AccuTron

That's a great post. If you can be healthy doing it, do more of your work a little sick and sleep deprived!

I hope that guy doesn't play with small children by tossing them around--they'd go orbital !!

It started as an email, not knowing the gigantic extent of what I was getting into. So it has a first to second person structure. As I said elsewhere, these are the results of reading every word of OVER 1,200 WEBSITES. They are "samples" not "anecdotes." Behind each item, there are tons more info on that item. There ARE excerpts from five scientific papers, plus some graphs. You want more scientific language, try to read the original papers, especially the Wegman Report US Congress 2006. They are very thick reads, and I showed you the nuggets and smoking guns. Falsified data and an algorithm that makes hockey stick shapes from nothing at all from the primary proponent of alarming warming, another primary proponent is convicted on 11 counts of fraud, illegal math by Hansen "an embarrassment to NASA", is more than "anecdotal." Read ALL the other links I provided. Do your 2-4 hours before you draw conclusions. As if falsified data weren't enough….

It was a clip of a few minutes from a Fox broadcast, on another site. I've never watched an actual Fox program. I haven't had a TV in fifteen years, I'm not even sure how to find a Fox program, and don't care. And, ahem, that was just one point out of a truckload. I think you did enough cherry picking to put some migrant workers on unemployment. What about the IPCC's own papers showing they can't find anything? Within five minutes, sitting at your screen right now as you read this, you could go to my link above CRIMATE.pdf - Google Drive, pages 20-22, and be reading it for yourself. It has nothing to do with Fox, or myself. As mentioned, I learned the science of global warming from over 1,200 websites, now up to about 75 hrs intense research. I DO NOT react to simply one or a few claims. The forty-page paper of NRC2006, as simply one example, meant that the NRC had done bundles of research. Once the scam is revealed, there is no mystery whatsoever. The names of the liars are known (the part about Al Gore and Ken Lay, con artist extraordinaire, doesn't get a reaction from you???), how they falsified their work is known, doing the real science ALWAYS makes the alarming warming go away. If someone says there is alarming warming, follow their money, power, votes, employment, glory, getting chicks, etc. Especially their EGO. I don't know what Pascal's Wager is, and I could look it up, but don't care. YOU read every single word of over 1,200 websites, and you'll end up in the same place. Or just read my links for 2-3 hours for a survey course.

Of course you're right. Duh, how did I miss that one?

