What do you think about 5G?

[Unbreakable Disease]

5G is probably the most controversial cellular technology ever. While it
will provide even faster connection speeds than 4G, it carries many
concerns: interference, health, survelliance and security ones.

Interference:

5G, as it uses spectrum that is near of those of weather satellites, has
the potential to significatly degrade the accuracy of data collected by
them. As the performance of weather models is degrading more and more
with each day, it is more likely that in future more and more people
will die as a result of not being sufficiently warned against possible
severe weather.

Health:
This one is probably the most controversial, and for a reason. First, no
scientific study regarding possible health effects of 5G technology has
ever been conducted. As it uses much higher spectrum and more base
transceiver stations than current-generation cellular technology, those
concerns are *really* more than ever relevant.

Survelliance:
While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.

Security:
When more and more devices can connect to the Internet at the
faster-than-ever bandwidth rates, it can open an attack surface that
cybercriminals are waiting for. It will become easier to perform DDoS
attacks, cryptojacking, send spam, etc.

[nospam]

In article <qvs9tv$u0h$1...@dont-email.me>, Unbreakable Disease

<unbre...@secmail.pro> wrote:

> 5G is probably the most controversial cellular technology ever. While it
> will provide even faster connection speeds than 4G, it carries many
> concerns: interference, health, survelliance and security ones.

more idiocy.

> Interference:
>
> 5G, as it uses spectrum that is near of those of weather satellites, has
> the potential to significatly degrade the accuracy of data collected by
> them. As the performance of weather models is degrading more and more
> with each day, it is more likely that in future more and more people
> will die as a result of not being sufficiently warned against possible
> severe weather.

false.

> Health:
> This one is probably the most controversial, and for a reason. First, no
> scientific study regarding possible health effects of 5G technology has
> ever been conducted. As it uses much higher spectrum and more base
> transceiver stations than current-generation cellular technology, those
> concerns are *really* more than ever relevant.

false. numerous studies already have been done and which found *no*
link with health issues. same for wifi too.

> Survelliance:
> While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
> to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
> installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.

5g has no effect on that.

> Security:
> When more and more devices can connect to the Internet at the
> faster-than-ever bandwidth rates, it can open an attack surface that
> cybercriminals are waiting for. It will become easier to perform DDoS
> attacks, cryptojacking, send spam, etc.

5g has no effect on that either.

[Michael Christ]

Look out for stuff like Alexa which monitors what goes on in the home
24/7. Since I have nothing hide, I have one. It is amazing what it can
be used for and that is why it (or something similar) is headed into
everyone's home, just like the TV did.






Michael Christ

--
Rom 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us.

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."

[Michael Christ]

You are in denial, Buddy.

Everything gets ramped up with 5g.

[nospam]

In article <qvt6su$eu3$5...@dont-email.me>, Michael Christ

<jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:

>
> Everything gets ramped up with 5g.

not true.

5g mmw is low power short range.

[Michael Christ]

You're in denial.

Trusting in man, no doubt.

Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
around and through us, won't you.

[nospam]

In article <qvttkp$2jj$8...@dont-email.me>, Michael Christ

<jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:

> >> Everything gets ramped up with 5g.
> >
> > not true.
> >
> > 5g mmw is low power short range.
> >
>
> You're in denial.
>
> Trusting in man, no doubt.
>
> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
> around and through us, won't you.

cellphones have been around since the 1980s, became very popular in the
90s and today just about everyone has one, yet cancer rates have not
increased at the rate cellphone usage did, plus early on, phones were
analog and transmit power was a *lot* higher.

and then there all the *other* sources of rf, including radio and tv
transmitters, which are *far* more powerful than anything a cell tower
could ever possibly put out, by several orders of magnitude.

[Chris in Makati]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:22:00 +1100, Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:

>On 18/01/2020 10:14 am, nospam wrote:
>> In article <qvt6su$eu3$5...@dont-email.me>, Michael Christ
>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Everything gets ramped up with 5g.
>>
>> not true.
>>
>> 5g mmw is low power short range.
>>
>
>You're in denial.
>
>Trusting in man, no doubt.
>
>Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>around and through us, won't you.

You religious nutters have been on about this for decades, and the
effects you predict never happen.

What the f**k are you doing calling yourself Christ? Who the hell do
you think you are?

[JF Mezei]

On 2020-01-17 08:50, nospam wrote:
>Iterference:
>

> false.#

Actually true for one set of frequencies, I beleive is the mm wave ones
(but not sure). I know NOAA has made strong arguments which they lost at
the FCC to protect those frequencies as it affects satellite radar and
the cellular antennas and handsets will cause false images onto the
satelite imagery. (or something akin to that). I recall reading the
articles a year or two ago and they made valid points on the impact.


The one bigger effect for countrie slike USA without any network
neutrality rules (destroyed under Trump by Verizon,s lawyer who
infiltrated FCC). 5G gives carriers far mroe flexibility for pioritized
traffic or zero rating traffic because it becomes possible to create
many mroe applications with disctinct traffic "paths" (aka how packets
slots are allocated). With LTE, it is basically just data and VoIP
applicatiosn (each with their onw serapate APN). They will be able to
add far more apps with 5G.

VoIP for instance does not pass through the data path and its packets
not counted towards your monthly data cap, and gets priority access to
packet capacity).

[----------- A t h e i s t ------------]

Thank you for the clarification.


--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Christian: a person afraid of a perpetually hiding [imaginary] god.
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is _THE_ foundation of Christianity.
A Jesus is as useful as a Zeus.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:39:00 +0000, Unbreakable Disease
<unbre...@secmail.pro> wrote:

>5G is probably the most controversial cellular technology ever. While it
>will provide even faster connection speeds than 4G, it carries many
>concerns: interference, health, survelliance and security ones.
>

There is nothing supporting a claim of health issues.
Surveillance and security concerns are no more or less serious than
they are now.
Interference might be a valid concern. Though not what you cite
below.

>Interference:
>
>5G, as it uses spectrum that is near of those of weather satellites, has
>the potential to significatly degrade the accuracy of data collected by
>them. As the performance of weather models is degrading more and more
>with each day, it is more likely that in future more and more people
>will die as a result of not being sufficiently warned against possible
>severe weather.
>

Phones aren't powerful enough to alter the accuracy of weather
satellite data. Even if they were, satellite receivers will only
accept signals within the bandwidth of the transmission. Something
being close will be disregarded.

>Health:
>This one is probably the most controversial, and for a reason. First, no
>scientific study regarding possible health effects of 5G technology has
>ever been conducted. As it uses much higher spectrum and more base
>transceiver stations than current-generation cellular technology, those
>concerns are *really* more than ever relevant.
>

More transceivers are necessary because of the short range of 5G.
And the ease with which the signal can be blocked. You could be 10
meters from a transceiver and not get 5G if there is tree in the way.

>Survelliance:
>While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
>to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
>installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.
>

When out in public, everyone has a decreased expectation of
privacy. And cameras can be installed anywhere in public. This is
perfectly legal.

>Security:
>When more and more devices can connect to the Internet at the
>faster-than-ever bandwidth rates, it can open an attack surface that
>cybercriminals are waiting for. It will become easier to perform DDoS
>attacks, cryptojacking, send spam, etc.

It won't be any easier. It will be faster.
If you have 100 units attempting a DDoS, 5G will allow it to
happen faster than 4G, but it won't be any easier.

--
Shill #2
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/

[KWills Shill #2]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:22:00 +1100, Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:

>On 18/01/2020 10:14 am, nospam wrote:
>> In article <qvt6su$eu3$5...@dont-email.me>, Michael Christ
>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>>
>>> Everything gets ramped up with 5g.
>>
>> not true.
>>
>> 5g mmw is low power short range.
>
>You're in denial.
>

He (I am presuming nospam is male, but I could be wrong) is 100%
correct on this. It's not as if 5G's strength is a secret.

>Trusting in man, no doubt.
>

It was man who developed 5G.

>Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>around and through us, won't you.

Massive amounts of information has been running around and
through us for decades. This has been the case since, at least, radio
was new.

[Unbreakable Disease]

On 18.01.2020 09:19, ----------- A t h e i s t ------------ wrote:
> JF Mezei wrote:
>
>> On 2020-01-17 08:50, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> Iterference:
>>>
>>
>>
>>> false.#
>>
>>
>> Actually true for one set of frequencies, I beleive is the mm wave ones
>> (but not sure). I know NOAA has made strong arguments which they lost at
>> the FCC to protect those frequencies as it affects satellite radar and
>> the cellular antennas and handsets will cause false images onto the
>> satelite imagery.  (or something akin to that).  I recall reading the
>> articles a year or two ago and they made valid points on the impact.
>>
>>
>> The one bigger effect for countrie slike USA without any network
>> neutrality rules (destroyed under Trump by Verizon,s lawyer who
>> infiltrated FCC). 5G gives carriers far mroe flexibility for pioritized
>> traffic or zero rating traffic because it becomes possible to create
>> many mroe applications with disctinct traffic "paths" (aka how packets
>> slots are allocated). With LTE, it is basically just data and VoIP
>> applicatiosn (each with their onw serapate APN). They will be able to
>> add far more apps with 5G.
>>
>> VoIP for instance does not pass through the data path and its packets
>> not counted towards your monthly data cap, and gets priority access to
>> packet capacity).
>
> Thank you for the clarification.
>
>

And don't forget: social media will become even more addictive.

--
Tip me: bc1qtwmjzywve5v7z6jzk4dkg7v6masw2erpahsn9f

bitcoin:bc1qtwmjzywve5v7z6jzk4dkg7v6masw2erpahsn9f

[Unbreakable Disease]

On 18.01.2020 12:57, KWills Shill #2 wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:39:00 +0000, Unbreakable Disease
> <unbre...@secmail.pro> wrote:
>
>> 5G is probably the most controversial cellular technology ever. While it
>> will provide even faster connection speeds than 4G, it carries many
>> concerns: interference, health, survelliance and security ones.
>>
>
> There is nothing supporting a claim of health issues.

For now, of course.

> Surveillance and security concerns are no more or less serious than
> they are now.
> Interference might be a valid concern. Though not what you cite
> below.
>
>> Interference:
>>
>> 5G, as it uses spectrum that is near of those of weather satellites, has
>> the potential to significatly degrade the accuracy of data collected by
>> them. As the performance of weather models is degrading more and more
>> with each day, it is more likely that in future more and more people
>> will die as a result of not being sufficiently warned against possible
>> severe weather.
>>
>
> Phones aren't powerful enough to alter the accuracy of weather
> satellite data. Even if they were, satellite receivers will only
> accept signals within the bandwidth of the transmission. Something
> being close will be disregarded.

Yes, but millions of those transceivers working at the same spectrum can
make a big difference.

>> Health:
>> This one is probably the most controversial, and for a reason. First, no
>> scientific study regarding possible health effects of 5G technology has
>> ever been conducted. As it uses much higher spectrum and more base
>> transceiver stations than current-generation cellular technology, those
>> concerns are *really* more than ever relevant.
>>
>
> More transceivers are necessary because of the short range of 5G.
> And the ease with which the signal can be blocked. You could be 10
> meters from a transceiver and not get 5G if there is tree in the way.

Yes, but what when you are outside?

>> Survelliance:
>> While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
>> to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
>> installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.
>>
>
> When out in public, everyone has a decreased expectation of
> privacy. And cameras can be installed anywhere in public. This is
> perfectly legal.

Still scary... Do you want to live in the Communist State?

>> Security:
>> When more and more devices can connect to the Internet at the
>> faster-than-ever bandwidth rates, it can open an attack surface that
>> cybercriminals are waiting for. It will become easier to perform DDoS
>> attacks, cryptojacking, send spam, etc.
>
> It won't be any easier. It will be faster.
> If you have 100 units attempting a DDoS, 5G will allow it to
> happen faster than 4G, but it won't be any easier.
>

Let's imagine you have a server connected to the low-bandwidth Internet
connection. It will be, because 5G gives much more bandwidth than
previous cellular networks.

[Michael Christ]

No one sits on a radio and TV transmitter 24/7!

There will be millions and millions of these towers all around us in
close proximity! The density of mobile phones in a square meter on a
bus full of people in New York. Think along those lines. Short, medium
to long term effects nothing?

You are trying to convince yourself 5g is nothing but a harmless
butterfly. It is not natural.

Nothing to see here folks is bullshit. They are gambling big time with
adult and children's health! This is what you are not getting, in small
doses, arsenic is quite useful.

You are gambling on the ways of man and look at his record.

[Michael Christ]

Another 'I am God' newbie hath arrived.

[Michael Christ]

On 18/01/2020 11:58 pm, KWills Shill #2 wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:22:00 +1100, Michael Christ
> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>
>> On 18/01/2020 10:14 am, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <qvt6su$eu3$5...@dont-email.me>, Michael Christ
>>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Everything gets ramped up with 5g.
>>>
>>> not true.
>>>
>>> 5g mmw is low power short range.
>>
>> You're in denial.
>>
>
> He (I am presuming nospam is male, but I could be wrong) is 100%
> correct on this. It's not as if 5G's strength is a secret.
>
>> Trusting in man, no doubt.
>>
>
> It was man who developed 5G.

And nukes and bombs and guns and plastic filling the oceans and all
pollution and global warming and road rage and war and and and and and
and and and and and and.....................................

Great point!!

>
>> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>> around and through us, won't you.
>
> Massive amounts of information has been running around and
> through us for decades. This has been the case since, at least, radio
> was new.
>

You need to do some learning, Bubba.

[Ted]

Mostly positive. Which is probably what 5G is.

[Arlen Holder]

What do I think about 5G?

A modern mobile device _must_ have it.
Which is why Apple surrendered _billions_ to Qualcomm, to get it.

See details here on the deals (which cost Apple about 6 billion!):
o *Apple would have died as a company if it didn't surrender to Qualcomm*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/jUEvxhLv2Gk/P49VzY_SCwAJ>

--
Bringing truth to the Apple newsgroups, where they need it most.

[Arlen Holder]

> What do I think about 5G?

BTW, it's not just in modem ICs that Apple fails miserably on.
o *Did Apple (yet again) fail in chip design, this time with graphics chips?*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/_KhXtYcseUU/hsyoVb49BgAJ>

--
Bringing facts to the Apple newsgroups that apologists need to know.

[Rod Flanders]

Microwave ovens, GMO food, and fluorescant lights are
already killing thousands of people every day. 5G is just
another nail in our coffin.

When will people ever wake up? God is talking to you.


>
>
>
> Michael Christ

[KWills Shill #2]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 22:45:00 +0000, Unbreakable Disease

Not to the weather satellite data you mentioned. The receivers
will disregard anything that isn't in the specific band being
transmitted by the satellites.

>>> Health:
>>> This one is probably the most controversial, and for a reason. First, no
>>> scientific study regarding possible health effects of 5G technology has
>>> ever been conducted. As it uses much higher spectrum and more base
>>> transceiver stations than current-generation cellular technology, those
>>> concerns are *really* more than ever relevant.
>>
>> More transceivers are necessary because of the short range of 5G.
>> And the ease with which the signal can be blocked. You could be 10
>> meters from a transceiver and not get 5G if there is tree in the way.
>
>Yes, but what when you are outside?
>

Most of the time, trees are outside.

>>> Survelliance:
>>> While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
>>> to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
>>> installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.
>>
>> When out in public, everyone has a decreased expectation of
>> privacy. And cameras can be installed anywhere in public. This is
>> perfectly legal.
>
>Still scary... Do you want to live in the Communist State?
>

Why would it be Communist? It's near impossible to be outside in
London, England and not be on camera. I'm not an expert on the British
government, but I'm certain it's not Communist.
If you should visit Manhattan, you'll find cameras, and
microphones, on nearly every street corner. If you and I were there
together standing outside talking about whatever, we could be recorded
and it would be 100% legal. No part of New York is Communist.

>>> Security:
>>> When more and more devices can connect to the Internet at the
>>> faster-than-ever bandwidth rates, it can open an attack surface that
>>> cybercriminals are waiting for. It will become easier to perform DDoS
>>> attacks, cryptojacking, send spam, etc.
>>
>> It won't be any easier. It will be faster.
>> If you have 100 units attempting a DDoS, 5G will allow it to
>> happen faster than 4G, but it won't be any easier.
>>
>Let's imagine you have a server connected to the low-bandwidth Internet
>connection. It will be, because 5G gives much more bandwidth than
>previous cellular networks.

