Google Groups

[Mike W]

Just seen this while reading Groups online...

Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today.

[Chris Elvidge]

On 29/01/2024 17:49, Mike W wrote:
> Just seen this while reading Groups online...
>
> Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
>
>

Old news, good news.


--
Chris Elvidge, England
NERVE GAS IS NOT A TOY

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:49:47 -0800 (PST), Mike W wrote:

> Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new
> Usenet content.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

[68g.1499]

On 1/29/24 12:49 PM, Mike W wrote:
> Just seen this while reading Groups online...
>
> Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today.

In short, it's GONE.

The bean-counters didn't see any profit, so ...

On the plus, it means fewer annoying little spammers.

STILL hoping Musk will pick it up in the 'free speech'
theme.

[The Natural Philosopher]

+1

--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

[Kees Nuyt]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:07:27 -0500, "68g.1499"
<68g....@etr6.net> wrote:

> The bean-counters didn't see any profit, so ...

Yes, or the last gray-bearded google engineer who knows NNTP
finally retires.

> On the plus, it means fewer annoying little spammers.

google may not be willing to process all the spam complaints
from NNTP peers (our usenet providers).
--
Kees Nuyt

[Kyonshi]

On 1/31/2024 5:32 PM, Kees Nuyt wrote:

> google may not be willing to process all the spam complaints
> from NNTP peers (our usenet providers).

did they ever? because it certainly didn't look like they did.

[Scott Alfter]

In article <7d12b7c7-1764-40cb...@googlegroups.com>,

Oh no! Anyway...

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=CzmXjvj4dik

--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[Bryan]

On 2/4/2024 15:59, Salud wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:07:27 -0500, 68g.1499 wrote:
>
>
>>
>> STILL hoping Musk will pick it up in the 'free speech'
>> theme.
>

> God I hope not!
>
> If that over-hyped fascist twat ever 'picks it up' he'll turn it into a
> RIGHT shitshow.
>

Which is somehow worse than the LEFT shitshow that it used to be, and
pretty much still is. Say one of the bad words and see how quick you get
banned.

[Scott Alfter]

In article <uUSvN.194490$Lo1.1...@usenetxs.com>,

Salud <ne...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:07:27 -0500, 68g.1499 wrote:
>
>
>>

>> STILL hoping Musk will pick it up in the 'free speech'
>> theme.
>

>God I hope not!
>
>If that over-hyped fascist twat ever 'picks it up' he'll turn it into a
>RIGHT shitshow.

https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2022/05/25/552135/s1200_everyone_i_dont_like_is_a_nazi_the_emotional_childs_28032035.jpg

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 05/02/2024 16:08, Scott Alfter wrote:
> In article <uUSvN.194490$Lo1.1...@usenetxs.com>,
> Salud <ne...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:07:27 -0500, 68g.1499 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> STILL hoping Musk will pick it up in the 'free speech'
>>> theme.
>>
>> God I hope not!
>>
>> If that over-hyped fascist twat ever 'picks it up' he'll turn it into a
>> RIGHT shitshow.
>
> https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2022/05/25/552135/s1200_everyone_i_dont_like_is_a_nazi_the_emotional_childs_28032035.jpg
>

LOL. It's more 'I don't like people telling me what to do. Nazis do that'.


--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 11:48:17 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:

> In article <uUSvN.194490$Lo1.1...@usenetxs.com>,
> Salud <ne...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> If that over-hyped fascist twat
>

> Gone straight to name calling ad hominem attack. Can you give examples
> of his fascist behaviour?

Where do we start?

<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/05/musk-defends-enabling-turkish-censorship-on-twitter-calling-it-his-choice/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/11/musk-announces-twitter-ban-on-unlabeled-parody-after-celebs-impersonate-him/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-lifts-political-ad-ban-designed-to-stop-misinformation-spread/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-retroactively-changes-developer-agreement-to-ban-third-party-clients/>.
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/musks-x-revokes-paid-blue-check-from-united-auto-workers-after-strike-called/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/as-x-bleeds-cash-musk-threatens-anti-defamation-league-with-defamation-lawsuit/2/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/x-apparently-added-5-second-delay-for-links-to-sites-musk-doesnt-like/>
<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/12/musk-suspends-nyt-and-wapo-reporters-from-twitter-claims-they-doxxed-him/>

[TimS]

On 06 Feb 2024 at 17:45:37 GMT, "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <ups29q$h6mt$7...@dont-email.me>,

> 1. Far from convinced that this publication is anything like even
> handed. Looks like the Guardian in attitude.
>
> 2. I think fascist is a word used primarily as an insult, I don't
> think Trump fits the definition at all well.

It doesn't. A much better fit to fascism is BLM, Extinction rebellion, Greta,
etc etc. The real problem with Trump is that he is stupid. But there again,
the Democrats in the US have only themselves to blame for the rise of Trump:
they've spent the last several years sneering at and belittling the lower and
lower-middle class in the US. Which has now had enough of it.

--
Tim

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 06/02/2024 17:45, Bob Latham wrote:
> Anything, no matter how disgusting done against Trump is seen as
> moral and good by the Democrats. Hatred of Trump is close to
> destroying any pretence that the USA is democratic if it hasn't done
> so already.
>
That is what worries me. It started in the UK with Blair, who defended
supporting the USA using faked dossiers to bring the UK parliament
onside with the famous 'I believed what I was doing was right'...
It was illegal, it was a high level state crime to deceive parliament,
but as long as he believed it was right, then it was OK.


--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:45:37 +0000 (GMT)
Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> done against Trump is seen as moral and good by the Democrats.

It is a sad commentary on the United States that out of over 340
million people Biden and Trump are their options for leaders, are they
*really* the best the country has to offer ?