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!! Do the research! Skeptics is a bogus word, use the word Detectives. The ENTIRE 20th century alarming warming is a hoax. It's generally agreed that the Northern Hemisphere has been warming since ~1850. Gee, think some glaciers might get a little mushy, HEATING FOR OVER A CENTURY AND HALF?? Also in my main link: about a thousand years ago, it was warmer than this. Greenland actually was green, at least the edges, and evidence of barley cultivation is about one fifth the way up in latitude (I think this is from World Book). Soil cores and clamshell analysis shows Greenland was warmer than now "several times over the last 100,000 years." Leif Erikson didn't lie about it, it really was green those centuries ago. Also, various claims of "warmest year since year X" is bogus, since ALL temps since about 1850 have been rising, with fluctuations. Also, a (NASA? NOAA?) whistle blower revealed that the claim of 2009 being warmest year ever was because original data had colder thermometers (higher latitudes or altitudes) removed from the data set-- Voila, it's warmer! He was on Fox, mainstream media wouldn't touch him…follow the ownership, money and political power on that one. (National Research Councils) NRC2006, referenced in the IPCC's Copenhagen Diagnosis (which is 100% lies) as a SUPPORTING document, actually says, summarizing in my words, "we don't believe you." Words like "low confidence", "even less confidence." But IPCC assumes nobody will check. I did. It's a 40 page paper, a thick read, but I found a paragraph on page 4 to help guide you, included in my main link. Also, if you already know gobs of background, you can read between the lines of NRC's suggestions at the end, which basically say "you need to better science." IPCC's idea of support is "we don't believe you and you need to do better science." As a nugget, showing how complex this is, where the strays might occur: I saw a page showing how a weather station, wooden legs, small roofed box, about five feet tall, was originally installed in a wide open field, no human anything around it. I'm guessing installed in 1940's-50's. There is a photo of it in the sixties. A shopping mall has surrounded it. It has ten feet square of scruffy dirt, surrounded by a blacktop parking lot, with lots of heated car engines. Gee, do you think the readings might have gone up?? You need to spend 2-3 hours MINIMUM on my links for this or the poison will seep back into your mind. You must understand the SCALE of this or you won't get it. Once you get the bigger story, its no mystery at all, crime and corruption and lies (and lazy citizens) just like always. The money and power on this fraud is bigger than anything in history I can think of. That's why it's so extensive, and ruthless. Slander is a main part of the fraud game; anyone telling about the lies is called working for Big Oil, or doesn't believe in the moon landing, or other nonsense. Gore has used those words. Plus most people are just mentally lazy, and like their ego pumped, and climate change is the perfect soapbox for feeling superior. If you read ALL the material I've supplied…which is only a SMALL SAMPLE of what there is…then you'll see it explained in more detail. Ken Lay, of Enron infamy: (look it up if you don't know Kenneth Lay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, "Lay and Enron became synonymous with corporate abuse and accounting fraud", "Lay was indicted by a grand jury on 11 counts of securities fraud and related charges", "Lay was found guilty on May 25, 2006, of 10 counts against him; the judge dismissed the 11th. Because each count carried a maximum 5- to 10-year sentence, legal experts said Lay could have faced 20 to 30 years in prison.[2] However, he died while vacationing in Snowmass, Colorado, on July 5, 2006, about three and a half months before his scheduled October 23 sentencing" ) Before he died, Lay was working with Inconvenient Truth Al Gore. (search ken lay al gore) Lay sent a front man to Kyoto, supposedly just for governments, to make sure Cap and Trade was passed. When it was passed, it was declared a victory for Enron, ONE OF BIGGEST CON OUTFITS IN HISTORY. AL GORE AND KEN LAY ARE/WERE TRADERS, THEY GET A CUT ON CAP AND TRADE…THEY MAKE OUT LIKE BANDITS. Read this here. Al Gore's Inconvenient Enron | National Review Online And this guy who wrote the article, like myself, like maligned Canadian hero McIntyre, ALL OF US BELIEVED THE LIES AT FIRST BECAUSE IT WAS EVERYWHERE (gee, like when Hitler or Tojo was in power, the same story was everywhere??). WE WENT IN AS INNOCENT BELIEVERS…but when we started looking at the material, it was obvious something was wrong. Digging deeper, there's falsified data all over the place, pre-sorted data to not include honest data, all kinds of cover up, it goes on and on. Fabulous detective and hero McIntyre for instance, a retired geologist who did mineral exploration among other things (thus the frauds' claim that he works for Big Oil, to discredit actually looking at what he found), back about 2003, simply and innocently asked Dr. Mann, the evil one, for the alarming data. Mann stonewalled for two years (McIntyre has a megalink of his emails with Mann) and was finally forced to turn it over by a FOIA request…guess what, it's falsified by +0.6C when compared to raw source data. Why 0.6C? Probably because he made false claims elsewhere by 0.5C and was covering his rear. Read further. Two more years, another FOIA, to get him to turn over his algorithm…you thought thermometers everywhere were rising, didn't you?