Nope. Only faster. This isn't a secret.
Stop accepting what the kook websites tell you. Check for
yourself.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 10:49:40 +1100, Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:

>On 18/01/2020 2:30 pm, nospam wrote:
>> In article <qvttkp$2jj$8...@dont-email.me>, Michael Christ
>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Everything gets ramped up with 5g.
>>>>
>>>> not true.
>>>>
>>>> 5g mmw is low power short range.
>>>
>>> You're in denial.
>>>
>>> Trusting in man, no doubt.
>>>
>>> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>>> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>>> around and through us, won't you.
>>
>> cellphones have been around since the 1980s, became very popular in the
>> 90s and today just about everyone has one, yet cancer rates have not
>> increased at the rate cellphone usage did, plus early on, phones were
>> analog and transmit power was a *lot* higher.
>
>> and then there all the *other* sources of rf, including radio and tv
>> transmitters, which are *far* more powerful than anything a cell tower
>> could ever possibly put out, by several orders of magnitude.
>
>No one sits on a radio and TV transmitter 24/7!
>

No one sits on a cellular tower 24/7.

>There will be millions and millions of these towers all around us in
>close proximity! The density of mobile phones in a square meter on a
>bus full of people in New York. Think along those lines. Short, medium
>to long term effects nothing?
>

Do you have evidence that anything more dangerous than we face
now will occur?

>You are trying to convince yourself 5g is nothing but a harmless
>butterfly. It is not natural.

Neither are computers. Or the Internet. Odds are, the clear
majority of your life is made up of that which is not natural.

>
>Nothing to see here folks is bullshit. They are gambling big time with
>adult and children's health! This is what you are not getting, in small
>doses, arsenic is quite useful.
>
>You are gambling on the ways of man and look at his record.

History shows man has done pretty good, over all. There are some
exception. Some of them showing the most deplorable aspects of humans.
But, for the most part, man's done well.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 11:11:19 +1100, Michael Christ

<jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:

>On 18/01/2020 11:58 pm, KWills Shill #2 wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 14:22:00 +1100, Michael Christ
>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/01/2020 10:14 am, nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <qvt6su$eu3$5...@dont-email.me>, Michael Christ
>>>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Everything gets ramped up with 5g.
>>>>
>>>> not true.
>>>>
>>>> 5g mmw is low power short range.
>>>
>>> You're in denial.
>>
>> He (I am presuming nospam is male, but I could be wrong) is 100%
>> correct on this. It's not as if 5G's strength is a secret.
>>
>>> Trusting in man, no doubt.
>>
>> It was man who developed 5G.
>
>And nukes and bombs and guns and plastic filling the oceans and all
>pollution and global warming and road rage and war and and and and and
>and and and and and and.....................................
>
>Great point!!
>

And vaccines, and health care that helps reduce illness. Man has
found a way to make science understandable. An so on.
Your god, if he exists, has either caused directly or permitted a
great deal of suffering. If such a god exists, he, she or it should be
disregarded.

>>> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>>> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>>> around and through us, won't you.
>>
>> Massive amounts of information has been running around and
>> through us for decades. This has been the case since, at least, radio
>> was new.
>
>You need to do some learning, Bubba.
>

I am well educated. That you think only the uneducated can prove
you wrong is an interesting position for you to express.

--
Shill #2
Los Angeles Branch.
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/


>
>
>
>

>Michael Christ

[KWills Shill #2]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 02:04:59 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>What do I think about 5G?
>
>A modern mobile device _must_ have it.

Not quite must. 4G will be viable for a while yet.

>Which is why Apple surrendered _billions_ to Qualcomm, to get it.
>

All manufacturers will eventually offer devices that can use 5G.

>See details here on the deals (which cost Apple about 6 billion!):
>o *Apple would have died as a company if it didn't surrender to Qualcomm*
><https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/jUEvxhLv2Gk/P49VzY_SCwAJ>

Nah. The deal with Qualcomm didn't hurt Apple, and most feel
Apple isn't happy with the arrangement, but there's nothing to support
a claim that Apple would have failed without it. The company would
simply license the technology as all other manufacturers will.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:09:09 +0800, Rod Flanders <rfla...@next.door>
wrote:

[...]

>> You are gambling on the ways of man and look at his record.
>
>Microwave ovens, GMO food, and fluorescant lights are
>already killing thousands of people every day. 5G is just
>another nail in our coffin.
>
>When will people ever wake up? God is talking to you.

And saying, "Don't pay attention to people who claim any god
actually exists."

[Rod Flanders]

KWills Shill #2 <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:09:09 +0800, Rod Flanders <rfla...@next.door>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> You are gambling on the ways of man and look at his record.
> >
> >Microwave ovens, GMO food, and fluorescant lights are
> >already killing thousands of people every day. 5G is just
> >another nail in our coffin.
> >
> >When will people ever wake up? God is talking to you.
>
> And saying, "Don't pay attention to people who claim any god
> actually exists."

The Bible warns us about antichrists like you.

1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit
of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come;
and even now already is it in the world.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 06:19:26 -0800, KWills Shill #2 wrote:

>>What do I think about 5G?
>>
>>A modern mobile device _must_ have it.
>
> Not quite must. 4G will be viable for a while yet.

FACTS + ASSESSMENT.

If you compare all phones, including $100 phones like my Moto G7, your
statement is valid - but you must think about Apple's price range phones.

Think about the key fact that Apple is all MARKETING of "premium" devices.
o How can a "premium" device sell, at premium prices, in 2020, without 5G?

Even today, my cheap $100 Mot G7 has vastly more app functionality than
_any_ iOS device ever sold (at any price)... and lots of modern hardware
functionality that isn't on even the most expensive of the primitive iOS
devices ... so think about how bad it would be for Apple if they didn't
surrender to Qualcomm on 5G.

While I grant you that most people aren't technical enough to realize how
utterly primitive iOS app functionality is, you can rest assured nobody
would have been ignorant of a thousand dollar phone that couldn't even get
something as simple as a modem to work.

Even the least technical person would have known that their thousand dollar
iPhone was a fraction of the networking speed of a modern Android phone.

>>Which is why Apple surrendered _billions_ to Qualcomm, to get it.
>>
>
> All manufacturers will eventually offer devices that can use 5G.

FACTS + ASSESSMENT.

My role on this newsgroup is to speak sense & adult logical reason.
o Bear in mind everything I state is backed up by the facts.

Apple spent upwards of 6 billion dollars to get their hands on 5G in 2020.
o That's how important getting their hands on 5G was to Apple's business.

Notice the Apologists claimed Apple "wasn't worried" about 5G; but if they
weren't worried, why did they spend six billion dollars to get their hands
on it by 2020?

How many projects do you think Apple spend six billion dollars on anyway?

>>See details here on the deals (which cost Apple about 6 billion!):
>>o *Apple would have died as a company if it didn't surrender to Qualcomm*
>><https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/jUEvxhLv2Gk/P49VzY_SCwAJ>
>
> Nah. The deal with Qualcomm didn't hurt Apple, and most feel
> Apple isn't happy with the arrangement, but there's nothing to support
> a claim that Apple would have failed without it. The company would
> simply license the technology as all other manufacturers will.

FACTS + ASSESSMENT.

First off, the deal "didn't hurt Apple" because Apple felt getting their
hands on 5G by 2020 was one of the most critical business objectives for
the company.

They traded six billion dollars for that 5G functionality.

It "didn't hurt Apple" because Apple would have died without it.
o How many projects do you think Apple spend six billion dollars on anyway?

Apple MARKETING runs the business - where the evidence shows that Apple
sells "premium" phones which would have taken a huge hit by being dog slow
in 2020 compared to the already far more modern Android phones.

Bear in mind, facts easily prove there is no app functionality on iOS that
isn't already on Android, and, worse, there is plenty of modern app
functionality on Android that isn't on iOS.

Also, bear in mind that it's more expensive to buy Android exploits than
iOS exploits simply because facts show the market is flooded with iOS
exploits.

FACTS + ASSESSMENT.

I agree with you that it's not clear to non technical laypeople how
shockingly primitive iOS app functionality is compared to modern Android
app functionality, but rest assured, EVERYONE would know how slow Apple's
modems would have been if Apple had not surrendered to Qualcomm to get 5G
by 2020 & beyond.

--
Bringing adult logic & reason to the Apple newsgroups one fact at a time.

[nospam]

In article <r029bo$c6b$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

> o How can a "premium" device sell, at premium prices, in 2020, without 5G?

easily, since very few phones have 5g, and the ones that do suck.

the samsung s10 5g overheats when using 5g within a minute or two
(i.e., it's useless) forcing it to fall back to 4g, plus it's battery
life is very short, barely lasting to lunchtime. it's also big and
expensive, carrying a $300 premium on top of the already high $1000 s10
price.

[Michael Christ]

Yeah baby!

[Michael Christ]

On 20/01/2020 1:17 am, KWills Shill #2 wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 10:49:40 +1100, Michael Christ
> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>
>> On 18/01/2020 2:30 pm, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <qvttkp$2jj$8...@dont-email.me>, Michael Christ
>>> <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Everything gets ramped up with 5g.
>>>>>
>>>>> not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5g mmw is low power short range.
>>>>
>>>> You're in denial.
>>>>
>>>> Trusting in man, no doubt.
>>>>
>>>> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>>>> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>>>> around and through us, won't you.
>>>
>>> cellphones have been around since the 1980s, became very popular in the
>>> 90s and today just about everyone has one, yet cancer rates have not
>>> increased at the rate cellphone usage did, plus early on, phones were
>>> analog and transmit power was a *lot* higher.
>>
>>> and then there all the *other* sources of rf, including radio and tv
>>> transmitters, which are *far* more powerful than anything a cell tower
>>> could ever possibly put out, by several orders of magnitude.
>>
>> No one sits on a radio and TV transmitter 24/7!
>>
>
> No one sits on a cellular tower 24/7.

You are a cell tower!

And multiply that many fold over with 5g.

>
>> There will be millions and millions of these towers all around us in
>> close proximity! The density of mobile phones in a square meter on a
>> bus full of people in New York. Think along those lines. Short, medium
>> to long term effects nothing?
>>
>
> Do you have evidence that anything more dangerous than we face
> now will occur?

Do you have evidence that it is not?

It is you that is bringing unnatural into the natural world more and
more and more and more with no abating.

Anytime that is done that is unnatural means trouble one way or another.

And please, don't insult my intelligence with, 'What?'. I see no
increase of cancer through man's deeds or something as stupid.

>> You are trying to convince yourself 5g is nothing but a harmless
>> butterfly. It is not natural.
>
> Neither are computers. Or the Internet. Odds are, the clear
> majority of your life is made up of that which is not natural.
>

Of course, man has changed the whole planet with his ways. It is not an
argument to compare an orange with an orange.

>>
>> Nothing to see here folks is bullshit. They are gambling big time with
>> adult and children's health! This is what you are not getting, in small
>> doses, arsenic is quite useful.
>>
>> You are gambling on the ways of man and look at his record.
>
> History shows man has done pretty good, over all. There are some
> exception. Some of them showing the most deplorable aspects of humans.
> But, for the most part, man's done well.
>

Right! That is why we are destroying the planet. Just because we
haven't reached a tipping point yet, all is well!! :-).

You people with your head in the sand!

[Michael Christ]

Sweep it all under the carpet but sooner or later!

>
>>>> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>>>> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>>>> around and through us, won't you.
>>>
>>> Massive amounts of information has been running around and
>>> through us for decades. This has been the case since, at least, radio
>>> was new.
>>
>> You need to do some learning, Bubba.
>>
>
> I am well educated. That you think only the uneducated can prove
> you wrong is an interesting position for you to express.
>

Isn't it amazing, atheists all do the same thing. You have an arm and a
knife, you slash your arm and go, look at what God has done if He exists.

:-).

[Arlen Holder]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 14:15:21 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> o How can a "premium" device sell, at premium prices, in 2020, without 5G?
>
> easily, since very few phones have 5g, and the ones that do suck.

Hi nospam,

Responding for the adults on this newsgroup (if any), it's clear that only
premium phones have 5G at the moment, and, for the next couple of years it
will likely be still only the premium phones.

My position is clear, which is supported by the facts, which is that Apple
spent that six billion dollars because they MARKET that they're premium
phones, and they couldn't maintain that illusion without a decent modem.

> the samsung s10 5g overheats when using 5g within a minute or two
> (i.e., it's useless) forcing it to fall back to 4g, plus it's battery
> life is very short, barely lasting to lunchtime. it's also big and
> expensive, carrying a $300 premium on top of the already high $1000 s10
> price.

You are a canonical Apple apologist, so it's expected that you incessantly
blame everyone else but Apple for everything you don't like about Apple.

The facts show that at least Samsung can make a modem where it's clear
Apple failed everywhere they tried (as they failed with CPUs having to be
throttled after only about a year, and they failed with GPUs just
recently).

If you wish to refute those facts, nospam, you know I'll provide cites
proving that the facts are correct, where all you ever do is blame everyone
else but Apple for what you don't like about Apple.

You already know we've proved, with facts, Apple has _never_ released a
best-in-class smartphone IC (facts prove Apple throttled CPUs, and Apple
throttled modems, and Apple dropped GPUs, for example).

Bear in mind that Samsung has _years_ on Apple on modem design, where the
facts show Apple can't even release iOS 13 without huge problems.

If Apple can't even make something as simple as a modem, or even release
something as simple as iOS without huge bugs, what makes you think Apple
will get modems right the first time out?

--
The facts prove Apple has never made any best-in-class smartphone IC, ever.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 23:31:03 +0800, Rod Flanders <rfla...@next.door>

And if you don't kiss Hank's ass, he'll kick your ass.

http://jhuger.com/kissing-hanks-ass

[KWills Shill #2]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:06:32 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 06:19:26 -0800, KWills Shill #2 wrote:
>
>>>What do I think about 5G?
>>>
>>>A modern mobile device _must_ have it.
>>
>> Not quite must. 4G will be viable for a while yet.
>
>FACTS + ASSESSMENT.
>
>If you compare all phones, including $100 phones like my Moto G7, your
>statement is valid - but you must think about Apple's price range phones.
>

You stated "A modern mobile device _must_ have it." (emphasis
yours). Eventually all will have it. But there is nothing to suggest
all MUST have it at this time.

>Think about the key fact that Apple is all MARKETING of "premium" devices.
>o How can a "premium" device sell, at premium prices, in 2020, without 5G?
>

Why are you moving the goal post from all devices to some
specific devices from Apple? That is the real question.

>Even today, my cheap $100 Mot G7 has vastly more app functionality than
>_any_ iOS device ever sold (at any price)... and lots of modern hardware
>functionality that isn't on even the most expensive of the primitive iOS
>devices ... so think about how bad it would be for Apple if they didn't
>surrender to Qualcomm on 5G.
>
>While I grant you that most people aren't technical enough to realize how
>utterly primitive iOS app functionality is, you can rest assured nobody
>would have been ignorant of a thousand dollar phone that couldn't even get
>something as simple as a modem to work.
>
>Even the least technical person would have known that their thousand dollar
>iPhone was a fraction of the networking speed of a modern Android phone.
>

If your goal is to prove Android is better than iOS, you're
preaching to the choir. I much prefer Android.
I don't have a problem with anyone who buys an iPhone. Though I
do wonder why they would spend so much more for something that does
the same thing as an Android device. But they have every right to
purchase the phone they want.

>>>Which is why Apple surrendered _billions_ to Qualcomm, to get it.
>>
>> All manufacturers will eventually offer devices that can use 5G.
>
>FACTS + ASSESSMENT.
>
>My role on this newsgroup is to speak sense & adult logical reason.
>o Bear in mind everything I state is backed up by the facts.
>

And when you're called out on being wrong, you try to divert to
something else. Like your claim that, "A modern mobile device _must_
have it." When I pointed out the error in the claim, you tried to
divert the claim to mean only Apple's high end phones.
But present your facts that "A modern mobile device _must_ have
it." Present the evidence that will show any devices with 4G will
suddenly cease working as intended.