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

[TimS]

On 06 Feb 2024 at 18:14:42 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste...@eircom.net>
wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:45:37 +0000 (GMT)
> Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> done against Trump is seen as moral and good by the Democrats.
>
> It is a sad commentary on the United States that out of over 340
> million people Biden and Trump are their options for leaders, are they
> *really* the best the country has to offer ?

Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:

1) Not controlling guns severely

2) Believing *rigidly* in the Constitution, instead of being more flexible
about it

3) Allowing any tuppenny-ha'penny jurisdiction to "incorporate" (whatever that
means) and thus have its own police department and mayor - with the chief of
the former being elected like the latter. A good recipe for corruption and
incompetence. The US has over 15,000 police departments for 350 million
people, we have 45 for 60 million.

4) Having judges be elected, and having them be allowed to decide policy
matters such as abortion based on some spurious interpretation of the
Constitution, instead of such questions being decided by the legislatures,
where they belong.

5) Allowing political advertising on TV and radio.


I expect there are others.

--
Tim

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:45:37 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:

> In article <ups29q$h6mt$7...@dont-email.me>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>

> 1. Far from convinced that this publication is anything like even
> handed. Looks like the Guardian in attitude.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of what we call
“circular reasoning”.

[Mickey]

Re: Re: Google Groups
By: Ahem A Rivet's Shot to Bob Latham on Tue Feb 06 2024 06:14 pm

340 million people that don't want to enter politics and run for the highest
position in the land, because they don't want their entire lives/misfortunes
and mistakes dragged through mud. It's just not worth the price I guess.

Mickey
Mick Manning
Central Ontario Remote Synchro
centralontarioremote.com:23
-------------------------------

[Scott Alfter]

In article <l2fnmr...@mid.individual.net>,

TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
>
>1) Not controlling guns severely

...because that's working so well for you. /rolleyes

Take out the blue shithole cities from our crime stats and they're no worse
than yours. Probably better, actually. Those blue shitholes, BTW, already
have gun laws much closer to what you'd want. Again, how's that working out
for them?

>2) Believing *rigidly* in the Constitution, instead of being more flexible
>about it

That "flexibility" is what has landed us in our current mess. It's a short
document...maybe three or four pages, written in plain-enough English that
there ought not to be nearly as much disagreement over what it means as
there has been. I chalk that up to a group of politicians who seek to
obfuscate and gaslight...mostly with "D"s after their names, though there
are more than a few with "R" after their names who I wouldn't trust as far
as I can throw them either.

Given that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, it follows
that sharply curtailing the power the government has over the people would
serve well to limit the extent of corruption.

>3) Allowing any tuppenny-ha'penny jurisdiction to "incorporate" (whatever that
>means) and thus have its own police department and mayor - with the chief of
>the former being elected like the latter. A good recipe for corruption and
>incompetence. The US has over 15,000 police departments for 350 million
>people, we have 45 for 60 million.

Police chiefs generally aren't elected. They're appointed by mayors and/or
city councils, to whom they're beholden. Sheriffs are elected, usually on a
countywide basis. There are some exceptions here and there...here in Las
Vegas, the city police department and the county sheriff's department merged
in the early '70s, so we have a police department headed up by an elected
sheriff.

>4) Having judges be elected, and having them be allowed to decide policy
>matters such as abortion based on some spurious interpretation of the
>Constitution, instead of such questions being decided by the legislatures,
>where they belong.

The bigger problem, especially at the federal level, is the unaccountable
administrative state. Congress has mostly abdicated its responsibility and
let organizations like the EPA and ATF do pretty much whatever they want.
At least if an elected judge proves himself to be a total fuckup, there's a
chance that the voters might shitcan him the next time he's up for
reelection. (Practice might have some variance from theory in this regard,
given how many judges run unopposed.)

>5) Allowing political advertising on TV and radio.

I'm not sure I'd consider that the problem so much as that they get away
with blatant lies without any consequence. Theoretically, the voters would
throw the bums out. In practice, most people seem to be of the mindset that
while other people's representatives are scumbags and reprobates, theirs are
as pure as the wind-driven snow. Why this is the case is a mystery.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 06/02/2024 18:18, TimS wrote:
> A much better fit to fascism is BLM, Extinction rebellion, Greta,
> etc etc. The real problem with Trump is that he is stupid. But there again,
> the Democrats in the US have only themselves to blame for the rise of Trump:
> they've spent the last several years sneering at and belittling the lower and
> lower-middle class in the US. Which has now had enough of it.

That's probably as close to the truth as you can get from here.


--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 04:52:58 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:

> In article <l2fnmr...@mid.individual.net>,
> TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
>>
>>1) Not controlling guns severely
>
> ...because that's working so well for you. /rolleyes

It’s worked really well in Australia. That’s what scares the US gun nuts.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 04:52:58 GMT

sc...@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) wrote:

> In article <l2fnmr...@mid.individual.net>,
> TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
> >Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
> >
> >1) Not controlling guns severely
>
> ...because that's working so well for you. /rolleyes

Nobody here sees their child die because someone back along the
road got angry and missed when they shot at the driver who annoyed them.
Nobody here has their child die while trying on clothes in a department
store because a cop pulled a gun in a mall and missed. But the real kicker
is in here:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country

Between 2009 and 2018 the USA had 288 school shootings, the next
country down the table (Mexico) had 8. Only 9 countries had more than one
and only twenty countries had any. There were a total of 42 in the rest of
the world compared to the 288 in the USA.

America most certainly does have a gun problem.

[Jim Jackson]

On 2024-02-07, Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <upua17$12n7l$1...@dont-email.me>,

>> call ?circular reasoning?.
>
> I know nothing of arstechnica but I am very aware that the Guardian
> like the BBC is not interested in the truth at all. They are only
> interested in pushing a narrative. Subversion really.
>
> Bob.
>

[Jim Jackson]

mmmmm a nuanced approach to truth, not!