…nope, never true…he ran raw data thru a faulty algorithm, and it made alarming rises because he didn't study statistics (uh, meteorology is nothing BUT statistics), and wrote a bad program. This is BEYOND DOUBT shown in the Wegman Report 2006 when trendless test noise was put into his algorithm…by three pro-bono qualified statisticians…and Mann's program makes a "hockey stick" out of nothing at all. You can see the smoking gun chart, the example showing Mann's alarming warming claim, compared right next to a trendless noise output, and they are virtually identical. This is provided in my master link. Since the fraud is obvious, the bad guys try to have you not look, by claiming Wegman was a plagiarizer. Like that could have anything to do with the test results. Wegman apparently copied a block of text from someone else while doing a website about color perception. NOTHING TO DO with the truth, pure smokescreen. They also claim he worked for Big Oil, so don't look. The bad guys say NOT ONE WORD about the obvious test results. As I've explained elsewhere, I've done 70+ hours intense research on this topic, and have read every word, all the readers comments, of…get ready…over 1,200 websites, including research papers of 30 and 40 pages, and two long Congressional reports. I know my shit. One of those papers was an investigation into the internal documents of the IPCC, and the good author provided four examples of a person Fields, upper management at IPCC, telling Congress "the link is clear" that humans are affecting weather (Read as: plenty of corruption money, big projects, and oh by the way, wink wink, Democrats get lots of votes because Democrats want to save the planet and Republicans hate the planet. This of course only works if voters believe the fraud in the first place.) Field is compared to the IPCC's own internal documents, shown in my link, which can find no connection at all between humans and weather!!! Shhhh, don't tell the public, might lose power and money and votes. This is not "skeptics", this is the IPCC itself, denying it's very reason for existence. You must believe, that with well over a thousand websites, what I can present here is only ever going to be a sampling. You MUST understand that, the scope of what you don't know. You might also check the Copenhagen Diagnosis' alleged solar vs human graph. Blatant lie. Look it up. They show the sun's 11-year cycle, but leave out the rest. When the real solar activity is compared to their claim of Human activity, guess what?---the real Sun closely matches what they claim is Human. I have done this graph overlay in my big link, just look. I also found a graph showing that CO2, temperature, and two other gases (probably more), ALL MARCH IN LOCKSTEP. Gore didn't mention those other gases, inconvenient as they are. In fact, Gore's own graph, if closely examined, shows temperature leading CO2 several times, but he counts upon nobody checking. In his own graph, CO2 leads 8 times, Temperature leads 5 times, and it's a wash 12 times; the graph also shows nothing about margins of error, so is really bogus to begin with. Also, you can clearly see in the legitimate graph that CO2 rises during EVERY interglacial warm period. CO2 has been rising for 18,000 years -- how inconvenient. (Oh, and sea levels have been rising for about 20,000 years, rapidly for a long time, slowing down about 5-6 thousand years ago; the Maldives can't sue First World countries if that's admitted. Always, always, follow the money.) And we get few warm periods on this planet, that graph is an eye-opener that Earth is an ICE planet most of it's history after initial cool down from a bubbling volcanic mess. Warm periods going wayyyyy back have only been several, lasting about 6-20 thousand years, and our current one is I think already 15,000 years old. We should be worried about another ice age. NASA scientist Hansen, paid public money and now retired on public money (and looking good to the chicks when he's out protesting global warming) put out a paper in 1980, CO2 And Climate Change. Sounds like a signature paper. As I guessed some years ago, I downloaded it because I thought the fraud would make it unaccessible. That is what he has done. Another citizen has done the digging, and it's now inside a locked file directory labeled "Meetings." GISS Blocking Access To Archived Data And Hansen’s Writings | Real Science It can still be found with digging, but why do we have to dig? ‎www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf Science and math types: on the first page you'll see blatant illegal math with his disregard for significant figures; he also uses the Stefan-Boltzman constant, which is expressly only for ideal black bodies. He used blatantly illegal math and physics. Pure fantasy. This happens a lot; the bad guys will hide their fraud that was out there for years. The bogus parts of his paper are highlighted in my main link. Complete disregard for the rule of significant digits, and comparing the Earth with it's molten core to an ideal black body, a mathematical concept that emits no heat or radiation whatsoever. NASA scientist Hansen confuses something colder than empty space with a radioactive decay furnace hot enough to melt iron under high pressure?? Moonbattery: Global Warming Hoaxer James Hansen Denounced as Fraud by Former Boss Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen "embarrassed NASA" with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was "was never muzzled." Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears. … This, by the way, is why Republicans were holding back funding to Federal labs: they have been infiltrated by fraud at the very top, across many agencies we used to hold dear and true. This goes on and on and on. I'm here repeating what I've put elsewhere. So start with my original piece. This is thirty easy to read pages, mostly just jpg's with brief supporting text, with lots of easy on the eyes spacing. Start here: CRIMATE.pdf - Google Drive And check further here: Global Warming Pause never true? - Current Events - Freedomain Radio Message Board climate fraud updates - General Messages - Freedomain Radio Message Board PLAN TO SPEND MINIMUM 2 HOURS, 3-4 IS BETTER.