>Apple spent upwards of 6 billion dollars to get their hands on 5G in 2020.
>o That's how important getting their hands on 5G was to Apple's business.
>

Which has what, exactly, to do with your claim about all devices?

>Notice the Apologists claimed Apple "wasn't worried" about 5G; but if
they
>weren't worried, why did they spend six billion dollars to get their hands
>on it by 2020?
>
>How many projects do you think Apple spend six billion dollars on anyway?
>

I don't know. Mostly because what Apple does with its money is
its business. As long as it isn't infringing on the rights of others.
More important is you explaining why you're desperately trying to
divert from your initial claim?


[Snip the remainder of your failed attempt to divert from the claim
that a modern mobile device _must_ have [5G]. when you know, and knew,
the claim is not true.]

[KWills Shill #2]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 11:40:42 +1100, Michael Christ

Are you pretending to be delusional? If not, please get
professional help.

>And multiply that many fold over with 5g.
>

So I would be *many* cell towers? Really?

>>> There will be millions and millions of these towers all around us in
>>> close proximity! The density of mobile phones in a square meter on a
>>> bus full of people in New York. Think along those lines. Short, medium
>>> to long term effects nothing?
>>
>> Do you have evidence that anything more dangerous than we face
>> now will occur?
>
>Do you have evidence that it is not?
>

Avoidance noted.
It befalls you to prove your claim. I do not have to disprove it.

>It is you that is bringing unnatural into the natural world more and
>more and more and more with no abating.
>

Your delusion that I developed 5G is amusing.

>Anytime that is done that is unnatural means trouble one way or another.
>
>And please, don't insult my intelligence with, 'What?'. I see no
>increase of cancer through man's deeds or something as stupid.
>

You've yet to offer anything that would support, let alone prove,
your delusions to be real.

>>> You are trying to convince yourself 5g is nothing but a harmless
>>> butterfly. It is not natural.
>>
>> Neither are computers. Or the Internet. Odds are, the clear
>> majority of your life is made up of that which is not natural.
>
>Of course, man has changed the whole planet with his ways. It is not an
>argument to compare an orange with an orange.
>

And, over all, man is doing well. There are exceptions, of
course. But those are in the minority.

>>> Nothing to see here folks is bullshit. They are gambling big time with
>>> adult and children's health! This is what you are not getting, in small
>>> doses, arsenic is quite useful.
>>>
>>> You are gambling on the ways of man and look at his record.
>>
>> History shows man has done pretty good, over all. There are some
>> exception. Some of them showing the most deplorable aspects of humans.
>> But, for the most part, man's done well.
>>
>
>Right! That is why we are destroying the planet. Just because we
>haven't reached a tipping point yet, all is well!! :-).
>
>You people with your head in the sand!
>

Provide the valid, verifiable evidence for your claims. If your
claims are based in reality, you will do so. If not, you won't.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 11:43:43 +1100, Michael Christ

Your desperate avoidance of the truth is noted.
If your god does exist, he is extremely evil.

>>>>> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>>>>> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>>>>> around and through us, won't you.
>>>>
>>>> Massive amounts of information has been running around and
>>>> through us for decades. This has been the case since, at least, radio
>>>> was new.
>>>
>>> You need to do some learning, Bubba.
>>
>> I am well educated. That you think only the uneducated can prove
>> you wrong is an interesting position for you to express.
>>
>
>Isn't it amazing, atheists all do the same thing. You have an arm and a
>knife, you slash your arm and go, look at what God has done if He exists.
>

I've done no such thing. If your god does exist, then Satan and
his demons do as well. And you prove you have a demon of lying that
controls you.
If your god does exist, and I've seen nothing to support a claim
that he does, he has a great deal to answer for.

[nospam]

In article <vksa2f1vfoebqcu2h...@4ax.com>, KWills Shill

#2 <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:06:32 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
> <arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:
>

> ...

> If your goal is to prove Android is better than iOS, you're
> preaching to the choir. I much prefer Android.
> I don't have a problem with anyone who buys an iPhone. Though I
> do wonder why they would spend so much more for something that does
> the same thing as an Android device. But they have every right to
> purchase the phone they want.

prices are similar for similar specs.

<https://store.google.com/us/product/pixel_4>
From $799 or $33.29/mo for 24 mos

<https://www.techradar.com/reviews/samsung-galaxy-s10>
The Samsung Galaxy S10 price starts at $899 / £799 / AU$1,349 / AED
3,199 for the 128GB of storage model, meaning you're spending an
additional $180 / £60 / AED 100 on this phone over the S9 launch
price.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 08:32:48 -0500, nospam wrote:

> prices are similar for similar specs.
>
> <https://store.google.com/us/product/pixel_4>
> From $799 or $33.29/mo for 24 mos
>
> <https://www.techradar.com/reviews/samsung-galaxy-s10>
> The Samsung Galaxy S10 price starts at $899 / £799 / AU$1,349 / AED
> 3,199 for the 128GB of storage model, meaning you're spending an
> additional $180 / £60 / AED 100 on this phone over the S9 launch
> price.

Hi nospam,

Your facts are about as reliable as the results of a coin toss, nospam.

FACTS + ASSESSMENT.
o It's what separates the adults from you child-like apologists.

You always prove any child-like apologist can find the worst prices.
o By way of contrast, intelligent adults find the best prices out there.

We long ago proved that, for $130, my old phone _kills_ the iPhone 7 Plus,
for example, on specs (particularly software functionality & hardware):
o Phablet stocking stuffers: iPhone 7 versus LG Stylo 3 Plus price/performance hardware comparison
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/ls71mnkj4jk/n0FaH2e_DQAJ>

And, for $100, my new 64GB/4GB Moto G7 _kills_ any iPhone ever built!
o It has far more software functionality than any iPhone ever made
o It has modern hardware functionality on no iPhone ever made
o It has better hardware than _most_ iPhones currently extent

You apologists are always predictable in how you make excuses for Apple!
o You always choose the _worst_ phone comparisons you can find, nospam.

o What is the closest Apple iPhone comparison to the $100 64GB 4GB RAM Motorola G7?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/UIYH1QYp8Pw/mN8Sk97vAQAJ>

And, if we get into premium-priced phones, what iPhone beats this?
o What's the best Apple-to-Android comparison today to the unlocked 8-core 2.8GHz $700 128GB, 8GB RAM, 512GB sd - Samsung Galaxy S10+ Plus
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/0LBG2zrAroA>

--
Bringing truth to Apple ngs via published facts & rational adult logic.

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 01:30:24 -0800, KWills Shill #2 wrote:

>>If you compare all phones, including $100 phones like my Moto G7, your
>>statement is valid - but you must think about Apple's price range phones.
>>
>
> You stated "A modern mobile device _must_ have it." (emphasis
> yours). Eventually all will have it. But there is nothing to suggest
> all MUST have it at this time.

Hi KWill's Shill,

FACTS + ASSESSMENT.

You either understood what I said about "premium priced" phones...
o Or you completely whooshed on what is meant by "premium priced" phones.

Pick one.

>>Think about the key fact that Apple is all MARKETING of "premium" devices.
>>o How can a "premium" device sell, at premium prices, in 2020, without 5G?
>>
>
> Why are you moving the goal post from all devices to some
> specific devices from Apple? That is the real question.

You either understood that there are zero Android newsgroups on this thread
o Or you completely whooshed on that obvious-to-adults fact

Pick one.

>>Even the least technical person would have known that their thousand dollar
>>iPhone was a fraction of the networking speed of a modern Android phone.
>>
>
> If your goal is to prove Android is better than iOS, you're
> preaching to the choir. I much prefer Android.

My main goal on the Apple newsgroups is to expose the apologists
o For what they are.

I do that with facts, logic, and reason.
o Something that they're not.

> I don't have a problem with anyone who buys an iPhone. Though I
> do wonder why they would spend so much more for something that does
> the same thing as an Android device. But they have every right to
> purchase the phone they want.

I have _plenty_ of Android & iOS devices.
o My goal here is simply to expose the apologists for what they are.

> And when you're called out on being wrong, you try to divert to
> something else. Like your claim that, "A modern mobile device _must_
> have it." When I pointed out the error in the claim, you tried to
> divert the claim to mean only Apple's high end phones.

You either realize Apple doesn't make a $100 phone, or you don't.
o Pick one.

> But present your facts that "A modern mobile device _must_ have
> it." Present the evidence that will show any devices with 4G will
> suddenly cease working as intended.

You just created a strawman of your own choosing.
o You're the only one claiming devices with 4G will "suddenly cease".

>>Apple spent upwards of 6 billion dollars to get their hands on 5G in 2020.
>>o That's how important getting their hands on 5G was to Apple's business.
>>
>
> Which has what, exactly, to do with your claim about all devices?

See prior adult context which you clearly repeatedly whooshed on.
o What part of the fact Apple markets PREMIUM-PRICED phones did you miss?

>>How many projects do you think Apple spend six billion dollars on anyway?
>>
>
> I don't know. Mostly because what Apple does with its money is
> its business. As long as it isn't infringing on the rights of others.

The reason for bringing up the fact Apple surrendered to Qualcomm is that
the apologists, nospam in particular, claimed Apple "wasn't worried" about
5G.

My point is to expose the apologists for what they are.
o In the case of nospam, he has only 7 responses to facts - none adult.

> More important is you explaining why you're desperately trying to
> divert from your initial claim?

You can repeatedly build your own strawman and then shoot it down.
o I find _all_ your claims trivial to shoot down, in fact ... with fact.

I don't think you're an apologist - so why are you so unreasonable?
o What part of "premium phones" are you so confused about anyway?

> [Snip the remainder of your failed attempt to divert from the claim
> that a modern mobile device _must_ have [5G]. when you know, and knew,
> the claim is not true.]

You have two _adult_ choices, as I see your options...
1. You can accept that you have no clue what "premium" means, or,
2. You can continue to prove you have no clue what "premium" means.

Pick one.

HINT: A premium phone, in 2020, _must_ have 5G. Period.
o Apple would have _died_ as a company if it didn't surrender to Qualcomm.

--
Bringing truth to the Apple newsgroups, one simple obvious fact at a time.

[Michael Christ]

It doesn't take that much of a lateral thought to gather that in. I
don't think that was too difficult to understand.

On your device in a busy area you are the convergence of many
electromagnetic signals and so is everyone else.

But if your vested interest is just to make me appear like an idiot to
build your case, okay. That is all too common.

>
>> And multiply that many fold over with 5g.
>>
>
> So I would be *many* cell towers? Really?

You are being disingenuous yet again, but in a sense, yes.

>>>> There will be millions and millions of these towers all around us in
>>>> close proximity! The density of mobile phones in a square meter on a
>>>> bus full of people in New York. Think along those lines. Short, medium
>>>> to long term effects nothing?
>>>
>>> Do you have evidence that anything more dangerous than we face
>>> now will occur?
>>
>> Do you have evidence that it is not?
>>
>
> Avoidance noted.

You did just that. I have on my side millions and millions of these
very high traffic towers all around us in close proximity and you
dismiss it as nothing.

If you look there are many well educated people who are heralding a
strong warning about this. Are they all fools, nothing to see here folks?

> It befalls you to prove your claim. I do not have to disprove it.

So you claim.

It is not about proving, it is about intuition and experience in life,
just like it is for you.

>
>> It is you that is bringing unnatural into the natural world more and
>> more and more and more with no abating.
>>
>
> Your delusion that I developed 5G is amusing.

Another disingenuous statement. What do you hope to gain, superiority
by dishonestly painting your opponent as a fool? That is a very weak
position.

Man decided to bring these types of things into our lives, like the
pollution from cars, the plastic in the oceans, murdering babies in the
womb, all kinds of pollution from our actions, destruction of the
environment, animal, insect, atmosphere and so on.

But man still marches on hoping there will be no tipping point, 5g
(ramped up communication electromagnetic radiation) filling our world
with all the more 'unnatural', it is just another thing.

Nothing to see here folks is for you, not for me.

>
>> Anytime that is done that is unnatural means trouble one way or another.
>>
>> And please, don't insult my intelligence with, 'What?'. I see no
>> increase of cancer through man's deeds or something as stupid.
>>
>
> You've yet to offer anything that would support, let alone prove,
> your delusions to be real.

Nobody is proving anything here. It is ignorance and hypocrisy to
demand proof because everything is belief. You are surmising, because
you can't predict the future, and I am surmising, but the truth will
appear in time.

Take it or leave it.

>
>>>> You are trying to convince yourself 5g is nothing but a harmless
>>>> butterfly. It is not natural.
>>>
>>> Neither are computers. Or the Internet. Odds are, the clear
>>> majority of your life is made up of that which is not natural.
>>
>> Of course, man has changed the whole planet with his ways. It is not an
>> argument to compare an orange with an orange.
>>
>
> And, over all, man is doing well. There are exceptions, of
> course. But those are in the minority.

If I had said that you would have said, where is the proof and it is
incumbent on you to prove it! There is a lot of hypocrisy in you.

By the way, the concern over global warming, CO2 in the atmosphere
skyrocketing, the bleaching of the reefs, the over-fishing, the
glyphosate present in our food and us, Fukushima (not over), millions
tonnes of oil sitting on the floor in the gulf (still leaking by the
way, and don't mention the toxic dispersants) is doing well?? There are
so many many things, we are deforesting the earth which has to have a
huge effect on the ecology and animal and insect populations of the
world on which we depend.

There are so many things we are doing that eventually it is going to
come to a head. We all know that intuitively but we are hoping we can
*fix it*. What does that tell you?? In case that doesn't get through,
it means we are doing the wrong things.

If you could see the amount of the pollution across the world in all
it's content you wouldn't be so flippant and quick to say the above.
Also, we haven't even looked at man's inhumanity to man...and that is
not getting better.

For instance, wars continue and all too common, school shootings, church
sitting duck shootings, murder, rape, suicide, home invasions, bashing,
rioting, the deceit of big business and big pharma and so on. It is
easy to say that is just being negative, but in the world you are trying
to sell none of those things should be occurring at all.

We are numbed to the violence and wrong around us because it is our normal.

>>>> Nothing to see here folks is bullshit. They are gambling big time with
>>>> adult and children's health! This is what you are not getting, in small
>>>> doses, arsenic is quite useful.
>>>>
>>>> You are gambling on the ways of man and look at his record.
>>>
>>> History shows man has done pretty good, over all. There are some
>>> exception. Some of them showing the most deplorable aspects of humans.
>>> But, for the most part, man's done well.
>>>
>>
>> Right! That is why we are destroying the planet. Just because we
>> haven't reached a tipping point yet, all is well!! :-).
>>
>> You people with your head in the sand!
>>
>
> Provide the valid, verifiable evidence for your claims. If your
> claims are based in reality, you will do so. If not, you won't.

Everything is belief and you can't prove a belief. You put forward a
straw man argument drowning in hypocrisy. Everything is conjecture,
unless you can predict the future?? 7 men have 7 opinions.

If you don't agree with me and find no value in what I have to say,
fine, but you are not the font of all knowledge that one has to come to
to prove anything.

[Michael Christ]

You made your choice.

It's not mine. Is that okay by you?

>
>>>>>> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>>>>>> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>>>>>> around and through us, won't you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Massive amounts of information has been running around and
>>>>> through us for decades. This has been the case since, at least, radio
>>>>> was new.
>>>>
>>>> You need to do some learning, Bubba.
>>>
>>> I am well educated. That you think only the uneducated can prove
>>> you wrong is an interesting position for you to express.
>>>

Michael Christ wrote:
>> Isn't it amazing, atheists all do the same thing. You have an arm and a
>> knife, you slash your arm and go, look at what God has done if He exists.
>>


> I've done no such thing. If your god does exist, then Satan and
> his demons do as well. And you prove you have a demon of lying that
> controls you.
> If your god does exist, and I've seen nothing to support a claim
> that he does, he has a great deal to answer for.
>

He does, or you do. :-). I don't agree with your belief that you are
good and God is evil.