[The Natural Philosopher]

Correct.
They are both carefully crafted to let you know what 'other intelligent
people like you are thinking'

So that by thinking exactly the same, you can pass as 'intelligent'.

--
Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

[Mike Powell]

> > Anything, no matter how disgusting done against Trump is seen as
> > moral and good by the Democrats. Hatred of Trump is close to
> > destroying any pretence that the USA is democratic if it hasn't done
> > so already.
> >
> That is what worries me. It started in the UK with Blair, who defended
> supporting the USA using faked dossiers to bring the UK parliament
> onside with the famous 'I believed what I was doing was right'...
> It was illegal, it was a high level state crime to deceive parliament,
> but as long as he believed it was right, then it was OK.

The big problem here is that, early on, the other side was actually
throwing a bunch of allegations at Trump that had little basis on actual
facts. If they had waited, we now know they could have found plenty of stuff
that was based on facts.

Now, when anything comes out, even if it is something right out of Trump's
own mouth, his supporters believe that it falls into the former category
rather than opening their eyes and realizing he's really done something
wrong... like claiming that Presidents should have full immunity.

For them, it is like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, and they won't even listen to
people who aren't Democrats and that used to agree with them.


* SLMR 2.1a * A Crucifix? Oy vey, have YOU got the wrong vampire...

[Mike Powell]

> Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:

I think you've missed a few things.

> 2) Believing *rigidly* in the Constitution, instead of being more flexible
> about it

Only when it suits them. When it doesn't, they will try to make it quite
flexible and twist it into what they want to believe... like that a
President has full immunity from criminal prosecution... and not at all
what it says.

> 4) Having judges be elected, and having them be allowed to decide policy
> matters such as abortion based on some spurious interpretation of the
> Constitution, instead of such questions being decided by the legislatures,
> where they belong.

In the case of abortion, unelected, appointed justices decided to do just
that... turn it back to the states and their legislatures. If you are
pro-choice, this has turned out to be a bad thing for you in many states.

I am not sure that having judges be elected is a bad thing so long as they
have to meet qualifications in order to be on the ballot. The alternative
is to have them appointed, which means they will still have biases... it
would be the biases of those who appoint vs. those who elect. Assuming
they work as other appointments, if they run afoul of the political beliefs
of the appointing authority, they get removed and replaced by someone who
will do what they are told.

At least when they are elected, if they do a horrible job you can get rid
of them come next election.

How does your country manage to completely get around political bias when
it comes to judges? Honest question as here I don't see a way around it.

> 5) Allowing political advertising on TV and radio.

Not sure of the issue here. If the candidates could not advertise at all,
sadly most Americans would just vote based on the party the candidate is
aligned with. Come to think of it, that is probably how most do it anyway.
However, for me, "pro-candidate" advertising often highlights something a
candidate stands for that I really don't like, which prompts me to research
the issue more and can often lead me to realize that the candidate "my
party" has put forward is not the candidate for me.

I do wish there were not so many political ads, and it would be nice if the
ads could only mention what the candidate supports, and not mention the
other candidate at all. Most of our ads spend the majority of their air
time talking about how bad the other candidate is and very little time on the
candidate they are supporting.


* SLMR 2.1a * Those who live by the sword... kill those who don't.

[Mike Powell]

On 06/02/2024 18:18, TimS wrote:
> etc etc. The real problem with Trump is that he is stupid. But there again,
> the Democrats in the US have only themselves to blame for the rise of Trump:
> they've spent the last several years sneering at and belittling the lower and
> lower-middle class in the US. Which has now had enough of it.

This. Now the Democrats are stuck with a stupid problem they cannot get
rid of.


* SLMR 2.1a * 5 billion years the earth takes to form, and we get THIS?

[Mike Powell]

> Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > done against Trump is seen as moral and good by the Democrats.

> .It is a sad commentary on the United States that out of over 340

> million people Biden and Trump are their options for leaders, are they
> *really* the best the country has to offer ?

I would like to think not, as an American, but I am afraid they are going
to be our choices again. Biden wouldn't step aside, and Trump has too many
followers for anyone else to get nominated. Tim Scott seemed rather
sensible, which is why he was out early. Sadly, most Americans no longer
like sensible.


* SLMR 2.1a * This is a School-Free Drug Zone.

[Scott Alfter]

In article <upvb9o$1b4u9$1...@dont-email.me>,

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:

By "worked really well," you meant to say that crime has skyrocketed, right?
You are aware that criminals don't obey laws, right?

https://crimeresearch.org/2016/04/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

https://gununiversity.com/australias-gun-ban-and-its-effect-on-crime/

https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-australias-gun-laws-reduced-gun-homicides/

[Scott Alfter]

In article <20240207075805.651d...@eircom.net>,

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 04:52:58 GMT
>sc...@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) wrote:
>
>> In article <l2fnmr...@mid.individual.net>,
>> TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>> >Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
>> >
>> >1) Not controlling guns severely
>>
>> ...because that's working so well for you. /rolleyes
>
> Nobody here sees their child die because someone back along the
>road got angry and missed when they shot at the driver who annoyed them.

Instead, they get stabbed and cut with knives. What's next, knife bans?
Oh, wait...they're already doing that:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-to-restrict-access-to-corrosives-and-knives

Where does it stop?

> America most certainly does have a gun problem.

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

[TimS]

On 06 Feb 2024 at 21:04:00 GMT, "Mike Powell" <Mike Powell> wrote:

>> Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:

>> 4) Having judges be elected, and having them be allowed to decide policy
>> matters such as abortion based on some spurious interpretation of the
>> Constitution, instead of such questions being decided by the legislatures,
>> where they belong.
>
> In the case of abortion, unelected, appointed justices decided to do just
> that... turn it back to the states and their legislatures.

The US Supremem Court should not have been involved in the first place. In
Europe, abortion is not so contentious an issue precisely because it is
legislated about by elected politicians. Beware of judicial overreach.