Why do some hackers hack? Because it's possible. Human will always search the horizons, good or bad. Homicidal AI would be good for plundering. It might not even care to keep some gold or silver or mineral for themselves, making much more cost effective pirates.

From a yoga book: Enough is necessary, enough is enough. (Stop trying to prove something!!) Cats and dogs and other animals allowed to move around are in great shape. They NEVER do sit-ups; probably don't want to cause a hernia or spinal injury. They don't have paid coaches to misguide them. I NEVER had a P.E. teacher, where the E is for education, actually explain or guide me on anything, even if it was dangerous. (Except for Shirley at Coral Gables Bowling Lanes in 1966; I still know how to bowl. Hi, Shirley.) PE classes convinced me that I was a slow uncoordinated fat loser. Only when I got away on my own did I discover I'm actually a natural athlete.

I think is was GirlWritesWhat that pointed out that many acid attacks are on males, and many of the attacks, if not thrown by females, were orchestrated by females.

Oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please be true.

Caught my eye: The initiator, we assume, is the male, period. The female could be spilling cleavage all over the floor, making big eyes with hair falling a bit over them, slow motion writhing as she sits…and if the man responds, HE's the initiator.

What a delight to see a woman being honest about feminism! Thank you! HONEST! There is yet hope…. As to replying about being disadvantaged: I never see feminism mention that in the lifeboat crisis, it's WOMEN and children first, men drown. Or that when bullets fly in a movie theater, it's men that take the hit and the WOMEN that are allowed to live. Like "you live, we die, just because you have ovaries, using them or not" isn't massively sexist. Getting one's life protected because of possessing certain organs is NOT disadvantaged. Or that a drunk psycho female can physically assault a football player with no penalty, but if he defends himself, he loses his career. Women in general either are not charged with crimes, or the penalties are far less than for a man. Women get away with a lot, because "well, it's just a girl" I don't hear feminists protesting that. If men die so women live, if men are grindingly punished where women are coddled, how in H*ll does that suggest a dominant patriarchy?

Thanks for the concern, the links, and doing my ratio math for me! Sorry to hear about your Dad's problem; that sort of thing DOES turn up our radars for dangers. The Kaiser doc said nothing more, just one brief sentence dismissing the numbers. Given it's Kaiser, that is striking for it's lack of attempt at follow up testing and it's cash flow. As to anything else he was thinking, it's pure guess. I also notice that my online BN report didn't include any ratios. You'd think that would be big on the list of things to display. Over my lifetime, I've had random events suggest that I metabolize differently than others. Things would take longer to kick in with me, or passing diseases wouldn't hit as hard (tho' not all!), and I ended up in an ICU with what (should never have happened in the first place) is considered a standard high dose of lorazepam. I came very close to being vegetative or dead, and took serious damage (which the ICU staff never checked or noticed, and they weren't even busy). Based on my experience, people should be dying daily from bone marrows and bronchoscopes and a range of other painful procedures. But they don't. Why am I different? The link you provided about those numbers is welcome and informative. I notice they use words like correlate and often associated with. That is one of the points made in the sugar video, that early big mistakes were made by mixing correlation and causation. (I grant that the earlier things were just clunky bad science, and these other concerns are much tidier.) Elsewhere in the link there are studies saying something has a correlation of about 80% with something else. What about the other 20%? One-fifth is a big chunk of population. In the sugar video link, I learned that the main danger is small lipo-stuff getting under epithelial cells, and that is associated with certain numbers or ratios. I'm sure that this is rich research territory and shouldn't be dismissed. But it's incomplete, and still just correlation to some extent. By the way, I looked at the video again paying more attention to detail, and it reinforced what my body has been gradually learning over the last year: I don't like ANY gratuitous sugar or junky food. My few dietary sins continue to reduce. I'd be curious to see my numbers for next year's free exam.