However when you can create just one cell, then you can get back to me
and I would give you reasonable consideration for a valid opinion.

You chose what you got and it is your bleeding arm.

Now go all 5g on me (I won't be as far as I am able) and I will watch
what happens to you before I make any further decisions.

And thanks for that.

[Alan Browne]

On 2020-01-18 01:48, Chris in Makati wrote:

> What the f**k are you doing calling yourself Christ? Who the hell do
> you think you are?

Christ is not an uncommon surname in North America. Search the white pages.

[Michael Christ]

I prefer android (Vivo, got it in India) but my wife prefers her iPhone.
Likes the camera, of course.

I hope that helps.

[Michael Christ]

Tell me about it!





Michael Christ

>
>> More important is you explaining why you're desperately trying to
>> divert from your initial claim?
>
> You can repeatedly build your own strawman and then shoot it down.
> o I find _all_ your claims trivial to shoot down, in fact ... with fact.
>
> I don't think you're an apologist - so why are you so unreasonable?
> o What part of "premium phones" are you so confused about anyway?
>
>> [Snip the remainder of your failed attempt to divert from the claim
>> that a modern mobile device _must_ have [5G]. when you know, and knew,
>> the claim is not true.]
>
> You have two _adult_ choices, as I see your options...
> 1. You can accept that you have no clue what "premium" means, or,
> 2. You can continue to prove you have no clue what "premium" means.
>
> Pick one.
>
> HINT: A premium phone, in 2020, _must_ have 5G. Period.
> o Apple would have _died_ as a company if it didn't surrender to Qualcomm.
>


--

[Unbreakable Disease]

Still, it can add some interference.

>>>> Health:
>>>> This one is probably the most controversial, and for a reason. First, no
>>>> scientific study regarding possible health effects of 5G technology has
>>>> ever been conducted. As it uses much higher spectrum and more base
>>>> transceiver stations than current-generation cellular technology, those
>>>> concerns are *really* more than ever relevant.
>>>
>>> More transceivers are necessary because of the short range of 5G.
>>> And the ease with which the signal can be blocked. You could be 10
>>> meters from a transceiver and not get 5G if there is tree in the way.
>>
>> Yes, but what when you are outside?
>>
>
> Most of the time, trees are outside.
>

What when you are moving around?

>>>> Survelliance:
>>>> While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
>>>> to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
>>>> installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.
>>>
>>> When out in public, everyone has a decreased expectation of
>>> privacy. And cameras can be installed anywhere in public. This is
>>> perfectly legal.
>>
>> Still scary... Do you want to live in the Communist State?
>>
>
> Why would it be Communist? It's near impossible to be outside in
> London, England and not be on camera. I'm not an expert on the British
> government, but I'm certain it's not Communist.
> If you should visit Manhattan, you'll find cameras, and
> microphones, on nearly every street corner. If you and I were there
> together standing outside talking about whatever, we could be recorded
> and it would be 100% legal. No part of New York is Communist.

It can help establish New World Order.

>>>> Security:
>>>> When more and more devices can connect to the Internet at the
>>>> faster-than-ever bandwidth rates, it can open an attack surface that
>>>> cybercriminals are waiting for. It will become easier to perform DDoS
>>>> attacks, cryptojacking, send spam, etc.
>>>
>>> It won't be any easier. It will be faster.
>>> If you have 100 units attempting a DDoS, 5G will allow it to
>>> happen faster than 4G, but it won't be any easier.
>>>
>> Let's imagine you have a server connected to the low-bandwidth Internet
>> connection. It will be, because 5G gives much more bandwidth than
>> previous cellular networks.
>
> Nope. Only faster. This isn't a secret.
> Stop accepting what the kook websites tell you. Check for
> yourself.
>

Because apparently there is no single server in the world which still
runs on a crappy Internet connection.

--
Tip me: bc1qtwmjzywve5v7z6jzk4dkg7v6masw2erpahsn9f

bitcoin:bc1qtwmjzywve5v7z6jzk4dkg7v6masw2erpahsn9f

[LinuxGal]

Duke has more chins than a Hong Kong phone book.

--
I have spoken.

https://twitter.com/LinuxGal

[Unbreakable Disease]

At least once you did something useful for our community. Andrew B.
Chung was right to say that you are eternally condemned:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.atheism/michael$20christ%7Csort:date/alt.atheism/uBAtCmBNcyg/IPIb62KVBgAJ

Note that I'm not a Christian, though. Once you objectively study the
Old Testament without any biases, you will realize the truth. What is
stopping you is your fear of Hell (and maybe Tribulation and Mark of the
Beast, that is).

Are you a punk?

>
>
> Michael Christ

[%]

On 2020-01-20 5:12 p.m., LinuxGal wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2020, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> On 2020-01-18 01:48, Chris in Makati wrote:
>>
>>> What the f**k are you doing calling yourself Christ? Who the hell do
>>> you think you are?
>>
>> Christ is not an uncommon surname in North America.  Search the white
>> pages.
>
> Duke has more chins than a Hong Kong phone book.
>

this joke from the 70's works better if you say chinese phone book

[Ted]

What's a Vivo?

[Arlen Holder]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 16:07:42 -0800, sms wrote:

> e A10 Fusion 2340 MHz (2 cores) Score: 742/1000
> Motorola Moto G7 Qualcomm Snapdragon 632 1804 MHz (8 cores) Score: 270/1000
>
> Conclusion: Counting cores is not a valid measure of performance!
>
> <https://www.phonescoop.com/phones/compare.php?p=5907,5289>
> The G7 lacks NFC. That's a deal-breaker for many users.
>
> The G7 is a good low-end phone but it isn't even to the level of an
> iPhone 6s in terms of performance and features.

Steve,

Please do not attempt to bullshit us, Steve.
o Adults can see right through the cherry-picking charade.

You cherry pick which _proves_ you're trying to bullshit us.
o *Please stop spewing utter and total bullshit on benchmarks, Steve*.

*Remember, they _found_ the CPU throttling _because_ benchmarks HALVED!*

If you want to be treated as if you own adult thoughts...
*Please halve iPhone 6 to X benchmarks if you want to be taken seriously*

*In addition, take into account _all_ the basic hardware functionality*
o Cores, RAM, SD storage, NFC, FM Radio, removable battery, headphone, etc.

It's what _adults_ would do.

You can claim the $100 Moto G7 lacks NFC, for example, but you _also_ have
to take into account it has, for example, an SD card slot, which is huge,
and the headphone jack, which is huge, and more cores & RAM than what
you're comparing it to, which again, is huge.

Likewise, the $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus has a stylus, and removable battery,
headphone jack, sd card, NFC, etc., all of which the iPhone 7 lacks.

And when I checked nospam's bullshit prices, I found that the Samsung
Galaxy S10+ is $700, which I could have bought today - so nospam is _also_
cherry picking for the express purpose of bullshitting us.

Please do not attempt to bullshit us, Steve.
o Adults can see right through the cherry-picking charade.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 10:22:34 +1100, Michael Christ wrote:

> I prefer android (Vivo, got it in India) but my wife prefers her iPhone.
> Likes the camera, of course.
>
> I hope that helps.

This thread is about 5G & this thread is not to any Android newsgroups.

The facts are that, even with all the (admittedly brilliant) MARKETING of
illusory performance by Apple MARKETING, the fact is that, in 2019, at the
"premium price" MARKETING point, the iPhone is clearly NOT anywhere near
premium in terms of one of the most important speeds of a mobile handheld
device.

Given Apple has failed to make a best-in-class smartphone IC, time will
tell how badly Apple will continue to lack premium performance at premium
prices.

Apple _knows_ the risk of marketing purely illusory performance... which, I
posit, is why Apple surrendered to Qualcomm to get its 5G performance.

*If Apple hadn't surrendered to Qualcomm on 5G, Apple would have gone*
*the way of BlockBuster*.

I hope that helps put 5G into perspective.

[Arlen Holder]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 02:18:00 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> Likewise, the $130 LG Stylo 3 Plus has a stylus, and removable battery,
> headphone jack, sd card, NFC, etc., all of which the iPhone 7 lacks.

Before the apologists have a field day, the NFC is not lacking on the
iPhone 7, but the other basic functionality mentioned _is_ lacking.

*The point is that adults don't spew bullshit benchmarks like Steve did.*
o And adults don't cherry pick their hardware (ignoring sd for example)

*The only valid iPhone 6 to X benchark is _HALF_ of the published figures.*
(Or something around that based on how they caught Apple in the 1st place.)

[Michael Christ]

Are you God?

You obviously have all the answers.

[Michael Christ]

A mobile phone that India produces. Good middle-lower priced android
phone. I am on my second one...upgraded it on my last trip. Sound and
camera are very good.

[Michael Christ]

I think it is time for you to go smell a rose, Mr Facts.

[Andrew W]

>"KWills Shill #2" wrote in message
>news:05062f5b47h03dple...@4ax.com...

>
>On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:39:00 +0000, Unbreakable Disease
><unbre...@secmail.pro> wrote:
>
>>5G is probably the most controversial cellular technology ever. While it
>>will provide even faster connection speeds than 4G, it carries many
>>concerns: interference, health, survelliance and security ones.
>>
>
> There is nothing supporting a claim of health issues.
>

People getting sick is not enough? Birds falling out of the sky is normal?
Experts around the world are warning about these frequencies. Why now all
of a sudden and not about previous lower frequencies?
Do you want to have the equivalent of 100's or 1000's of small or medium
microwave ovens switched on with their doors open everywhere you go?

>
>Surveillance and security concerns are no more or less serious than
>they are now.
> Interference might be a valid concern. Though not what you cite
>below.
>
>>Interference:
>>
>>5G, as it uses spectrum that is near of those of weather satellites, has
>>the potential to significatly degrade the accuracy of data collected by
>>them. As the performance of weather models is degrading more and more
>>with each day, it is more likely that in future more and more people
>>will die as a result of not being sufficiently warned against possible
>>severe weather.
>>
>
> Phones aren't powerful enough to alter the accuracy of weather
>satellite data. Even if they were, satellite receivers will only
>accept signals within the bandwidth of the transmission. Something
>being close will be disregarded.
>

>>Health:
>>This one is probably the most controversial, and for a reason. First, no
>>scientific study regarding possible health effects of 5G technology has
>>ever been conducted. As it uses much higher spectrum and more base
>>transceiver stations than current-generation cellular technology, those
>>concerns are *really* more than ever relevant.
>>
>
> More transceivers are necessary because of the short range of 5G.
>And the ease with which the signal can be blocked. You could be 10
>meters from a transceiver and not get 5G if there is tree in the way.
>

The vast number of transmitters required is one problem. And of course we
have to pay for it all.
The other problem is the vast number of trees that have to be cut down, and
that's already started. That's environmental vandalism.
And nobody asked us about this. They are foisting this onto us and making us
pay for it when we don't even really need it.
There's an agenda here.

>
>>Survelliance:
>>While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
>>to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
>>installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.
>>
>
> When out in public, everyone has a decreased expectation of
>privacy. And cameras can be installed anywhere in public. This is
>perfectly legal.
>

It's unconstitutional.

>
>>Security:
>>When more and more devices can connect to the Internet at the
>>faster-than-ever bandwidth rates, it can open an attack surface that
>>cybercriminals are waiting for. It will become easier to perform DDoS
>>attacks, cryptojacking, send spam, etc.
>
> It won't be any easier. It will be faster.
> If you have 100 units attempting a DDoS, 5G will allow it to
>happen faster than 4G, but it won't be any easier.
>

--
http://members.optusnet.com.au/ajwerner/

The golden rule with food - if it smells strange from the fridge then throw
it in the bin. With Christianity, if it sounds strange and it's from the
Bible then you must embrace it as the word of God.

A question to all Christians: Was the Bible inspired or dictated? Because if
it was just inspired then it can't be called God's word.

http://www.rumormillnews.com -- The best alternative news site.

[nospam]

In article <r05qpg$nfd$1...@dont-email.me>, Andrew W

<spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> >>5G is probably the most controversial cellular technology ever. While it
> >>will provide even faster connection speeds than 4G, it carries many
> >>concerns: interference, health, survelliance and security ones.
> >>
> >
> > There is nothing supporting a claim of health issues.
> >
>
> People getting sick is not enough?

not from cellular, they don't.

you're oblivious of the extensive health benefits it will bring.

> Birds falling out of the sky is normal?

that doesn't happen.

> Experts around the world are warning about these frequencies. Why now all
> of a sudden and not about previous lower frequencies?

no they aren't, other than a few kooks.

> Do you want to have the equivalent of 100's or 1000's of small or medium
> microwave ovens switched on with their doors open everywhere you go?

bogus comparison.

>
> The vast number of transmitters required is one problem. And of course we
> have to pay for it all.
> The other problem is the vast number of trees that have to be cut down, and
> that's already started. That's environmental vandalism.

trees do not need to be cut down for transmitters.

however, trees do need to be cut down for making paper, which would be
*reduced* with widespread 5g, so if you want to minimize the number of
trees cut down, you should *support* 5g deployment.

> And nobody asked us about this. They are foisting this onto us and making us
> pay for it when we don't even really need it.

yes we do, as it will bring all sorts of benefits for society.

> There's an agenda here.

that agenda being to advance technology and improve life for everyone,
even the kooky lunatics.

> >>Survelliance:
> >>While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
> >>to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
> >>installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.
> >>
> >
> > When out in public, everyone has a decreased expectation of
> >privacy. And cameras can be installed anywhere in public. This is
> >perfectly legal.
> >
>
> It's unconstitutional.

no it isn't.

[Ted]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 13:33:07 +1100, Michael Christ

Why do you have to go to India to get one? Won't they send it to you?

[Andrew W]

>"nospam" wrote in message news:200120202236451222%nos...@nospam.invalid...

>
>In article <r05qpg$nfd$1...@dont-email.me>, Andrew W
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> >>5G is probably the most controversial cellular technology ever. While
>> >>it
>> >>will provide even faster connection speeds than 4G, it carries many
>> >>concerns: interference, health, survelliance and security ones.
>> >>
>> >
>> > There is nothing supporting a claim of health issues.
>> >
>>
>> People getting sick is not enough?
>
>not from cellular, they don't.
>

They already have.

Cell Tower Removed After 4th Ripon Student Diagnosed with Cancer
https://mdsafetech.org/2019/03/25/cell-tower-to-be-removed-after-4th-ripon-student-diagnosed-with-cancer/

>
>you're oblivious of the extensive health benefits it will bring.
>

Explain how.

>
>> Birds falling out of the sky is normal?
>
>that doesn't happen.
>

It already has in city parks where it was tested.

Hundreds of Birds Fall From the Sky During 5G Test in The Netherlands
https://thetruthrevolution.net/hundreds-of-birds-fall-from-the-sky-during-5g-test-in-the-netherlands/

Mystery bird deaths as dozens fall to their deaths from tree
https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/16/mystery-bird-deaths-dozens-fall-deaths-tree-10929813/

>
>> Experts around the world are warning about these frequencies. Why now
>> all
>> of a sudden and not about previous lower frequencies?
>
>no they aren't, other than a few kooks.
>

Not kooks. Engineers etc.
It's obvious you're an agent (probably unpaid) for the corrupt shadow
governments (Rothschilds and Rockefellers etc.).

>
>> Do you want to have the equivalent of 100's or 1000's of small or medium
>> microwave ovens switched on with their doors open everywhere you go?
>
>bogus comparison.
>

It's in the same high frequency spectrum.
People have already reported headaches, disorientation, nausea, memory loss
etc.

RADIATION SICKNESS NUKES 250K CELL TOWER WORKERS ACCORDING TO INSURANCE
STUDY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlXmZtl--4U

Testimonies from people who got sick
https://5ginformation.net/testimonials-microwave-sickness/

>
>>
>> The vast number of transmitters required is one problem. And of course we
>> have to pay for it all.
>> The other problem is the vast number of trees that have to be cut down,
>> and
>> that's already started. That's environmental vandalism.
>
>trees do not need to be cut down for transmitters.
>

They already have. There have been reports already. 5G won't work properly
where there are many trees.

>
>however, trees do need to be cut down for making paper, which would be
>*reduced* with widespread 5g, so if you want to minimize the number of
>trees cut down, you should *support* 5g deployment.
>

What is the basis for that claim?