> If you are pro-choice, this has turned out to be a bad thing for you in many
> states.

Well I agree.

> I am not sure that having judges be elected is a bad thing so long as they
> have to meet qualifications in order to be on the ballot.

The prime concern of anyone who is elected, is to get re-elected. So DAs and
judges are likely to fall over themselves to appear to be "tough on crime". So
they want high conviction rates. So in the pre-trial conference, the defendant
might be offered that they'll get 3 years if they cop a plea, but 40 years if
they defend the case and are convicted. You ever hear of a US judge
disqualifying himself because of such a clear conflict of interest? Seems to
me that in the US, you don't get justice, you get law - and plenty of it. Plea
bargaining is pernicious under such circumstances; it also means that the
evidence is never tested in court.

> The alternative is to have them appointed, which means they will still have
> biases... it
> would be the biases of those who appoint vs. those who elect.

Central government appoints ours. And don't imagine that this means that our
judges are political. They tend to be independently minded. I'm not sure if
there is a simple mechansim to remove them, either.

>> 5) Allowing political advertising on TV and radio.

We also don't allow it in the print media. On TV, there are 5 minute slots
called "Party Political Broadcasts", with a strictly limited number allowed .
Not sure whether or how the content is regulated.

--
Tim

[TimS]

On 07 Feb 2024 at 04:52:58 GMT, "Scott Alfter" <Scott Alfter> wrote:

> In article <l2fnmr...@mid.individual.net>,
> TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>> Well they are good at cutting off their noses to spite their face:
>>
>> 1) Not controlling guns severely
>
> ...because that's working so well for you. /rolleyes

Certainly is. I just compare the annual number of murders by firearms in the
UK (35 in 2021) with that of the US (7,500 to 10,000 or so).

--
Tim

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 07/02/2024 17:23, TimS wrote:
> Central government appoints ours. And don't imagine that this means that our
> judges are political.

All the ones appointed by Bliar are.

As hard left and bolshy as can be.

[The Natural Philosopher]

In the UK disputes tend to end in grievous bodily harm, at worst. There
are a lot of stabbings on the streets but no one gets shot.
Guns are hard to come by and carry extreme penalties if convicted with one.

The problem is not that NRA dudes are rampant murderers, but that guns
are so available it becomes the weapon of *choice*. For any nutcase.
Here it tends to be machetes these days...or a stolen vehicle

[TimS]

On 07 Feb 2024 at 17:55:47 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"

Friend Scott overlooks that with a knife, there is some chance of running away
from the situation. Rather less so if Chummy can plug you with his handgun
from a distance.

--
Tim

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On 7 Feb 2024 18:03:18 GMT

TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:

> Friend Scott overlooks that with a knife, there is some chance of running
> away from the situation. Rather less so if Chummy can plug you with his
> handgun from a distance.

There is also a lot less chance of stabbing the wrong person from a
distance, or even at all.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 09:27:44 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:

> I know nothing of arstechnica but I am very aware that the Guardian like
> the BBC is not interested in the truth at all.

Did you hear this from some random loony on Facebook?

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 09:40:00 +1300, Mike Powell wrote:

>> .It is a sad commentary on the United States that out of over 340
>> million people Biden and Trump are their options for leaders, are they
>> *really* the best the country has to offer ?
>
> I would like to think not, as an American, but I am afraid they are
> going to be our choices again. Biden wouldn't step aside, and Trump has
> too many followers for anyone else to get nominated.

In all the good democracies, you have a realistic choice of more than two
parties to vote for, and the ones running for election are not the ones
running the election.

<https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu> -- notice the USA
is only in the third-from-top decile.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 16:29:23 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:

> Instead, they get stabbed and cut with knives.

Yeah, imagine if that Las Vegas shooter up on the 32nd floor didn’t have
guns to shoot people in the street with, he would have just thrown knives.
Because knives thrown with bare hands cause just as much carnage as an
AR15, don’t they.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 16:26:23 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:

> In article <upvb9o$1b4u9$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>It’s worked really well in Australia. That’s what scares the US gun
>>nuts.
>
> By "worked really well," you meant to say that crime has skyrocketed,
> right?

I mean that mass shootings have become something of a rarity in Australia
now. Whereas they are a weekly occurrence in the USA.

[Scott Alfter]

In article <uq0s9j$1jgqa$3...@dont-email.me>,

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 16:26:23 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:
>
>> In article <upvb9o$1b4u9$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>It’s worked really well in Australia. That’s what scares the US gun
>>>nuts.
>>
>> By "worked really well," you meant to say that crime has skyrocketed,
>> right?
>
>I mean that mass shootings have become something of a rarity in Australia
>now. Whereas they are a weekly occurrence in the USA.

Hardly, at least not in the civilized parts of the country. Somewhere like
Chicago or DC (to pick a couple)? They're getting what they voted for, good
and hard, and them doing more of the same isn't going to improve their lot.

[Scott Alfter]

In article <l2huv6...@mid.individual.net>,

TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>Friend Scott overlooks that with a knife, there is some chance of
>running away
>from the situation. Rather less so if Chummy can plug you with his handgun
>from a distance.

If a bad guy with a knife manages to close to within about 21', you're
pretty much fucked. He can slice or stab you faster than you can either
(1) back off and run away or (2) get your gun ready.

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=js0haocH4-o

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 23:36:18 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:

> In article <uq0s9j$1jgqa$3...@dont-email.me>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I mean that mass shootings have become something of a rarity in
>>Australia now. Whereas they are a weekly occurrence in the USA.
>
> Hardly, at least not in the civilized parts of the country. Somewhere
> like Chicago or DC (to pick a couple)?

Interesting that you tend to pick on those places, rather than, say,
Massachusetts and Hawaii, which have gun-control laws that work.

