis works.
Oh, and this is the wrong thread for that, buddy.
If it’s in a kitchen, the 5G mast probably wouldn’t actually work (at least the 5G part) for anyone but people in the house. (The wavelengths used for 5G aren’t good at penetrating things like walls.) It also wouldn’t work as a kitchen microwave because that’s not how either device works. And while I haven’t done the math yet, I’m fairly confident that a 5G mast does not use less electricity than a kitchen microwave. I think it’s safe to say you don’t understand 5G or microwaves (either the spectrum of radiation or the appliances) at all. Plus, I highly doubt that anyone be happy with having any large pole in their kitchen, regardless of its function or safety. (This is all setting aside whether a 5G mast would even fit in an average kitchen.)
Now, I’d be perfectly safe even if I was locked in the kitchen with the mast while it operates (assuming it fits and doesn’t just fall over), but the idea is ridiculous.
(Yes, I’m aware that you were probably just joking. However, I’m not sure you understood just how absurd the idea was.)
I suppose we can add “skepticism” to the list of things you talk about without actually understanding them. Skepticism can essentially be boiled down to “refusal to deviate from the null hypothesis without more evidence”. Assuming danger from something despite the overwhelming evidence that it’s safe and no evidence of danger is not skepticism; it’s the exact opposite. I think the work you want is “caution”, which is another thing entirely.
On the post: As Record Labels Still Are Demanding Mandated Filters; Facebook's Copyright Filter Takes Down A Guy Playing Bach
Re: No problems...
I don’t think you understand the whole “public domain” thing.
On the post: Predictive Text Patent Troll Tries To Shake Down Wikipedia
Re: Move to China
US patent law and the PTAB disagree.
On the post: Predictive Text Patent Troll Tries To Shake Down Wikipedia
Re:
Why, and so what?
On the post: 5G Isn't Interesting Enough To Warrant These Stupid Conspiracy Theories
Re: Wanna bet?
I would, as long as I don’t have to pay extra for the fact the home/business has a 5G mast on the roof. I have no reason to believe that it’s dangerous and every reason to believe it’s safe.
I’ve read the research and understand the mechanics behind 5G and damage from radiation enough to understand that it wouldn’t really make sense for children to be susceptible to damage or that males exposed to 5G are more likely to have daughters than sons. (I also wouldn’t really care about the latter since I don’t consider “having more daughters than sons” to be an injury, but I doubt 5G would have any effect on daughter-to-son ratios anyways.) That the evidence is not conclusive on those issues is irrelevant; it still leans more towards the null hypothesis than not, and there is no strong reason to believe the results will differ from that. There is no plausible mechanism for 5G to cause those harms that has yet to be disproven.
Look, radio waves aren’t capable of causing radiation poisoning (they aren’t ionizing), the higher frequency radiation (closer to microwaves) doesn’t travel as far and is easily blocked by solid objects, and even damage that could be caused by high-frequency radio waves like 5G or microwaves would not penetrate further than skin-deep. (Lower frequencies than, say, 5G don’t interact with any part of the human body at all, really, so there’s no reason to expect damage there, either.)
Basically, if neither the existing radiation from 2G, 3G, and/or 4G towers, any other radio waves we already get exposed to all the time, nor microwaves or low-frequency infrared can or do cause some particular alleged harm, 5G almost certainly won’t do so, either.
On the post: Patent Troll Runs To Court To Whine About Mean People Online, Insists They Must All Secretly Be From Company It's Suing
Re:
Yeah, that’s not bragging about posting the correspondence. Nothing in that email would be “something that, presumably, only Montgomery or someone else at Mycroft could have done.” Nor does anything about it suggest that Mycroft had any involvement in that email at all.
On the post: Patent Troll Runs To Court To Whine About Mean People Online, Insists They Must All Secretly Be From Company It's Suing
Re:
What does the foreign origin (if any) have to do with anything? If Montgomery or MyCroft was directly responsible for the alleged harassment, that doesn’t matter as long as the court has jurisdiction over them in the specific case that was filed.
On the post: Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
Re:
Is there any specific reason to believe this guy in particular was personally involved in those incidents or had particular knowledge of them prior to the leaks?
Also, it sounds like you just have a problem with the fact that he didn’t speak up about some other, completely unrelated issue and so won’t give credit when he does speak up. Dude, a whistleblower can still be beneficial even if they don’t blow the whistle on every issue.
Finally, I don’t see anything political about the captain or his actions here.
On the post: Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
Re:
Again, please use “reply to this” when addressing someone specific. Also, again, how is this at all relevant?
On the post: Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
Re: I didn't imply *all* of anything
What does Reality Winner, the Intercept, the ADL, or tech platforms and cyber experts have to do with this article in particular or the events described in this article?
I think a lot of people are perplexed about what or who you think you’re up against, but those who do know generally think that you have a tendency to bark up the wrong tree in a way that, even if you were barking up the right tree, would be—at best—completely ineffective (and is often counterproductive).
Next >>