>
>> And nobody asked us about this. They are foisting this onto us and making
>> us
>> pay for it when we don't even really need it.
>
>yes we do, as it will bring all sorts of benefits for society.
>

What benefits?

>
>> There's an agenda here.
>
>that agenda being to advance technology and improve life for everyone,
>even the kooky lunatics.
>

The big for-profit corporations just want to improve our lives? You're
bananas.

>
>> >>Survelliance:
>> >>While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
>> >>to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
>> >>installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.
>> >>
>> >
>> > When out in public, everyone has a decreased expectation of
>> >privacy. And cameras can be installed anywhere in public. This is
>> >perfectly legal.
>> >
>>
>> It's unconstitutional.
>
>no it isn't.
>

Neither I nor anyone I know asked for this. Why are they pushing this so
hard despite all the protests around the world?

More than 205 protests in more than 195 cities in 32 countries are being
planned for Saturday, January 25.
https://stop5ginternational.org/5g-protest-day/

[Michael Christ]

I was over there getting my teeth done.

Dentists are fuckin' ridiculously expensive in Australia, now you can
talk about cocksuckers!

[KWills Shill #2]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 08:32:48 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Maybe it was a sale, but the closest MetroPCS store had the
Galaxy S10 available for just under $400 not too long ago. A discount
of roughly $400 certainly isn't impossible, but it seems high.
It may have been a loss leader to get new customers. They'll take
a hit on the initial price with the hope that they'll have a long
time, devoted customer. Since the offer was for new customers only,
this would make sense. I don't know what existing customers would have
been made to pay since I didn't look into it.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:40:33 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
<arlen.geo...@is.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 01:30:24 -0800, KWills Shill #2 wrote:
>
>>>If you compare all phones, including $100 phones like my Moto G7, your
>>>statement is valid - but you must think about Apple's price range phones.
>>
>> You stated "A modern mobile device _must_ have it." (emphasis
>> yours). Eventually all will have it. But there is nothing to suggest
>> all MUST have it at this time.
>
>Hi KWill's Shill,
>
>FACTS + ASSESSMENT.
>
>You either understood what I said about "premium priced" phones...
>o Or you completely whooshed on what is meant by "premium priced" phones.
>
>Pick one.
>

Your claim was, "A modern mobile device _must_ have it." The *it*
being 5G. Nothing about premium phones. Only modern mobile devices.
When I proved the claim wrong, you changed it to Apple's premium
phones. I doubt your deception went unnoticed by anyone reading.

>>>Think about the key fact that Apple is all MARKETING of "premium" devices.
>>>o How can a "premium" device sell, at premium prices, in 2020, without 5G?
>>
>> Why are you moving the goal post from all devices to some
>> specific devices from Apple? That is the real question.
>
>You either understood that there are zero Android newsgroups on this thread
>o Or you completely whooshed on that obvious-to-adults fact
>

There are several groups. I am posting from alt.conspiracy.
Perhaps you lack the maturity to understand not everyone posts from
the same group as you. If so, that's unfortunate.

>Pick one.
>

The claim was, "A modern mobile device _must_ have it." Nothing
about limiting this to premium phones was made. While I took it to
mean phones, a table with cellular will fall within the claim you
made.
And you failed to answer the question I asked of you. Here it is
again so that you may answer:

Why are you moving the goal post from all devices to some specific
devices from Apple?

>>>Even the least technical person would have known that their thousand dollar
>>>iPhone was a fraction of the networking speed of a modern Android phone.
>>
>> If your goal is to prove Android is better than iOS, you're
>> preaching to the choir. I much prefer Android.
>
>My main goal on the Apple newsgroups is to expose the apologists
>o For what they are.
>
>I do that with facts, logic, and reason.
>o Something that they're not.
>

You like to change your "facts." Something this discussion
proves.

>> I don't have a problem with anyone who buys an iPhone. Though I
>> do wonder why they would spend so much more for something that does
>> the same thing as an Android device. But they have every right to
>> purchase the phone they want.
>
>I have _plenty_ of Android & iOS devices.
>o My goal here is simply to expose the apologists for what they are.
>

So why the use of deception on your part? I don't understand why
you would feel compelled to lie about a claim you made.

>> And when you're called out on being wrong, you try to divert to
>> something else. Like your claim that, "A modern mobile device _must_
>> have it." When I pointed out the error in the claim, you tried to
>> divert the claim to mean only Apple's high end phones.
>
>You either realize Apple doesn't make a $100 phone, or you don't.
>o Pick one.

You didn't limit your claim to Apple until I proved your claim
wrong. At that point you changed it to Apple.
Do you really think your dishonesty is a benefit?

>
>> But present your facts that "A modern mobile device _must_ have
>> it." Present the evidence that will show any devices with 4G will
>> suddenly cease working as intended.
>
>You just created a strawman of your own choosing.
>o You're the only one claiming devices with 4G will "suddenly cease".
>

I didn't make such a claim. I pointed out your claim that "A
modern mobile device _must_ have it." was wrong. Please present your
evidence that non-5G devices will not function. If you were lying, as
is becoming clear is the case, just admit it and move on.

>>>Apple spent upwards of 6 billion dollars to get their hands on 5G in 2020.
>>>o That's how important getting their hands on 5G was to Apple's business.
>>
>> Which has what, exactly, to do with your claim about all devices?
>
>See prior adult context which you clearly repeatedly whooshed on.
>o What part of the fact Apple markets PREMIUM-PRICED phones did you miss?

That was the claim you added AFTER I proved you wrong. Now, deal
with the initial claim. Unless you find it too difficult to be honest
and do so.

>
>>>How many projects do you think Apple spend six billion dollars on anyway?
>>
>> I don't know. Mostly because what Apple does with its money is
>> its business. As long as it isn't infringing on the rights of others.
>
>The reason for bringing up the fact Apple surrendered to Qualcomm is that
>the apologists, nospam in particular, claimed Apple "wasn't worried" about
>5G.
>

I doubt anyone was or is worried about 5G, really.
I hold the opinion that Apple's deal with Qualcomm was really
dumb. But that's merely my opinion.
More importantly, Apple is free to do with its money what it
wants, so long as it's legal. And their deal with Qualcomm was and is
legal. Stupid, but legal.

>My point is to expose the apologists for what they are.
>o In the case of nospam, he has only 7 responses to facts - none adult.
>

So he's adopted your standards? OK.

>> More important is you explaining why you're desperately trying to
>> divert from your initial claim?
>
>You can repeatedly build your own strawman and then shoot it down.
>o I find _all_ your claims trivial to shoot down, in fact ... with fact.
>

You've yet to even take aim, let alone shoot down my position
that a modern mobile device does NOT have to have 5G. Rather, you
moved the goal post by trying to discuss premium phones.

>I don't think you're an apologist - so why are you so unreasonable?
>o What part of "premium phones" are you so confused about anyway?
>

You didn't claim anything about premium phones until your initial
claim was proved wrong. What do you believe you gain with this
deception of yours? I really do want to know.

>> [Snip the remainder of your failed attempt to divert from the claim
>> that a modern mobile device _must_ have [5G]. when you know, and knew,
>> the claim is not true.]
>
>You have two _adult_ choices, as I see your options...
>1. You can accept that you have no clue what "premium" means, or,
>2. You can continue to prove you have no clue what "premium" means.
>

How about we address the truth you seem to fear. That you're
initial claim of "A modern mobile device _must_ have [5G]." was and is
wrong?

>Pick one.
>
>HINT: A premium phone, in 2020, _must_ have 5G. Period.
>o Apple would have _died_ as a company if it didn't surrender to Qualcomm.

While all premium phones will fit with the definition of a modern
mobile device, not all modern mobile devices will fit the definition
of a premium phone.
You could have stated something like, "Oh, I meant premium
phones. I didn't make that clear. I'm sorry." and the matter would
have been resolved. Admitting a mistake is how adults deal with making
them. My youngest child no longer tries to play avoidance games. I
must presume she is more adult than you.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 08:03:38 +1100, Michael Christ

I don't think I accept and transmit cellular data. But present
your evidence that I do.
I'm waiting...

>>> And multiply that many fold over with 5g.
>>
>> So I would be *many* cell towers? Really?
>
>You are being disingenuous yet again, but in a sense, yes.
>

Not in any sense.

>>>>> There will be millions and millions of these towers all around us in
>>>>> close proximity! The density of mobile phones in a square meter on a
>>>>> bus full of people in New York. Think along those lines. Short, medium
>>>>> to long term effects nothing?
>>>>
>>>> Do you have evidence that anything more dangerous than we face
>>>> now will occur?
>>>
>>> Do you have evidence that it is not?
>>
>> Avoidance noted.
>
>You did just that. I have on my side millions and millions of these
>very high traffic towers all around us in close proximity and you
>dismiss it as nothing.
>
>If you look there are many well educated people who are heralding a
>strong warning about this. Are they all fools, nothing to see here folks?
>

You fail to support, let alone prove, the idea that we will face
any more dangers than we do now.

>
>> It befalls you to prove your claim. I do not have to disprove it.
>
>So you claim.
>
>It is not about proving, it is about intuition and experience in life,
>just like it is for you.
>

So your making a factual claim was just you being dishonest. Got
it.

>>> It is you that is bringing unnatural into the natural world more and
>>> more and more and more with no abating.
>>
>> Your delusion that I developed 5G is amusing.
>
>Another disingenuous statement. What do you hope to gain, superiority
>by dishonestly painting your opponent as a fool? That is a very weak
>position.
>

I'm not dishonestly painting you as a fool. It is quite honest.

>Man decided to bring these types of things into our lives, like the
>pollution from cars, the plastic in the oceans, murdering babies in the
>womb, all kinds of pollution from our actions, destruction of the
>environment, animal, insect, atmosphere and so on.
>
>But man still marches on hoping there will be no tipping point, 5g
>(ramped up communication electromagnetic radiation) filling our world
>with all the more 'unnatural', it is just another thing.
>
>Nothing to see here folks is for you, not for me.
>

You haven't addressed your claim that I developed 5G. Will you do
so now, or shall everyone reading accept that you are unable?

>>> Anytime that is done that is unnatural means trouble one way or another.
>>>
>>> And please, don't insult my intelligence with, 'What?'. I see no
>>> increase of cancer through man's deeds or something as stupid.
>>
>> You've yet to offer anything that would support, let alone prove,
>> your delusions to be real.
>
>Nobody is proving anything here. It is ignorance and hypocrisy to
>demand proof because everything is belief. You are surmising, because
>you can't predict the future, and I am surmising, but the truth will
>appear in time.
>
>Take it or leave it.
>

So you were being dishonest when you presented the claim as fact.
Got it.

>>>>> You are trying to convince yourself 5g is nothing but a harmless
>>>>> butterfly. It is not natural.
>>>>
>>>> Neither are computers. Or the Internet. Odds are, the clear
>>>> majority of your life is made up of that which is not natural.
>>>
>>> Of course, man has changed the whole planet with his ways. It is not an
>>> argument to compare an orange with an orange.
>>
>> And, over all, man is doing well. There are exceptions, of
>> course. But those are in the minority.
>
>If I had said that you would have said, where is the proof and it is
>incumbent on you to prove it! There is a lot of hypocrisy in you.
>

If your god does exist, you clearly have a demon of lying in
control of you.

>By the way, the concern over global warming, CO2 in the atmosphere
>skyrocketing, the bleaching of the reefs, the over-fishing, the
>glyphosate present in our food and us, Fukushima (not over), millions
>tonnes of oil sitting on the floor in the gulf (still leaking by the
>way, and don't mention the toxic dispersants) is doing well?? There are
>so many many things, we are deforesting the earth which has to have a
>huge effect on the ecology and animal and insect populations of the
>world on which we depend.
>
>There are so many things we are doing that eventually it is going to
>come to a head. We all know that intuitively but we are hoping we can
>*fix it*. What does that tell you?? In case that doesn't get through,
>it means we are doing the wrong things.
>
>If you could see the amount of the pollution across the world in all
>it's content you wouldn't be so flippant and quick to say the above.
>Also, we haven't even looked at man's inhumanity to man...and that is
>not getting better.
>
>For instance, wars continue and all too common, school shootings, church
>sitting duck shootings, murder, rape, suicide, home invasions, bashing,
>rioting, the deceit of big business and big pharma and so on. It is
>easy to say that is just being negative, but in the world you are trying
>to sell none of those things should be occurring at all.
>
>We are numbed to the violence and wrong around us because it is our normal.
>

Your avoidance is noted. Please return to, and stick with, the
discussion we're having.

>>>>> Nothing to see here folks is bullshit. They are gambling big time with
>>>>> adult and children's health! This is what you are not getting, in small
>>>>> doses, arsenic is quite useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are gambling on the ways of man and look at his record.
>>>>
>>>> History shows man has done pretty good, over all. There are some
>>>> exception. Some of them showing the most deplorable aspects of humans.
>>>> But, for the most part, man's done well.
>>>
>>> Right! That is why we are destroying the planet. Just because we
>>> haven't reached a tipping point yet, all is well!! :-).
>>>
>>> You people with your head in the sand!
>>
>> Provide the valid, verifiable evidence for your claims. If your
>> claims are based in reality, you will do so. If not, you won't.
>
>Everything is belief and you can't prove a belief. You put forward a
>straw man argument drowning in hypocrisy. Everything is conjecture,
>unless you can predict the future?? 7 men have 7 opinions.
>
>If you don't agree with me and find no value in what I have to say,
>fine, but you are not the font of all knowledge that one has to come to
>to prove anything.

Why do you present belief as fact?

[KWills Shill #2]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 08:12:49 +1100, Michael Christ

Sure. Your belief in god does me no harm. But don't think I'm not
going to counter any claims you make about your god actually existing.

>>>>>>> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>>>>>>> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>>>>>>> around and through us, won't you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Massive amounts of information has been running around and
>>>>>> through us for decades. This has been the case since, at least, radio
>>>>>> was new.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to do some learning, Bubba.
>>>>
>>>> I am well educated. That you think only the uneducated can prove
>>>> you wrong is an interesting position for you to express.
>
>Michael Christ wrote:
>>> Isn't it amazing, atheists all do the same thing. You have an arm and a
>>> knife, you slash your arm and go, look at what God has done if He exists.
>
>
>> I've done no such thing. If your god does exist, then Satan and
>> his demons do as well. And you prove you have a demon of lying that
>> controls you.
>> If your god does exist, and I've seen nothing to support a claim
>> that he does, he has a great deal to answer for.
>
>He does, or you do. :-). I don't agree with your belief that you are
>good and God is evil.
>

I'm human. I can do good or I can do evil. I don't need a god of
any sort to force me to be good.

>However when you can create just one cell, then you can get back to me
>and I would give you reasonable consideration for a valid opinion.
>

Mitosis is well documented. I can offer a number of cites, if you
wish.

>You chose what you got and it is your bleeding arm.
>
>Now go all 5g on me (I won't be as far as I am able) and I will watch
>what happens to you before I make any further decisions.
>
>And thanks for that.

At present, I don't have any device that uses 5G. In time I, like
everyone who uses mobile devices, will have to upgrade. But so long as
4G works, I'm content. Probably because I rarely use my phone for web
surfing, or other applications that would benefit from the faster
speed. You can count the number of times I've accessed Facebook with
my phone on both hands, and have some digits to spare.
By way of example, I noticed no appreciable difference in the
speed of texting between 3G and 4G. I don't expect to notice any with
5G.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 23:44:00 +0000, Unbreakable Disease

Not in the way you initially claimed.

>>>>> Health:
>>>>> This one is probably the most controversial, and for a reason. First, no
>>>>> scientific study regarding possible health effects of 5G technology has
>>>>> ever been conducted. As it uses much higher spectrum and more base
>>>>> transceiver stations than current-generation cellular technology, those
>>>>> concerns are *really* more than ever relevant.
>>>>
>>>> More transceivers are necessary because of the short range of 5G.
>>>> And the ease with which the signal can be blocked. You could be 10
>>>> meters from a transceiver and not get 5G if there is tree in the way.
>>>
>>> Yes, but what when you are outside?
>>
>> Most of the time, trees are outside.
>
>What when you are moving around?
>

Standing still or moving around, trees will be outside most of
the time.