[TimS]

On 07 Feb 2024 at 23:36:18 GMT, "Scott Alfter" <Scott Alfter> wrote:

> In article <uq0s9j$1jgqa$3...@dont-email.me>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 16:26:23 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:
>>
>>> In article <upvb9o$1b4u9$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It’s worked really well in Australia. That’s what scares the US gun
>>>> nuts.
>>>
>>> By "worked really well," you meant to say that crime has skyrocketed,
>>> right?
>>
>> I mean that mass shootings have become something of a rarity in Australia
>> now. Whereas they are a weekly occurrence in the USA.
>
> Hardly, at least not in the civilized parts of the country. Somewhere like
> Chicago or DC (to pick a couple)? They're getting what they voted for, good
> and hard, and them doing more of the same isn't going to improve their lot.

I assume you refer to the "defunding of the police"? That this could happen at
all is just another indication that the basic structures of governance are
badly organised where you are. Here, there is complete separation between the
police (paid for by a local tax but organised much more nationally) and local
government. This also applies to traffic enforcement, so that traffic fines
accrue to the state, not local government. I observed this at first hand when
I had a speeding ticket in California. I went to traffic school and at the
close of the session, a little old lady asked whether quotas existed. The
convenor (an off-duty San Francisco cop), eventually said "Yes, but no one
would ever admit that publicly."

What this refers to (I eventually discovered) is that if the city runs low on
funds, the Mayor tells the police chief about it, and the traffic cops get
told to go out and not come back without (say) three sitter and four movers.
Meaning that, as a way for the city to raise some funds, they book people for
trivial infringements that would otherwise have been overlooked. This smells
like legalised banditry to me.

It comes down to structures, and you folk need to realise this.

--
Tim

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 07/02/2024 18:03, TimS wrote:

>
> Friend Scott overlooks that with a knife, there is some chance of running away
> from the situation. Rather less so if Chummy can plug you with his handgun
> from a distance.
>

It is extremely difficult to 'plug someone from a distance' with a handgun.

Even I, who have never fired one, know that. That's why we have rifles,
which I have fired.

In fact many fatalities are from handguns rounds that hit entirely the
wrong person altogether, by sheer chance.

There was a story I saw re-enacted on TV, where a friendly barbecue was
having fun shooting at water melons on poles. Then the wife was invited
to 'have a go'. Being short, she had to shoot *upwards*, and the round
travelled several blocks and killed someone in their garden.

She could never have done that by aiming at them.

I think the effective accurate range of a handgun is probably little
more than 5 meters, and in the hands of the average person, not even that.



--
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools.”

Herbert Spencer

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, its an opinion framed by reading/listening to them.

There is an apocryphal statement allegedly made by I think Mark Twain,
more or less along the lines that :

"One can rely on the accuracy of newspapers except in a subject one has
direct and comprehensive knowledge of".

Sadly I found this to be completely true.

Which is why I read the Daily Express, No one believes for an instant
that it is actually telling the truth.

If there is a story that looks interesting I research it elsewhere...


--
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the
other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

—Soren Kierkegaard

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 09:52:47 +0000

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 07/02/2024 18:03, TimS wrote:
>
> >
> > Friend Scott overlooks that with a knife, there is some chance of
> > running away from the situation. Rather less so if Chummy can plug you
> > with his handgun from a distance.
> >
> It is extremely difficult to 'plug someone from a distance' with a
> handgun.

No it's just difficult to plug the person you're aiming at. Hitting
a bystander is a matter of probability depending on the density of
bystanders and the distance the bullet flies. Close your eyes and fire
randomly on a busy street and you'll likely hit someone well before the
clip empties. (please do not try this experiment).

> In fact many fatalities are from handguns rounds that hit entirely the
> wrong person altogether, by sheer chance.

Precisely, whereas accidentally knifing the wrong person is
extremely rare. If somebody wants to murder someone else badly enough they
will find a way, I would prefer that the method they find isn't one that
leads to killing the wrong person by accident.

Accidental killing and mass/random shootings are the most
unacceptable aspects of guns[1] and they are far more common in the US than
anywhere else.

[1] No other weapon lends itself to them so well. Bows come a distant
second.

[Scott Alfter]

In article <l2jktd...@mid.individual.net>,

TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>On 07 Feb 2024 at 23:36:18 GMT, "Scott Alfter" <Scott Alfter> wrote:
>
>> In article <uq0s9j$1jgqa$3...@dont-email.me>,
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 16:26:23 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <upvb9o$1b4u9$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It’s worked really well in Australia. That’s what scares the US gun
>>>>> nuts.
>>>>
>>>> By "worked really well," you meant to say that crime has skyrocketed,
>>>> right?
>>>
>>> I mean that mass shootings have become something of a rarity in Australia
>>> now. Whereas they are a weekly occurrence in the USA.
>>
>> Hardly, at least not in the civilized parts of the country. Somewhere like
>> Chicago or DC (to pick a couple)? They're getting what they voted for, good
>> and hard, and them doing more of the same isn't going to improve their lot.
>
>I assume you refer to the "defunding of the police"?

No, though that doesn't help either. Both have blatantly unconstitutional
gun-control regimes in place...the sort of laws that the hoplophobes assert
without evidence would reduce crime. (DC v. Heller rolled back some of this
nonsense.)

[Scott Alfter]

In article <uq289f$1tfdb$7...@dont-email.me>,

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>I think the effective accurate range of a handgun is probably little
>more than 5 meters, and in the hands of the average person, not even that.

I usually set up man-sized silhouette targets 7-10 yards out when shooting
handguns. It's not that difficult to keep most of your hits within the
silhouette, even though I don't practice nearly as much as I should.