It's not off topic if the topic is medical outright scam, or just sloppy science; we are victimized either way. You're right about how demeaning it is. The whole process was treating me like a hog to slaughter. Grrrr. I'd like to thank all viewers for reading all of this, and I hope you send the link here to many friends and relatives; this prostate screening is truly dangerous. Now as to the blood numbers, which I'll call BN. Often we find that original medical conclusions take on a life of their own, and the original science may have been untidy, or just because it was original there were unknown factors. Also, it takes time for studies to mature. I suspect this is happening with BN. I rarely had physicals until the eighties. I'm from a competent and honest medical family, so I know the medical sciences in fair detail, and where the caveats and uncertainties might be. I am very healthy because when in my twenties, with the help of an M.D. father, I tried to gather a group of good habits, of diet and exercise, wise and in moderation. Decades later, this is clearly seen as the right way to go. The goals of such habits have been achieved and maintained. I was lucky to bicycle commute all seasons for over twenty years, so my cardiopulmonary has always been excellent. Again, good workouts, but in moderation, no self-destruct types of exercise. In long ago stress periods, I might go from being fairly trim, to carrying too much fat, and knew the joys of Haazen-Daaz for months at a time. A decade ago, I shed about 25 pounds, and kept it off. Recently I was with "pants size pudge" and easily shed most of it by simply eliminating a few obviously junky or carb foods. Due to circumstances, my recent exercise actually diminished as my fat did, doing only home and snow types of chores. I mention this because elsewhere in the forums is a long talk about carbs and gaining fat and my experience exactly meshes: it's not about the calories burned, it's about not introducing those high fructose or carb foods at all. ▶ Sugar: The Bitter Truth - YouTube What annoyed me, as I had a few physicals thru the eighties/nineties, was that I was always in good health, but these magic numbers were saying I was supposed to take drugs. My GP at the time was not a pushy type, just gently asked, but it was the lab printouts making the condemnation. I hate the idea of mental imprisonment of taking a drug to not die, with the money and endless treadmill of that. For a printout??? Back in 2008, turning a certain age, I had a chest MRI. (Which left me disoriented, brains don't like being near that stuff.) It's a three test scan: lesions, calcium buildup, and some score with a name like Agatson. Zeros are what you want, and I had a perfect total of zero. I have PLENTY of sustained exertion experience, biking or shoveling heavy snow (bent handle only!) for example, and I'm clearly in great health. The MRI shows perfection. And yet somehow these BN tell me I'm cursed??? (We also don't know if I have lucky genetics, but even that is part of the statistical pool.) I was also disturbed by how it was reported. It was 1.5X or 2X, something like that, where X was a supposed normalized risk, whatever that meant. But what value is X??? On a class test or legal contract, that would be an incomplete answer or fraud. It reads like the label on quack supplements! A few years ago, I searched for X. It was blasted difficult to find an answer that was not a tangle of factors. I finally stumbled upon a graph, which I didn't save. It showed a family of three curves, stretching over the decades of a human life span. Each curve was a BN reading of some sort. The vertical scale showed a percentage likelihood of I think general heart disease. Most of all three curves were in the low single digits. Only when the worst BN curve hit the age sixties did it climb to maybe ten percent, and the other curves were still maybe 5-6%. Mind you, 10% may still be a problem, but I'm guessing that would be for the obviously unhealthy anyway. (Doing this from memory, bear with me on a bit of fuzziness.) So we're supposed to freak out because 3% becomes 4.5%? Sorry, that's a poor excuse for taking heavy drugs, at heavy expense, and wearing a heavy heart and sense of doom, all of which are known to be hell on health. The recent Kaiser doc said, when I asked about my BN, something like "we don't worry about that as much any more." No further comments. I'll upload my BN so you can see what they are. At the blood sample time I was still carrying that extra weight (few pounds?), and my dietary change hadn't yet occurred. I agree with you about the best current medical indicators. But what is best, compared to what? (And the good doc in that carbs link above said the same thing about a particular BN ratio being a risk indicator, and even gave the chemical pathways of why). Yet, if a few percent of people are at risk, what about the other ninety something percent? Can anyone find other graphs showing the stats? New York City might be the most likely US city to get a terrorist bomb. Bagdad may be the most likely Iraqi city to have one. Do we confuse the two? My calculated blood results say I'm in Bagdad, but every other datum says NYC. Whatever the rest of the world is thinking, this individual knows that he's in excellent health, and to ignore those BN.

Good points. I was thinking the smaller menu (simpler steps) of a single fast food outlet. I'll go online and see what I find. (Modern citizen's note to self: research cost of replacing self with machine. See today's Dilbert comic attached below.) Whatever it is now, the technology is clearly going to be a major player in a few years (3-5?), to the point that the cost is really the total vendor contract, as the actual machines are fairly simple (and clever) blends of well established electromechanical technique and require virtually nil special materials. Referencing another technology, at what point are the contract computer installs, with well-dressed IBM associates, replaced by online ordering a Dell from a big box store? From another angle: Sci-fi is fascinating, what are the possibilities of the more distant future? I don't know how sci-fi writers will come up with new stuff to put into the fiction race, since reality is catching up fast, and has already blown by much of the field. (Yes, I have an affection for metaphor.) I am intrigued by the thought of robot-hood and person-hood blurring the lines, like corporations are now in some ways considered "persons." If robots are just capital equipment, it's used until it's junked, and there are tax write offs. But if robots of decades hence become some sort of HAL9000, and can't be turned off because humans don't completely understand how they work, they just do (which I think is how A.C.Clarke told it in 2001: A SpaceOdyssey), then there is the doubt of whether it's a life form, similar to the question of when life in the womb begins. Whatever any person here and now might feel, a social movement of the future could easily wield enough political power to get legal action towards that end. Does the capital write-down evolve into a form of unemployment insurance for under-utilized robots? Any sci-fi minds out there want to run with that?