>>>>> Survelliance:
>>>>> While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
>>>>> to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
>>>>> installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.
>>>>
>>>> When out in public, everyone has a decreased expectation of
>>>> privacy. And cameras can be installed anywhere in public. This is
>>>> perfectly legal.
>>>
>>> Still scary... Do you want to live in the Communist State?
>>
>> Why would it be Communist? It's near impossible to be outside in
>> London, England and not be on camera. I'm not an expert on the British
>> government, but I'm certain it's not Communist.
>> If you should visit Manhattan, you'll find cameras, and
>> microphones, on nearly every street corner. If you and I were there
>> together standing outside talking about whatever, we could be recorded
>> and it would be 100% legal. No part of New York is Communist.
>
>It can help establish New World Order.
>

Which would be Fascist, not Communist.
I expect that, if man kind doesn't destroy itself first, the
world will all join together. But this will be long after you and I
have died.

>>>>> Security:
>>>>> When more and more devices can connect to the Internet at the
>>>>> faster-than-ever bandwidth rates, it can open an attack surface that
>>>>> cybercriminals are waiting for. It will become easier to perform DDoS
>>>>> attacks, cryptojacking, send spam, etc.
>>>>
>>>> It won't be any easier. It will be faster.
>>>> If you have 100 units attempting a DDoS, 5G will allow it to
>>>> happen faster than 4G, but it won't be any easier.
>>>>
>>> Let's imagine you have a server connected to the low-bandwidth Internet
>>> connection. It will be, because 5G gives much more bandwidth than
>>> previous cellular networks.
>>
>> Nope. Only faster. This isn't a secret.
>> Stop accepting what the kook websites tell you. Check for
>> yourself.
>>
>Because apparently there is no single server in the world which still
>runs on a crappy Internet connection.

That makes no sense. Do you think crappy servers aren't as
exposed now as they would be with 5G? Really?

[KWills Shill #2]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 16:12:22 -0800, LinuxGal <tere...@aqua.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jan 2020, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> On 2020-01-18 01:48, Chris in Makati wrote:
>>
>>> What the f**k are you doing calling yourself Christ? Who the hell do
>>> you think you are?
>>
>> Christ is not an uncommon surname in North America. Search the white pages.
>
>Duke has more chins than a Hong Kong phone book.

Who is Duke?
Something really wild, IMO, is that I was honestly thinking about
you roughly two weeks ago. Years ago had a short discussion with Ted
Kaldis where he was going ballistic over your sexual orientation. I
don't know what caused my mind to remember it, but who can figure out
the human mind?
Anyway, I'm glad you're still up and kickin'.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 14:22:19 +1100, "Andrew W"
<spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>>"KWills Shill #2" wrote in message
>>news:05062f5b47h03dple...@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:39:00 +0000, Unbreakable Disease
>><unbre...@secmail.pro> wrote:
>>
>>>5G is probably the most controversial cellular technology ever. While it
>>>will provide even faster connection speeds than 4G, it carries many
>>>concerns: interference, health, survelliance and security ones.
>>
>> There is nothing supporting a claim of health issues.
>
>People getting sick is not enough? Birds falling out of the sky is normal?
>Experts around the world are warning about these frequencies. Why now all
>of a sudden and not about previous lower frequencies?
>Do you want to have the equivalent of 100's or 1000's of small or medium
>microwave ovens switched on with their doors open everywhere you go?
>

I eagerly await the evidence you will present that all you claim
is the result of 5G. Given the fairly small coverage for 5G at this
time, I expect you to either run away or play an avoidance game.

Yes. Does the cost being passed onto the consumer comes as a
surprise to you?

>The other problem is the vast number of trees that have to be cut down, and
>that's already started. That's environmental vandalism.

I eagerly await the evidence you will present that trees are
being cut down because of 5G.

>And nobody asked us about this. They are foisting this onto us and making us
>pay for it when we don't even really need it.
>There's an agenda here.
>

I agree we don't need 5G. And I'm happy with 4G. But people tend
to want faster speeds.

>>>Survelliance:
>>>While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
>>>to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
>>>installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.
>>
>> When out in public, everyone has a decreased expectation of
>>privacy. And cameras can be installed anywhere in public. This is
>>perfectly legal.
>
>It's unconstitutional.
>

How?

[KWills Shill #2]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 16:38:49 +1100, "Andrew W"
<spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:


[Snip to focus on the conspiracy rant]

>Not kooks. Engineers etc.
>It's obvious you're an agent (probably unpaid) for the corrupt shadow
>governments (Rothschilds and Rockefellers etc.).

There is no evidence that a shadow government exists. I know,
that proves it, right? If it didn't exist, it couldn't do such a great
job of hiding all the valid, verifiable evidence that it does.

[nospam]

In article <onkd2fhdf6uf24hla...@4ax.com>, KWills Shill

#2 <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> I don't have a problem with anyone who buys an iPhone. Though I
> >> do wonder why they would spend so much more for something that does
> >> the same thing as an Android device. But they have every right to
> >> purchase the phone they want.
> >
> >prices are similar for similar specs.
> >
> ><https://store.google.com/us/product/pixel_4>
> > From $799 or $33.29/mo for 24 mos
> >
> ><https://www.techradar.com/reviews/samsung-galaxy-s10>
> > The Samsung Galaxy S10 price starts at $899 / £799 / AU$1,349 / AED
> > 3,199 for the 128GB of storage model, meaning you're spending an
> > additional $180 / £60 / AED 100 on this phone over the S9 launch
> > price.
>
> Maybe it was a sale, but the closest MetroPCS store had the
> Galaxy S10 available for just under $400 not too long ago. A discount
> of roughly $400 certainly isn't impossible, but it seems high.

first of all, using sale prices for comparisons is bogus.

second, it was probably locked to metropcs with a contract, versus an
unlocked use wherever you want iphone, making the comparison even less
valid.

lastly, the galaxy s20 (samsung is reportedly skipping numbers) is
coming out in 3 weeks so they probably want to clear out old stock.

> It may have been a loss leader to get new customers. They'll take
> a hit on the initial price with the hope that they'll have a long
> time, devoted customer. Since the offer was for new customers only,
> this would make sense. I don't know what existing customers would have
> been made to pay since I didn't look into it.

further supporting that it was locked to a metropcs contract.

if price is a concern, walmart has an iphone se for $89. it's a few
years old and refurbished, but still a very capable device.
<https://www.walmart.com/ip/Refurbished-Apple-iPhone-SE-16GB-Space-Gray-
Unlocked-LTE/54188796>

[nospam]

In article <r062pg$n77$1...@dont-email.me>, Andrew W

<spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> >> >>5G is probably the most controversial cellular technology ever. While
> >> >>it
> >> >>will provide even faster connection speeds than 4G, it carries many
> >> >>concerns: interference, health, survelliance and security ones.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > There is nothing supporting a claim of health issues.
> >> >
> >>
> >> People getting sick is not enough?
> >
> >not from cellular, they don't.
> >
>
> They already have.

no they haven't.

> Cell Tower Removed After 4th Ripon Student Diagnosed with Cancer
>
> https://mdsafetech.org/2019/03/25/cell-tower-to-be-removed-after-4th-ripon-stu
> dent-diagnosed-with-cancer/

that is not proof the tower caused the cancer.

Investigations of not only cell tower radiation but also water
quality have been initiated.

in other words, they have no idea what the cause is.

meanwhile, billions of people worldwide are *not* getting cancer from
nearby cell towers, which strongly points to something *else* being the
cause.

> >you're oblivious of the extensive health benefits it will bring.
> >
>
> Explain how.

numerous ways.

<https://www.businessinsider.com/5g-surgery-could-transform-healthcare-i
ndustry-2019-8>
5G is being used to perform remote surgery from thousands of miles
away, and it could transform the healthcare industry
...
Until now, remote surgery using wireless networks has been
impossible, because the lag time between input and output lasts
around a quarter of a second, sometimes as long as 2 seconds ‹ a
delay potentially harmful, possibly fatal, to a patient. Now, 5G
promises to change all that, with its latency reduced to an almost
instantaneous 2 milliseconds between devices.
...
"We'll be able to connect many more medical devices together
and gain data from the patient, in a way that isn't possible at the
moment. Different specialists, not necessarily in the same place,
will all be able to work together for the first time," he says.
...
"From medical training to providing emergency assistance, it will
become much easier to help people in areas we have previously
found difficult to access," he says. This means that among the
major beneficiaries of 5G will be those in areas currently lacking
in medical expertise.


<https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/sep/24/apple-watch-alerts-parame
dics-to-spokane-mans-bike/>
His Apple Watch had called 911 through the fall detection feature,
which sends out an alert if the wearer is immobile for 60 seconds
after a fall.
His watch messaged emergency medical services at 12:02 p.m. and
an ambulance was there within a minute.
...
Gabe Burdett saw the text about the fall from his dadąs Apple Watch
as he pulled up to their meeting spot in Riverside State Park, but
his dad was already being treated. He searched the bottom of Doomsday
Hill and was headed back toward Riverside State Park when his dadąs
location updated to Providence Sacred Heart Medical Center.

<https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/02/04/apple-watch-series-4-fall-de
tection-summons-emergency-services-saves-elderly-man>
A Norwegian man survived a midnight fall to the floor of his bathroom
and skull fractures because the fall detection feature on his Apple
Watch Series 4 summoned help.

<https://abcnews.go.com/Health/apple-watch-told-46-year-man-irregular-he
artbeat/story?id=59726093>
Checking in, Dentel said he felt like a hypochondriac explaining that
his watch told him something was wrong. But he was quickly given an
EKG by a technician, who called for a doctor, who said, "Yup, you're
in AFib. This thing may have just saved your life."
...
"I was dealing with a case of atrial fibrillation that I never knew I
had and probably wouldn't have known anytime soon," Dentel said.

<https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-watch-saved-mans-life-detected-he
art-problems-2019-11>
"The watch dinged me ... I looked down and it said you are in atrial
fibrillation," Ray Emerson, a 79-year-old veterinarian from Waco,
Texas, told CBS Austin. "It told me I wasn't feeling as good as I
thought I was."

> >> Birds falling out of the sky is normal?
> >
> >that doesn't happen.
> >
>
> It already has in city parks where it was tested.

no it hasn't.

> Hundreds of Birds Fall From the Sky During 5G Test in The Netherlands
>
> https://thetruthrevolution.net/hundreds-of-birds-fall-from-the-sky-during-5g-t
> est-in-the-netherlands/

that had absolutely nothing to do with 5g.

> Mystery bird deaths as dozens fall to their deaths from tree
>
> https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/16/mystery-bird-deaths-dozens-fall-deaths-tree-109
> 29813/

unknown cause.

> >> Experts around the world are warning about these frequencies. Why now
> >> all
> >> of a sudden and not about previous lower frequencies?
> >
> >no they aren't, other than a few kooks.
> >
>
> Not kooks. Engineers etc.
> It's obvious you're an agent (probably unpaid) for the corrupt shadow
> governments (Rothschilds and Rockefellers etc.).

it's obvious you're a kook.

> >> Do you want to have the equivalent of 100's or 1000's of small or medium
> >> microwave ovens switched on with their doors open everywhere you go?
> >
> >bogus comparison.
> >
>
> It's in the same high frequency spectrum.

nope.

microwave ovens are 2.4 ghz at a relatively high power, designed to
cook food.

5g is anywhere from 600 mhz to 86 ghz at a relatively very low power,
designed to *not* cook anything, even when next to an antenna.

> People have already reported headaches, disorientation, nausea, memory loss
> etc.

people report that for all sorts of reasons, and have done so long
before there was any form of radio.

> RADIATION SICKNESS NUKES 250K CELL TOWER WORKERS ACCORDING TO INSURANCE
> STUDY
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlXmZtl--4U

climbing radio towers is not a normal use case, and if the power is
above federal standards, as is claimed, then *that* is the problem, not
their existence.

> Testimonies from people who got sick
> https://5ginformation.net/testimonials-microwave-sickness/

unsubstantiated reports.

> >> The vast number of transmitters required is one problem. And of course we
> >> have to pay for it all.
> >> The other problem is the vast number of trees that have to be cut down,
> >> and
> >> that's already started. That's environmental vandalism.
> >
> >trees do not need to be cut down for transmitters.
> >
>
> They already have. There have been reports already. 5G won't work properly
> where there are many trees.

mmw won't, but the lower bands will.

however, that doesn't mean there will be massive tree cutting.

what it does mean is optimal placement of very low power micro and
femtocells, while *keeping* the trees where they are.

> >however, trees do need to be cut down for making paper, which would be
> >*reduced* with widespread 5g, so if you want to minimize the number of
> >trees cut down, you should *support* 5g deployment.
> >
>
> What is the basis for that claim?

common sense.

computers have drastically reduced the amount of paper needed,
particularly email and the need to print something and physically mail
it.

magazines and newspapers are shutting down because people get
everything online.

> >> And nobody asked us about this. They are foisting this onto us and making
> >> us
> >> pay for it when we don't even really need it.
> >
> >yes we do, as it will bring all sorts of benefits for society.
> >
>
> What benefits?

health benefits, autonomous vehicles and much more

> >> There's an agenda here.
> >
> >that agenda being to advance technology and improve life for everyone,
> >even the kooky lunatics.
> >
>
> The big for-profit corporations just want to improve our lives? You're
> bananas.

not at all.

> >> >>Survelliance:
> >> >>While mass survelliance is already bad these days. 5G has the potential
> >> >>to make it even worse. It will become easier to monitor people through
> >> >>installing cameras in a nearly every corner of the nation.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > When out in public, everyone has a decreased expectation of
> >> >privacy. And cameras can be installed anywhere in public. This is
> >> >perfectly legal.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It's unconstitutional.
> >
> >no it isn't.
> >
>
> Neither I nor anyone I know asked for this. Why are they pushing this so
> hard despite all the protests around the world?

you don't know very many people and there aren't very many protests,
almost none, in fact.

5g is going to be a game changer once it's fully deployed. it can't
happen soon enough. unfortunately, that will take several years.

also unfortunately, the kooks won't go away.

> More than 205 protests in more than 195 cities in 32 countries are being
> planned for Saturday, January 25.
> https://stop5ginternational.org/5g-protest-day/

nothing but a bunch of kooks.

after they attend that, they should head over to next year's flat earth
conference:
<https://flatearthconference.com/about/>

[Chris]

On 21/01/2020 05:38, Andrew W wrote:
>> "nospam"  wrote in message
>> news:200120202236451222%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>>
>> In article <r05qpg$nfd$1...@dont-email.me>, Andrew W
>> <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> >>5G is probably the most controversial cellular technology ever.
>>> While >>it
>>> >>will provide even faster connection speeds than 4G, it carries many
>>> >>concerns: interference, health, survelliance and security ones.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >     There is nothing supporting a claim of health issues.
>>> >
>>>
>>> People getting sick is not enough?
>>
>> not from cellular, they don't.
>>
>
> They already have.
>
> Cell Tower Removed After 4th Ripon Student Diagnosed with Cancer
> https://mdsafetech.org/2019/03/25/cell-tower-to-be-removed-after-4th-ripon-student-diagnosed-with-cancer/

A statistical anomaly. Reminds me of leukaemia and electricity pylons in
the UK in the 80s. There was no causative link then and there isn't now.

>
>>
>> you're oblivious of the extensive health benefits it will bring.
>>
>
> Explain how.
>
>>
>>> Birds falling out of the sky is normal?
>>
>> that doesn't happen.
>>
>
> It already has in city parks where it was tested.
>
> Hundreds of Birds Fall From the Sky During 5G Test in The Netherlands
> https://thetruthrevolution.net/hundreds-of-birds-fall-from-the-sky-during-5g-test-in-the-netherlands/
>
>
> Mystery bird deaths as dozens fall to their deaths from tree
> https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/16/mystery-bird-deaths-dozens-fall-deaths-tree-10929813/

It's a hoax. The birds died over a 3-week period in Oct-Nov 2018 yet the
5G test was in June 2018 for a *single day*.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/5g-cellular-test-birds/

There is absolutely nothing that links the two events.