[Scott Alfter]

In article <uq28iv$1tfdb$8...@dont-email.me>,

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 07/02/2024 19:44, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 09:27:44 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>>> I know nothing of arstechnica but I am very aware that the Guardian like
>>> the BBC is not interested in the truth at all.
>>
>> Did you hear this from some random loony on Facebook?
>
>No, its an opinion framed by reading/listening to them.
>
>There is an apocryphal statement allegedly made by I think Mark Twain,
>more or less along the lines that :
>
>"One can rely on the accuracy of newspapers except in a subject one has
>direct and comprehensive knowledge of".

A bit more pessimistic opinion of the press is put forth by Michael
Crichton:

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the
newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case,
physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the
journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the
issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story
backward--reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause
rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors
in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and
read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about
Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget
what you know.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 08/02/2024 17:10, Scott Alfter wrote:
> In article <uq289f$1tfdb$7...@dont-email.me>,
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> I think the effective accurate range of a handgun is probably little
>> more than 5 meters, and in the hands of the average person, not even that.
>
> I usually set up man-sized silhouette targets 7-10 yards out when shooting
> handguns. It's not that difficult to keep most of your hits within the
> silhouette, even though I don't practice nearly as much as I should.

YOU practice. How many street gang members bother to do that? They just
wave them 'in the general direction' and loose off a penis-enlarging
series of shots..

YOU are interested in guns for sporting use, YOU take care of your guns,
YOU practice to know how to use them.

YOU are not the person who is going to do a drive by shooting from a
moving car...


--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 08:55:22 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:

> In article <uq0miv$1iire$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>

> I don't have a Facebook account.
>
> My opinion was formed by own experiences and observations.

Does that mean you have actually researched Elon Musk? Or are you relying
on other second-hand accounts of him, that you, for some reason, deem more
reliable than these?

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 17:06:21 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:

> Both have blatantly unconstitutional gun-control regimes in place...the
> sort of laws that the hoplophobes assert without evidence would reduce
> crime.

It worked in Australia. The secret is, it’s not enough to outlaw the
assault-style weapons, you also need to have a buyback scheme to force
them out of circulation.

The result is the mass killings dropped away from one a year to less than
one a decade. That’s a pretty good improvement, don’t you think?

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 09:45:56 +0000 (GMT)
Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> People who wish to stop others speaking are afraid of what they may
> say. If you have truth on your side, why would someone else's words
> bother you? Liars like to crush free speech and will be on the wrong
> side of history, never been a good sensor, they're evil. A few
> exceptions, incitement, porn etc.

There you have it. Either there are no exceptions to free speech or
the only argument is about where to draw the line. Wherever the line
happens to be drawn those who want to make it more restrictive are accused
of "crushing free speech" while those who want to make it less restrictive
are accused of "facilitating evil" - whatever the real reasons for wanting
change may be.

How much disinformation should we tolerate in the interests of free
speech? None would silence pretty much everybody including elected
politicians and major news outlets - Unlimited well maybe but perhaps after
a generation has grown up with critical thinking on the school syllabus.
Also who decides what is disinformation and what is suppressed facts being
leaked? When everyone is accused of lying what can you believe?

The desire to be able to point to (at least) one good trustworthy
source where no lies are told is very understandable (I'd love to see one),
the belief that one can exist is perhaps optimistic, the belief that one
does is naive. We all make the best guesses we can at filtering the lies
from the facts.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 09/02/2024 11:51, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> How much disinformation should we tolerate in the interests of free
> speech?

There is an old Latin quote. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"?

It means "Who will guard the guardians?".

And it turns any argument about limiting disinformation into a cat
belling exercise.
To put it simply, who do we trust to decide what is disinformation and
what is not? Politicians? Doan make me larf. They are the biggest liars
along with lawyers and media stars that exist.

The problem is that in many cases people sincerely believe they are
telling the truth, in other cases people say they sincerely believe that
they are telling the truth, while other people claim they are lying or
sincerely *believe* they are lying or in fact can prove it.

This buggers muddle is the core of today's information wars, in which
nothing is fact, everything is opinion and commercial propaganda, and
what you believe is down to who you believe, and the art is to carefully
craft the bullshit and use someone who you respect to spoonfeed it to you.

So sports starts and hollywood icons become 'experts' in sociology and
meteorology and climatology.

Jane Fonda had nice tits, but what the fuck did she know about
*anything* beyond making soft porn movies.

Is there a solution? Yes, but its a very hard one. I for example know
for a *fact*, because it is entirely within my skill and knowledge set,
that renewable energy will never ever be a satisfactory replacement for
fossil fuels, but that nuclear power could be. I know that because of a
three year university course in electrical engineering. Plus several
years as financial director of two IT businesses. I can do accounting
sums and I can do engineering. The two together damn renewables to oblivion.

But to anyone who hasn't had that background, all that amounts to in
their eyes is just my *opinion* - that *could* be wrong. They lack the
intelligence and the concentration to follow the complex logical chains.
They are simply too lazy and not too bright, so its far EASIER to simply
'believe in someone else'.

In short controlling disinformation isn't even a matter of knowing you
are right, its a matter of convincing other people, and I haven't got
big enough tits .

People need to learn to distinguish obvious crap from less obvious crap,
and research the less obvious crap and learn about it enough to make -
not an informed decision - anyone can be 'informed' by a liar or a
propagandist - but a *reasoned* decision.

People who can't shouldn't be allowed to vote BUT

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"?

Who decides that? Just another fallible and corruptible human being?

Ultimately we shouldn't even *try* to limit what people say. We should
provide an education that doesn't brainwash and teach people *what* to
think but teaches people *how* to think.

Logic, philosophy, metaphysics...these are the hand tools you need to
disentangle facts from bullshit, and reasoned arguments from emotional
bullshit.

Teach them at age 5. They are not hard.


--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

[Scott Alfter]

In article <uq4b07$2fjnu$6...@dont-email.me>,

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 17:06:21 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:
>
>> Both have blatantly unconstitutional gun-control regimes in place...the
>> sort of laws that the hoplophobes assert without evidence would reduce
>> crime.
>
>It worked in Australia. The secret is, it’s not enough to outlaw the
>assault-style weapons, you also need to have a buyback scheme to force
>them out of circulation.