Does anyone know the stats on the dollar-only cost of a human employee at a fast food store, versus the installed and maintained cost of equivalent machines? A sales kiosk is probably now a catalog item from restaurant equipment suppliers. I believe all food prep phases have already been automated. I'm guessing an installed cost of sales and/or prep machines for a single small store may be low to high tens of thousand dollars, which would be just one or a few years worth of human wages. (And of course there's the lack of income tax, etc.)

Re covering cameras on devices: Years ago, in order to enjoy a dark nighttime room, instead of a zillion LED clocks which were part of every device, during the daylight I covered them all with black plastic tape. At night, I was dismayed to find that lots of light still came through. Clock numbers were diffuse but could be still be seen. I tried adding note paper behind the tape, which made little difference. I experimented and it was surprisingly difficult to block the light short of wood or metal or thick dark plastic. So if you think you covered your camera lens, think twice. And today's software is excellent at taking fuzzy data and reconstructing it.

Here's another item for the trend to replace workers with robots. Robot hotel to open in Japan | Al Jazeera America As a minor humorous point to it all, I noticed the phrase "old-fashioned keys" may be used if a guest is not comfy with facial recognition. Are these brass keys with notches? I think just magnetic cards. Funny how the phrase is reassigned to a newer old-fashion.

Akira Kurosawa--Music for Film: Samurai Song #2 - YouTube

Oooh…slick. I wonder if you read the comic XKCD. xkcd: #NowPlaying

I play UberStrike - Free to play browser-based first person shooter This is an indie outfit. It was originally designed ~2006 for the young (actual player ages predictably include young, but many are well into middle age and I'm one of the seniors…who is deadly) so no gore or decapitations, but great rag doll effects. No killer zombies, captured UN princesses, surprise dragons, or any plot at all. It is pure skill, and NO MERCY!!! It was Facebook's #1 game a couple years ago, and a home game blogger I stumbled upon, who wrote paragraphs about other mainstream games, only had this to say: "I heard about UberStrike. I tried it but had to leave after a short while because I couldn't survive it." A game reviewer couldn't survive it…hmmm. A pull quote from a major online game magazine, can't recall which, said something like it "was what gamers were really looking for." Great weapon selection, including both fantasy weapons, and real world items such as AK-47, M4A1, Uzi, SIG 552, and AWP sniper rifle. Costumes…to the extent you can even see them whizzing by at high movement speeds...are quite fun, and add varying armor value. I use little armor, so I win on reflexes. Players from 60+ countries, and huge skill sets show up, and if you think you are a good online shooter now, just try your hand and really see. One forum poster said the forums were the most intelligent he'd seen. A year or so ago, they did a game upgrade…they're good in general at this…and it somehow had a HUGE bug: it took many minutes to enter a game (we're talking go make dinner). Some kind of server bug I guess. Yet, against that, many of us stuck with it, until it was fixed many weeks later. So what is the appeal, that we'd wait huge times to still play? Must be something special….

It makes no sense for officers to have rifles. They OFFICIATE, not shoot. Can't observe the total situation thru a peep sight. Not to mention the fatigue of carrying something not used, tho' I think I've seen clips of officers carrying maybe carbines in a jeep. And if a command center is attacked, pistols are probably quite useful, certainly much easier in a crowded space to move about to re-aim than a rifle. The Russians of WW2 era surely did use weapons on their own men, and surely some Nazi's. But that would be true for any issued weapon the officer had. The idea that an officer in the general case is completely defenseless is lunacy. Having said that, I just viewed the entirety of HBO's "Band of Brothers" and "The Pacific" and I can't recall which one, but there was a brief bit of WW2 talk about lieutenants catching intentional friendly fire.

Yeah, that one got me too. Were the ancient aqueducts free? The dead children before water sanitation, or the cost of preventing dead children?

I'm intrigued by what face coverings might develop. There's the whole deal in France where a full face covering for women is illegal if it's religious, but what about blocking a cold or dusty wind? Is not privacy preservation like blocking an ill wind? If any one person wants to cover up, like a movie star trying to avoid attention already does, do they have to make sure it doesn't resemble something religious? But what would that be to begin with, but a piece of wrapped cloth?? I foresee privacy coverings being in alliance with religious practice convictions and challenges. And, um, what would be the tendencies in State reactions?

Wow, glad to see this post. I'm immersed in other forum topics right now, but a quick scan of your post makes me want to come back for a longer read. In the meantime, in the interest of getting as much as possible info in one place for easy access, here's a mega-link to other posts I've made on the topic, take a good hour or two at least to follow it all. Follow my orange flower icon to help navigate. Thanks again for the original post. climate fraud updates - General Messages - Freedomain Radio Message Board