[Ted]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 19:43:39 +1100, Michael Christ

LOL. But don't you guys have free national health insurance?

[Michael Christ]

Grow up, please.

You a skewing the conversation into nonsense to try and make me out a
fool. Disingenuous and a weak argument.

Information is coming and going on your mobile phone all the time and
when you are in close proximity to many others and heaps of 5g towers
electromagnetic radiation has to increase many many fold.

Not natural.

A little arsenic is okay but a lot, that is another kettle of fish. Can
you extrapolate that, please, or are you going to say that I say 5G
towers are arsenic! :-).

>
>>>> And multiply that many fold over with 5g.
>>>
>>> So I would be *many* cell towers? Really?
>>
>> You are being disingenuous yet again, but in a sense, yes.
>>
>
> Not in any sense.

You've done it above...again. Disingenuous.

>
>>>>>> There will be millions and millions of these towers all around us in
>>>>>> close proximity! The density of mobile phones in a square meter on a
>>>>>> bus full of people in New York. Think along those lines. Short, medium
>>>>>> to long term effects nothing?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have evidence that anything more dangerous than we face
>>>>> now will occur?
>>>>
>>>> Do you have evidence that it is not?
>>>
>>> Avoidance noted.
>>
>> You did just that. I have on my side millions and millions of these
>> very high traffic towers all around us in close proximity and you
>> dismiss it as nothing.
>>
>> If you look there are many well educated people who are heralding a
>> strong warning about this. Are they all fools, nothing to see here folks?
>>
>
> You fail to support, let alone prove, the idea that we will face
> any more dangers than we do now.

I told you, I don't have to prove anything to you.

>
>>
>>> It befalls you to prove your claim. I do not have to disprove it.
>>
>> So you claim.
>>
>> It is not about proving, it is about intuition and experience in life,
>> just like it is for you.
>>
>
> So your making a factual claim was just you being dishonest. Got
> it.

I don't make a claim unless I believe it to be true.

>
>>>> It is you that is bringing unnatural into the natural world more and
>>>> more and more and more with no abating.
>>>
>>> Your delusion that I developed 5G is amusing.
>>
>> Another disingenuous statement. What do you hope to gain, superiority
>> by dishonestly painting your opponent as a fool? That is a very weak
>> position.
>>
>
> I'm not dishonestly painting you as a fool. It is quite honest.

Wanker.

>
>> Man decided to bring these types of things into our lives, like the
>> pollution from cars, the plastic in the oceans, murdering babies in the
>> womb, all kinds of pollution from our actions, destruction of the
>> environment, animal, insect, atmosphere and so on.
>>
>> But man still marches on hoping there will be no tipping point, 5g
>> (ramped up communication electromagnetic radiation) filling our world
>> with all the more 'unnatural', it is just another thing.
>>
>> Nothing to see here folks is for you, not for me.
>>
>
> You haven't addressed your claim that I developed 5G. Will you do
> so now, or shall everyone reading accept that you are unable?

I would have loved your perverted context child games if I was still a
teenager.

Man developed 5G. You are man and you love your toys and fuck the
consequences. It is that simple.

>
>>>> Anytime that is done that is unnatural means trouble one way or another.
>>>>
>>>> And please, don't insult my intelligence with, 'What?'. I see no
>>>> increase of cancer through man's deeds or something as stupid.
>>>
>>> You've yet to offer anything that would support, let alone prove,
>>> your delusions to be real.
>>
>> Nobody is proving anything here. It is ignorance and hypocrisy to
>> demand proof because everything is belief. You are surmising, because
>> you can't predict the future, and I am surmising, but the truth will
>> appear in time.
>>
>> Take it or leave it.
>>
>
> So you were being dishonest when you presented the claim as fact.
> Got it.

Everything is belief. I told you what I believe. Take it or leave it.

>
>>>>>> You are trying to convince yourself 5g is nothing but a harmless
>>>>>> butterfly. It is not natural.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither are computers. Or the Internet. Odds are, the clear
>>>>> majority of your life is made up of that which is not natural.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, man has changed the whole planet with his ways. It is not an
>>>> argument to compare an orange with an orange.
>>>
>>> And, over all, man is doing well. There are exceptions, of
>>> course. But those are in the minority.
>>
>> If I had said that you would have said, where is the proof and it is
>> incumbent on you to prove it! There is a lot of hypocrisy in you.
>>
>
> If your god does exist, you clearly have a demon of lying in
> control of you.

So which is it? :-).

>
>> By the way, the concern over global warming, CO2 in the atmosphere
>> skyrocketing, the bleaching of the reefs, the over-fishing, the
>> glyphosate present in our food and us, Fukushima (not over), millions
>> tonnes of oil sitting on the floor in the gulf (still leaking by the
>> way, and don't mention the toxic dispersants) is doing well?? There are
>> so many many things, we are deforesting the earth which has to have a
>> huge effect on the ecology and animal and insect populations of the
>> world on which we depend.
>>
>> There are so many things we are doing that eventually it is going to
>> come to a head. We all know that intuitively but we are hoping we can
>> *fix it*. What does that tell you?? In case that doesn't get through,
>> it means we are doing the wrong things.
>>
>> If you could see the amount of the pollution across the world in all
>> it's content you wouldn't be so flippant and quick to say the above.
>> Also, we haven't even looked at man's inhumanity to man...and that is
>> not getting better.
>>
>> For instance, wars continue and all too common, school shootings, church
>> sitting duck shootings, murder, rape, suicide, home invasions, bashing,
>> rioting, the deceit of big business and big pharma and so on. It is
>> easy to say that is just being negative, but in the world you are trying
>> to sell none of those things should be occurring at all.
>>
>> We are numbed to the violence and wrong around us because it is our normal.
>>
>
> Your avoidance is noted. Please return to, and stick with, the
> discussion we're having.

There is no discussion from you, there is only an effort by you to try
snare me in your context, Mr 5G Tower. :-).

>
>>>>>> Nothing to see here folks is bullshit. They are gambling big time with
>>>>>> adult and children's health! This is what you are not getting, in small
>>>>>> doses, arsenic is quite useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are gambling on the ways of man and look at his record.
>>>>>
>>>>> History shows man has done pretty good, over all. There are some
>>>>> exception. Some of them showing the most deplorable aspects of humans.
>>>>> But, for the most part, man's done well.
>>>>
>>>> Right! That is why we are destroying the planet. Just because we
>>>> haven't reached a tipping point yet, all is well!! :-).
>>>>
>>>> You people with your head in the sand!
>>>
>>> Provide the valid, verifiable evidence for your claims. If your
>>> claims are based in reality, you will do so. If not, you won't.
>>
>> Everything is belief and you can't prove a belief. You put forward a
>> straw man argument drowning in hypocrisy. Everything is conjecture,
>> unless you can predict the future?? 7 men have 7 opinions.
>>
>> If you don't agree with me and find no value in what I have to say,
>> fine, but you are not the font of all knowledge that one has to come to
>> to prove anything.
>
> Why do you present belief as fact?

I believe it is. Is that alright with you?

[Michael Christ]

Unless you have infinite knowledge no counter claim can be proven, but
go ahead. You will anyway.

>
>>>>>>>> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>>>>>>>> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>>>>>>>> around and through us, won't you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Massive amounts of information has been running around and
>>>>>>> through us for decades. This has been the case since, at least, radio
>>>>>>> was new.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to do some learning, Bubba.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am well educated. That you think only the uneducated can prove
>>>>> you wrong is an interesting position for you to express.
>>
>> Michael Christ wrote:
>>>> Isn't it amazing, atheists all do the same thing. You have an arm and a
>>>> knife, you slash your arm and go, look at what God has done if He exists.
>>
>>
>>> I've done no such thing. If your god does exist, then Satan and
>>> his demons do as well. And you prove you have a demon of lying that
>>> controls you.
>>> If your god does exist, and I've seen nothing to support a claim
>>> that he does, he has a great deal to answer for.
>>
>> He does, or you do. :-). I don't agree with your belief that you are
>> good and God is evil.
>>
>
> I'm human. I can do good or I can do evil.

Who told you that? Let me guess, a human?

Thus, humans are God.

> I don't need a god of
> any sort to force me to be good.

You can't be.

>
>> However when you can create just one cell, then you can get back to me
>> and I would give you reasonable consideration for a valid opinion.
>>
>
> Mitosis is well documented. I can offer a number of cites, if you
> wish.

So you created cell division? Amazing. How did you do this? Was it by
rubbing two stones together??

Do it from scratch. No man can.

>
>> You chose what you got and it is your bleeding arm.
>>
>> Now go all 5g on me (I won't be as far as I am able) and I will watch
>> what happens to you before I make any further decisions.
>>
>> And thanks for that.
>
> At present, I don't have any device that uses 5G. In time I, like
> everyone who uses mobile devices, will have to upgrade. But so long as
> 4G works, I'm content. Probably because I rarely use my phone for web
> surfing, or other applications that would benefit from the faster
> speed. You can count the number of times I've accessed Facebook with
> my phone on both hands, and have some digits to spare.
> By way of example, I noticed no appreciable difference in the
> speed of texting between 3G and 4G. > I don't expect to notice any with
> 5G.

Everything is going wifi/cell tower data, everything. Your toaster,
your lights, your TV, your car, your toilet seat. You will have a
device in your home that will respond to your voice and doing everything
you ask it.

My wife bought me this device for Christmas, it is called Alexa...not
expensive. It was an eye opener. "Alexa, how do you spell
'conspicuous', Alexa, turn the lights on...less brightness, Alexa, what
is the weather forecast today, Alexa, what is the news, Alexa, turn the
TV off, Alexa, play soft hits of the 80s, Alexa, tell me a joke...you
get the idea.

It's coming and it is here and with my understanding and experience of
human nature, Alexa is like a car is to the road. Like TVs, everyone
will be hooked up, only this device, or something akin to it, will not
only do everything in the home but know everything in the home...24/7.

You can go all, I won't do it, on me, but how long did you resist buying
a mobile phone? :-). Before long, anyway, you won't be able to buy a
TV that doesn't have the requirement for voice activation and for that
the most convenient way is with an online voice hub that does
everything. Can you buy a TV without a remote, now?? So it will be
with something like this Alexa in the home. Get the picture?

And before you go all 'proof' on me, this is what I believe as fact.

Man has the desire not only to play God but to be God, my mitosis friend.

[Michael Christ]

Yeah, something basic exists for those on Health Care Cards for dental,
those on the dole. They'll fix a busted tooth, but I don't think
they'll do an implant sort of thing.

I have 7 implants and 28 crowns, try getting that done in a dentist in
the USA or Australia!

[Ted]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 08:15:35 +1100, Michael Christ

Those of us in the US with decent jobs have affordable dental care,
but I know it's different in Canada, which I'm guessing is about the
same as Australia.

[Michael Christ]

Go to A and buy an apple for $1 or go to B and pay $10 for the same
apple. What are you going to do?? Oh that a hard one to decide in
Australia, Canada and the US of A.

What is a decent job, by the way? I just want to know if I am good
enough for you.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:06:45 -0500, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <onkd2fhdf6uf24hla...@4ax.com>, KWills Shill
>#2 <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> I don't have a problem with anyone who buys an iPhone. Though I
>> >> do wonder why they would spend so much more for something that does
>> >> the same thing as an Android device. But they have every right to
>> >> purchase the phone they want.
>> >
>> >prices are similar for similar specs.
>> >
>> ><https://store.google.com/us/product/pixel_4>
>> > From $799 or $33.29/mo for 24 mos
>> >
>> ><https://www.techradar.com/reviews/samsung-galaxy-s10>
>> > The Samsung Galaxy S10 price starts at $899 / £799 / AU$1,349 / AED
>> > 3,199 for the 128GB of storage model, meaning you're spending an
>> > additional $180 / £60 / AED 100 on this phone over the S9 launch
>> > price.
>>
>> Maybe it was a sale, but the closest MetroPCS store had the
>> Galaxy S10 available for just under $400 not too long ago. A discount
>> of roughly $400 certainly isn't impossible, but it seems high.
>
>first of all, using sale prices for comparisons is bogus.
>

I merely pointed out the cost was much less than claimed. It may
have been a sale, but it would be an odd amount.

>second, it was probably locked to metropcs with a contract, versus an
>unlocked use wherever you want iphone, making the comparison even less
>valid.

It would be locked to T-Mobile. And there is no contract.
Metro does offer iPhones as well. I don't know the cost. Since I
don't expect I'll want to get one, I lack any motivation to check.

>
>lastly, the galaxy s20 (samsung is reportedly skipping numbers) is
>coming out in 3 weeks so they probably want to clear out old stock.
>

That is equally possible.

>> It may have been a loss leader to get new customers. They'll take
>> a hit on the initial price with the hope that they'll have a long
>> time, devoted customer. Since the offer was for new customers only,
>> this would make sense. I don't know what existing customers would have
>> been made to pay since I didn't look into it.
>
>further supporting that it was locked to a metropcs contract.
>

MetroPCS doesn't have contracts, so that's not an option.

>if price is a concern, walmart has an iphone se for $89. it's a few
>years old and refurbished, but still a very capable device.
><https://www.walmart.com/ip/Refurbished-Apple-iPhone-SE-16GB-Space-Gray-
>Unlocked-LTE/54188796>

Price isn't a concern for me. I simply prefer Android. I don't
have a problem with anyone who uses an iPhone or any Apple products.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:07:11 +1100, Michael Christ

That's funny, coming from you.

>You a skewing the conversation into nonsense to try and make me out a
>fool. Disingenuous and a weak argument.

I don't have to try and make you out a fool. You do this
yourself.

>
>Information is coming and going on your mobile phone all the time and
>when you are in close proximity to many others and heaps of 5g towers
>electromagnetic radiation has to increase many many fold.
>

Yes. But this does not make me a tower.

>Not natural.
>

Most of what we interact with isn't natural.

>A little arsenic is okay but a lot, that is another kettle of fish. Can
>you extrapolate that, please, or are you going to say that I say 5G
>towers are arsenic! :-).
>

I'll point out how you're attempting to divert from the point of
contention.

>>>>> And multiply that many fold over with 5g.
>>>>
>>>> So I would be *many* cell towers? Really?
>>>
>>> You are being disingenuous yet again, but in a sense, yes.
>>
>> Not in any sense.
>
>You've done it above...again. Disingenuous.

Doesn't your holy book claim that lying is a sin?

>>>>>>> There will be millions and millions of these towers all around us in
>>>>>>> close proximity! The density of mobile phones in a square meter on a
>>>>>>> bus full of people in New York. Think along those lines. Short, medium
>>>>>>> to long term effects nothing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have evidence that anything more dangerous than we face
>>>>>> now will occur?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have evidence that it is not?
>>>>
>>>> Avoidance noted.
>>>
>>> You did just that. I have on my side millions and millions of these
>>> very high traffic towers all around us in close proximity and you
>>> dismiss it as nothing.
>>>
>>> If you look there are many well educated people who are heralding a
>>> strong warning about this. Are they all fools, nothing to see here folks?
>>
>> You fail to support, let alone prove, the idea that we will face
>> any more dangers than we do now.
>
>I told you, I don't have to prove anything to you.

If you want to look the fool you are, then you are free to make
ludicrous claims and "run away" from supporting them.

>>>> It befalls you to prove your claim. I do not have to disprove it.
>>>
>>> So you claim.
>>>
>>> It is not about proving, it is about intuition and experience in life,
>>> just like it is for you.
>>
>> So your making a factual claim was just you being dishonest. Got
>> it.
>
>I don't make a claim unless I believe it to be true.
>

Belief is fine, but reality is better.