"Buybacks" are nothing of the sort. The government can't "buy back" that
which it never owned. Be honest and call it what it is: confiscation,
usually at nowhere near what the firearms involved are worth.

[TimS]

On 12 Feb 2024 at 18:50:58 GMT, "Scott Alfter" <Scott Alfter> wrote:

> In article <uq4b07$2fjnu$6...@dont-email.me>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 17:06:21 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:
>>
>>> Both have blatantly unconstitutional gun-control regimes in place...the
>>> sort of laws that the hoplophobes assert without evidence would reduce
>>> crime.
>>
>> It worked in Australia. The secret is, it’s not enough to outlaw the
>> assault-style weapons, you also need to have a buyback scheme to force
>> them out of circulation.
>
> "Buybacks" are nothing of the sort. The government can't "buy back" that
> which it never owned. Be honest and call it what it is: confiscation,
> usually at nowhere near what the firearms involved are worth.

We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.

--
Tim

[mm0fmf]

On 12/02/2024 18:50, Scott Alfter wrote:
> nowhere near what the firearms involved are worth.

As you can't own them any more and you can't export them, their value is
only a fraction of what they cost originally. Basic market supply economics.

[Richard Falken]

Re: Re: Google Groups
By: TimS to All on Mon Feb 12 2024 07:10 pm

> We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
> justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
>

The cool thing about having to justify having things is that, fundamentally,
people does not need much.

You could keep a guy trapped in a hole and feed him with a nasograstric tube,
and if he asked for anything we could deny it to him based on the assumption he
already has everything he needs in the hole you provided to him.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On 12 Feb 2024 19:10:53 GMT

TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:

> We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
> justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.

Questionable justification for them to be in any hands IMHO.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:37:46 +1300, Richard Falken wrote:

> The cool thing about having to justify having things is that,
> fundamentally, people does not need much.

They need the freedom to not have to worry about buying bulletproof
backpacks for their kids to try to ensure they survive their school years.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 09:45:56 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham wrote:

> I read what he posts and see what he blocks and what he
> doesn't.

And yet when I give you information about that, you somehow disbelieve it.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 13:51:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> There is an old Latin quote. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"?
>
> It means "Who will guard the guardians?".

This is why we have things like “checks and balances” and “rule of law”,
to govern how we live together with others who may disagree with us, in
peace.

Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 12/02/2024 18:50, Scott Alfter wrote:

>

> "Buybacks" are nothing of the sort. The government can't "buy back" that
> which it never owned. Be honest and call it what it is: confiscation,
> usually at nowhere near what the firearms involved are worth.
>

Well no, confiscation is generally free of any cash reward.

'Compulsory Purchase' is the more commonly used euphemism.

--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell

[The Natural Philosopher]

The problem with that, is where do you draw the line?

In the UK a handgun *of any sort* is illegal outside of competition use,
the police, or the military, it having been deemed that their *only*
valid use is killing people.

The same goes for pump action shotguns, all machine or automatic
weapons, and large calibre rifles.

About all you *can* get a licence for, is a bolt action rifle up to
around .303 calibre (I think: I've never seen larger than that in a
hunters hands) and a single or twin barrelled shotgun.

Or air rifles. Which can be extremely powerful and accurate.

Is this a sensible place to draw the line?

And whilst gangland shootings may be scarce, our middle eastern friends
have brought with them a culture of knives, the larger and more vicious
the better.


--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 12/02/2024 00:37, Richard Falken wrote:
> The cool thing about having to justify having things is that, fundamentally,
> people does not need much.
>
> You could keep a guy trapped in a hole and feed him with a nasograstric tube,
> and if he asked for anything we could deny it to him based on the assumption he
> already has everything he needs in the hole you provided to him.

I think this is a suitable modus vivendi to be imposed on all
politicians, for the duration of their tenure.

--
“Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of 
an airplane.”

Dennis Miller

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 12/02/2024 20:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2024 19:10:53 GMT
> TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
>> justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
>
> Questionable justification for them to be in any hands IMHO.
>

I think what is happening in Ukraine fully justifies their existence and
use. Because if the other side has them, you are going to be walked all
over unless you have them, too.

Unless you have access to the 'weapon shops of Isher' :-)


--
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well it was only a matter of time after we had built the Internet, that
it would become a whole new medium for the propagation of carefully
crafted bullshit. And a lot of it outside of governmental control for
the first time.

Which is why democratic governments are busy passing laws to limit its
use for anything except the carefully crafted state mandated bullshit.

It won't end well, and it will remind people of why there used to be a
balance between their Lord's temporal - the judiciary - their Lords
Spiritual - the Church, and the actual pragmatic government, which was
electable, in charge of keeping the peace and protecting the realm, not
of engaging in moral dictatorship.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 13/02/2024 09:45, Bob Latham wrote:
> As I've learnt that pretty much all media lies continuously in order
> to subvert public opinion I'm sceptical to say the least.

Amen to that.

One has to ruthlessly apply Cicero's question to *anything* one reads or
sees or hears:

Cui Bono?

And since everything is monetised (except Usenet, and my websites) it is
pretty clear in most cases 'cui' gets the 'bono'.

"Never underestimate the power of carefully crafted bullshit".

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 13/02/2024 09:50, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <uqf4j8$1vsp3$5...@dont-email.me>,

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>

>> Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
>

> Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the truth?
>
> During covid we were continuously told this and that were
> "misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.
>
> Since then, drip by drip so much of that misinformation turns out to
> be true.
>
> Fancy that.
>
Indeed. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It's just another example of the cat-belling principle*.

In theory practice is the same as theory, in practice it isn't.