>>>>> It is you that is bringing unnatural into the natural world more and
>>>>> more and more and more with no abating.
>>>>
>>>> Your delusion that I developed 5G is amusing.
>>>
>>> Another disingenuous statement. What do you hope to gain, superiority
>>> by dishonestly painting your opponent as a fool? That is a very weak
>>> position.
>>
>> I'm not dishonestly painting you as a fool. It is quite honest.
>
>
>Wanker.
>
>
>>
>>> Man decided to bring these types of things into our lives, like the
>>> pollution from cars, the plastic in the oceans, murdering babies in the
>>> womb, all kinds of pollution from our actions, destruction of the
>>> environment, animal, insect, atmosphere and so on.
>>>
>>> But man still marches on hoping there will be no tipping point, 5g
>>> (ramped up communication electromagnetic radiation) filling our world
>>> with all the more 'unnatural', it is just another thing.
>>>
>>> Nothing to see here folks is for you, not for me.
>>
>> You haven't addressed your claim that I developed 5G. Will you do
>> so now, or shall everyone reading accept that you are unable?
>
>I would have loved your perverted context child games if I was still a
>teenager.
>
>Man developed 5G. You are man and you love your toys and fuck the
>consequences. It is that simple.
>

Why are you so compelled to lie?

>>>>> Anytime that is done that is unnatural means trouble one way or another.
>>>>>
>>>>> And please, don't insult my intelligence with, 'What?'. I see no
>>>>> increase of cancer through man's deeds or something as stupid.
>>>>
>>>> You've yet to offer anything that would support, let alone prove,
>>>> your delusions to be real.
>>>
>>> Nobody is proving anything here. It is ignorance and hypocrisy to
>>> demand proof because everything is belief. You are surmising, because
>>> you can't predict the future, and I am surmising, but the truth will
>>> appear in time.
>>>
>>> Take it or leave it.
>>
>> So you were being dishonest when you presented the claim as fact.
>> Got it.
>
>Everything is belief. I told you what I believe. Take it or leave it.

I can, and do, accept that you believe I developed 5G. I want you
to present the evidence that I did.
Of course, a little bit above you suggest you don't believe I
developed it.

>>>>>>> You are trying to convince yourself 5g is nothing but a harmless
>>>>>>> butterfly. It is not natural.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither are computers. Or the Internet. Odds are, the clear
>>>>>> majority of your life is made up of that which is not natural.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, man has changed the whole planet with his ways. It is not an
>>>>> argument to compare an orange with an orange.
>>>>
>>>> And, over all, man is doing well. There are exceptions, of
>>>> course. But those are in the minority.
>>>
>>> If I had said that you would have said, where is the proof and it is
>>> incumbent on you to prove it! There is a lot of hypocrisy in you.
>>
>> If your god does exist, you clearly have a demon of lying in
>> control of you.
>
>So which is it? :-).

Since your god is surely fictional, so are demons. This means
your dishonesty comes from you alone.

So you dislike truth, honesty and accuracy. Got it.

>>>>>>> Nothing to see here folks is bullshit. They are gambling big time with
>>>>>>> adult and children's health! This is what you are not getting, in small
>>>>>>> doses, arsenic is quite useful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are gambling on the ways of man and look at his record.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> History shows man has done pretty good, over all. There are some
>>>>>> exception. Some of them showing the most deplorable aspects of humans.
>>>>>> But, for the most part, man's done well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right! That is why we are destroying the planet. Just because we
>>>>> haven't reached a tipping point yet, all is well!! :-).
>>>>>
>>>>> You people with your head in the sand!
>>>>
>>>> Provide the valid, verifiable evidence for your claims. If your
>>>> claims are based in reality, you will do so. If not, you won't.
>>>
>>> Everything is belief and you can't prove a belief. You put forward a
>>> straw man argument drowning in hypocrisy. Everything is conjecture,
>>> unless you can predict the future?? 7 men have 7 opinions.
>>>
>>> If you don't agree with me and find no value in what I have to say,
>>> fine, but you are not the font of all knowledge that one has to come to
>>> to prove anything.
>>
>> Why do you present belief as fact?
>
>I believe it is. Is that alright with you?

No. Believing X is fine. But claiming X is fact when it is
nothing more than a belief is dishonest.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:58:03 +1100, Michael Christ

If I had infinite knowledge, I would be a god. If I were a god, I
wouldn't deny my existence. But I am not a god. There is no sound
reason to believe any god exists.

>>>>>>>>> Well, we'll just see what happens when millions and millions of towers
>>>>>>>>> go up around us and when masses of more information starts running
>>>>>>>>> around and through us, won't you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Massive amounts of information has been running around and
>>>>>>>> through us for decades. This has been the case since, at least, radio
>>>>>>>> was new.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to do some learning, Bubba.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am well educated. That you think only the uneducated can prove
>>>>>> you wrong is an interesting position for you to express.
>>>
>>> Michael Christ wrote:
>>>>> Isn't it amazing, atheists all do the same thing. You have an arm and a
>>>>> knife, you slash your arm and go, look at what God has done if He exists.
>>>
>>>> I've done no such thing. If your god does exist, then Satan and
>>>> his demons do as well. And you prove you have a demon of lying that
>>>> controls you.
>>>> If your god does exist, and I've seen nothing to support a claim
>>>> that he does, he has a great deal to answer for.
>>>
>>> He does, or you do. :-). I don't agree with your belief that you are
>>> good and God is evil.
>>
>> I'm human. I can do good or I can do evil.
>
>Who told you that? Let me guess, a human?
>
>Thus, humans are God.
>

It is far more plausible than not that humans invented gods.

>> I don't need a god of
>> any sort to force me to be good.
>
>You can't be.
>

Huh?

>>> However when you can create just one cell, then you can get back to me
>>> and I would give you reasonable consideration for a valid opinion.
>>
>> Mitosis is well documented. I can offer a number of cites, if you
>> wish.
>
>So you created cell division? Amazing. How did you do this? Was it by
>rubbing two stones together??
>
>Do it from scratch. No man can.

Do cease your moving of the goal post. It's not clever.

>>> You chose what you got and it is your bleeding arm.
>>>
>>> Now go all 5g on me (I won't be as far as I am able) and I will watch
>>> what happens to you before I make any further decisions.
>>>
>>> And thanks for that.
>>
>> At present, I don't have any device that uses 5G. In time I, like
>> everyone who uses mobile devices, will have to upgrade. But so long as
>> 4G works, I'm content. Probably because I rarely use my phone for web
>> surfing, or other applications that would benefit from the faster
>> speed. You can count the number of times I've accessed Facebook with
>> my phone on both hands, and have some digits to spare.
>> By way of example, I noticed no appreciable difference in the
>> speed of texting between 3G and 4G. > I don't expect to notice any with
>> 5G.
>
>Everything is going wifi/cell tower data, everything. Your toaster,
>your lights, your TV, your car, your toilet seat. You will have a
>device in your home that will respond to your voice and doing everything
>you ask it.
>

The lights already do that. Well, Google Home actually controls
the lights. Members of the family have to tell it to turn the lights
on or off.
With the Amazon Fire Stick on the TV in the master bedroom, the
wife or I can use Alexa to show various things in the TV. It's an
older TV. If I remember correctly, we got it in 2005. It's HD, but
it's not a Smart TV.

>My wife bought me this device for Christmas, it is called Alexa...not
>expensive. It was an eye opener. "Alexa, how do you spell
>'conspicuous', Alexa, turn the lights on...less brightness, Alexa, what
>is the weather forecast today, Alexa, what is the news, Alexa, turn the
>TV off, Alexa, play soft hits of the 80s, Alexa, tell me a joke...you
>get the idea.
>

I do. With all the devices we have, we have Alexa, Siri and
Google's assistant. I use Google the most.

>It's coming and it is here and with my understanding and experience of
>human nature, Alexa is like a car is to the road. Like TVs, everyone
>will be hooked up, only this device, or something akin to it, will not
>only do everything in the home but know everything in the home...24/7.
>
>You can go all, I won't do it, on me, but how long did you resist buying
>a mobile phone? :-).

Not too long. They weren't being used by as many as today, but I
got my first one in 1996. It was a handheld unit with an antenna that
was pulled out from the top.
I knew a few people who had cellular phones permanently attached
in their cars.

>Before long, anyway, you won't be able to buy a
>TV that doesn't have the requirement for voice activation and for that
>the most convenient way is with an online voice hub that does
>everything. Can you buy a TV without a remote, now?? So it will be
>with something like this Alexa in the home. Get the picture?
>

Yep. Extreme convenience. I'm all for it.

>And before you go all 'proof' on me, this is what I believe as fact.
>

It is clear it's an opinion. But it's one I can easily accept as
plausible. If it comes to pass or not is something we'll have to wait
and see.

>Man has the desire not only to play God but to be God, my mitosis friend.

No one would want me to be a god. While I am a fairly nice
person, the saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely would like find definitive proof in me.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 08:15:35 +1100, Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:

[...]

>>> Dentists are fuckin' ridiculously expensive in Australia, now you
>> can talk about cocksuckers!
>>
>>
>>> Michael Christ
>>
>>
>> LOL. But don't you guys have free national health insurance?
>
>Yeah, something basic exists for those on Health Care Cards for dental,
>those on the dole. They'll fix a busted tooth, but I don't think
>they'll do an implant sort of thing.
>
>I have 7 implants and 28 crowns, try getting that done in a dentist in
>the USA or Australia!

I have one crown and a bridge. Nothing like what you have, of
course.
Dental insurance in the U.S. isn't all that great. I have Delta
Dental, which is one of, if not the, best. And it sucks. If you had
it, you could get all that done, but you would pay the lion's share of
the cost.
It would probably be cheaper to have all your teeth removed and
get dentures.

[Michael Christ]

You are too dishonest to hold a discussion with.

[%]

Michael Christ <jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote in news:r099v0$fuc$1...@dont-email.me:

> You are too dishonest to hold a discussion with.
>
>

you expect a convicted felon like kwills to
be honest

did you hear about him breaking into his
neighbors garages and getting busted

https://ia.talk.misc.narkive.com/PW9KMwlZ/our-kent-wills-is-a-convicted-burglary-felon

[Ted]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 09:55:49 +1100, Michael Christ

It's a job you can get if you're sufficiently qualified to help
someone else make a ton of bucks, and if there aren't too many others
so qualified.

At least that's the free market American definition.

[Michael Christ]

Inspiring.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 21:59:44 +1100, Michael Christ
<jesusisth...@hotmail.con> wrote:

>You are too dishonest to hold a discussion with.

Your inability to counter the truth I posted is noted.

[Ted]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:36:04 +1100, Michael Christ

Of course I know it's different in Australia, where crocodile hunters
and kangaroo herders have the best jobs.

[Michael Christ]

In God's economy everyone is equal. That is why it is easy for me to
get into the piss and shit cleaning up a person and sit in dirt with
someone eating damper and kangaroo tail no matter what colour or race.

It's a nice feeling because God reveals Himself in it, for the King of
Glory, it is His nature to do that. Such humility and meekness.

Have you ever thought about how you can kill an animal (though I don't
like it, but if it is necessary) but not a human being?

Animals and humans are not equal, even in your world. Unless you want
to go out and protest about the 'T' bone on your dinner table tonight.

[Ted]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 08:35:14 +1100, Michael Christ

True. Also, Jesus is a cocksucker.

[Michael Christ]

Still with the cocksucker thing.

[Ted]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:38:24 +1100, Michael Christ

LOL. I just need to warn people about Jesus, that's all.

[duckg...@cox.net]

So fairy is still a jerk.
>

the dukester, American-American

[duckg...@cox.net]

It's pretty clear we need to warn everybody about you.
the dukester, American-American

[Rink]

Op 17-1-2020 om 21:47 schreef Michael Christ:
>
> Look out for stuff like Alexa which monitors what goes on in the home
> 24/7.  Since I have nothing hide, I have one.  It is amazing what it can
> be used for and that is why it (or something similar) is headed into
> everyone's home, just like the TV did.
> Michael Christ
>

So what does Alexa for you, which you cannot do without Alexa?

Don't you know that Google can make a perfect profile of you, using Alexa.
Google knows when you are on holiday, what you eat, which diseases you
will get.
In the near future they will make money by selling all information about
you to anybody.

[Rink]

Op 21-1-2020 om 15:06 schreef nospam:

> In article<r062pg$n77$1...@dont-email.me>, Andrew W
> <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>>>> 5G is probably the most controversial cellular technology
>>>>>> ever. While it will provide even faster connection speeds
>>>>>> than 4G, it carries many concerns: interference, health,
>>>>>> survelliance and security ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>> There is nothing supporting a claim of health issues.
>>>>>
>>>> People getting sick is not enough?
>>> not from cellular, they don't.
>>>
>> They already have.
> no they haven't.
>
>> Cell Tower Removed After 4th Ripon Student Diagnosed with Cancer
>>
>> <https://mdsafetech.org/2019/03/25/cell-tower-to-be-removed-after-4th-ripon-student-diagnosed-with-cancer/> >
> that is not proof the tower caused the cancer.
>
> Investigations of not only cell tower radiation but also water
> quality have been initiated.
>
> in other words, they have no idea what the cause is.
>

> meanwhile, billions of people worldwide are*not* getting cancer

> from nearby cell towers, which strongly points to something*else*
> being the cause.
>

So it also is not proof that the tower did NOT caused the cancer.

Have you read the article?


Quotes from the same article:
<https://mdsafetech.org/2019/03/25/cell-tower-to-be-removed-after-4th-ripon-student-diagnosed-with-cancer/>


"
Distance from Cell Towers and Cancer Rates

A study by Wolf and Wolf (2004) showed a significant increase in cancer
in those living within 350 feet of a cell tower. Eger (2004) found an
increase in new cancer cases within a 10-year period if residents lived
within 400 meters of a cell tower. They also found that within 5 years
of operation of the transmitting base station the relative risk of
cancer development tripled in residents near the cell tower compared to
resident living outside the area. Dode (2011) performed a 10-year study
(1996-2006) examining the distance from cell towers and cancer clusters.
He and his colleagues found a significant increase in cancers in those
living within 500 meters of the cell tower. They noted, “The largest
density power was 40.78 μW/cm2, and the smallest was 0.04 μW/cm2.” The
current guidelines are about 1000 μW/cm2.

They conclude, “Measured values stay below Brazilian Federal Law limits
that are the same of ICNIRP. The human exposure pattern guidelines are
inadequate. More restrictive limits must be adopted urgently.

It is notable that Lurchi in 2015 found an increase in liver tumors,
lung tumors and lymphomas in mice at low to moderate exposure at (0.04
and 0.4 W/kg SAR), and well below exposure limits for the users of
mobile phones."

Cell Towers, Illness and Cognitive Decline in Students

Cancer is not the only worry with cell towers. The majority of studies
on cell towers internationally have shown adverse effects with cell
towers in close proximity to residencies and schools. Findings include
symptoms of dizziness, headaches, nausea, memory loss, and fatigue in
those living within about 400 feet of a cell tower. These are symptoms
of “microwave illness” reported by NASA in servicemen working on radar
systems. A recent study conducted over 2 years looking at the effects of
cell towers near two schools by Meo (2018) demonstrated cognitive
dysfunction in students closest to the higher power cell tower.

Cell Towers and Blood Cell Abnormalities

There is also a recent study showing blood abnormalities in those living
nearest to cell towers (Zothansiama 2017). DNA and lipid abnormalities
were seen along with reduction in internal antioxidants which provide
protection from pollutants.
"



Looks to me that cell towers do increase diseases like cancer.

[KWills Shill #2]

On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 17:53:16 +0200, Rink
<rink.hof.ha...@planet.nl> wrote:

>Op 17-1-2020 om 21:47 schreef Michael Christ:
>>
>> Look out for stuff like Alexa which monitors what goes on in the home
>> 24/7.  Since I have nothing hide, I have one.  It is amazing what it can
>> be used for and that is why it (or something similar) is headed into
>> everyone's home, just like the TV did.
>> Michael Christ
>
>So what does Alexa for you, which you cannot do without Alexa?
>

You can do most anything without a smart speaker you can with
one. It's just that it's easier with one.

>Don't you know that Google can make a perfect profile of you, using Alexa.
>Google knows when you are on holiday, what you eat, which diseases you
>will get.
>In the near future they will make money by selling all information about
>you to anybody.

Most of my life is with Google. I use an Android phone, Google
home, Gmail, etc.
I knew going in that Google would sell whatever information it
could about me. Clearly I'm fine with it. If you don't like it, don't
use any of Google's products or services.