Governments world wide were frightened out of their wits by the
internet. The race is on to control it to only give the 'on message'
narrative.

From Tehran to Beijing, to Moscow, the firewalls are up.

While in the West it is open season for carefully crafted bullshit and
conspiracy theories, with as much coming from government as from other
interests.

We may yearn for the innocent days when we thought we knew what was the
truth, and real, but today anyone who believes in anything without
massive critical assessment is a gullible idiot.

As is anyone who still thinks in terms of Boolean logic - Truth or
falsity. The better bullshit is a subtle blend of both: Enough truth to
get you to believe the bullshit, as well.

Example: Covid was real, and it was and still is a killer. But was
lockdown the appropriate reaction? Who made money selling masks whose
effect seems mainly symbolic? And just why was the 'free' vaccine deemed
ineffective or unsafe and the massively profit making ones deemed de rigeur?

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

*https://www.longlongtimeago.com/once-upon-a-time/fables/from-aesop/the-mice-in-council-or-who-will-bell-the-cat

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

[TimS]

On 13 Feb 2024 at 09:29:08 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"

<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 12/02/2024 20:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> On 12 Feb 2024 19:10:53 GMT
>> TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
>>> justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
>>
>> Questionable justification for them to be in any hands IMHO.
>
> I think what is happening in Ukraine fully justifies their existence and
> use. Because if the other side has them, you are going to be walked all
> over unless you have them, too.
>
> Unless you have access to the 'weapon shops of Isher' :-)

The way round that is to start encouraging people to have supervised weapons
training in a military context. Six months compulsory at age 18, with 4-week
refreshers every few years. Or you do the six months as litter picking on the
motorways with pocket money and found, your choice.

Or some variation of the above. This is essentially what the Swiss do.

--
Tim

[TimS]

On 13 Feb 2024 at 09:50:25 GMT, "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <uqf4j8$1vsp3$5...@dont-email.me>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>

>> Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
>

> Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the truth?
>
> During covid we were continuously told this and that were
> "misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.

Well, you figure it out. We were told the vaccines were coming, and they did,
and I've taken every one that has since been offered, and guess what, I've
never had Covid. Meanwhile we were also told that the vaccines didn't work,
caused millions of fatalities, were the spawn of Satan, were an attempt to
control us all with microchips, etc.

So no prizes for guessing which viewpoint I support.

--
Tim

[TimS]

On 13 Feb 2024 at 10:12:08 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"

<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Example: Covid was real, and it was and still is a killer. But was
> lockdown the appropriate reaction? Who made money selling masks whose
> effect seems mainly symbolic? And just why was the 'free' vaccine deemed
> ineffective or unsafe and the massively profit making ones deemed de rigeur?

While these are good questions, some can only be answered in hindsight.
Lockdown? Not sure. It was damned expensive and who knows whether on the one
hand it was necessary or on the other should have been brought in sooner. The
masks turned out to be less necessary than was feared, but it took a while to
understand the transmission pathways and how long the virus was transmissible
on surfaces such as paper and metal.

At least the gumment chose to enable the vaccine makers and then stay out of
their way.

--
Tim

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:25:29 +0000

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 12/02/2024 19:10, TimS wrote:

> > We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
> > justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
> >
>
> The problem with that, is where do you draw the line?

Wherever you can that works. I'm quite happy with the Irish
approach - if it delivers more than a joule in a projectile it is a firearm
and you need to show good reason when applying for a license (self defence
is *not* on the acceptable list). You will also be required to use it only
for the declared reasons. There are a lot of limits to what you can get
even when you've jumped through the hoops - mainly because it has been
decided that there's no acceptable reason for some classes of weapon.

> Is this a sensible place to draw the line?

If it keeps the killings down and lets people who actually need a
gun get one then I'd say yes.

> And whilst gangland shootings may be scarce, our middle eastern friends
> have brought with them a culture of knives, the larger and more vicious
> the better.

The good thing about a knife is that if it kills the wrong person
it's usually the person who's wielding it and not someone uninvolved, guns
are all too good at unintended consequences, often lethal.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:29:08 +0000

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 12/02/2024 20:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On 12 Feb 2024 19:10:53 GMT
> > TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
> >> justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
> >
> > Questionable justification for them to be in any hands IMHO.
> >
>
> I think what is happening in Ukraine fully justifies their existence and
> use. Because if the other side has them, you are going to be walked all

Yes that's always the justification - "the bad guys have them",
therein lies the problem.

> over unless you have them, too.

The ideal (almost certainly unreachable) state is that nobody has
them. I can't help feeling that there should be a better solution to some
people having them than everyone having them - because that's not a
solution.

[TimS]

On 13 Feb 2024 at 12:14:57 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste...@eircom.net>
wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:29:08 +0000
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 12/02/2024 20:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On 12 Feb 2024 19:10:53 GMT
>>> TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
>>>> justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
>>>
>>> Questionable justification for them to be in any hands IMHO.
>>
>> I think what is happening in Ukraine fully justifies their existence and
>> use. Because if the other side has them, you are going to be walked all
>
> Yes that's always the justification - "the bad guys have them",
> therein lies the problem.

It's usually a single bad guy. WW2 only happened because of Adolf, Ukraine
only happened because of Putin. If we get trouble in the Pacific, it will be
because of Xi.

It only takes one to make war; it takes two to make peace. After 1991, we all
thought Russia was on a peaceful/democratic trajectory, and we were encouraged
by the Chinese changing leaders every ten years. Thats all gone by the board
now, and we have to adapt accordingly, just as we eventually did in the 1930s.

--
Tim

[TimS]

On 13 Feb 2024 at 12:14:57 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste...@eircom.net>
wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:29:08 +0000
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 12/02/2024 20:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On 12 Feb 2024 19:10:53 GMT
>>> TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
>>>> justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
>>>
>>> Questionable justification for them to be in any hands IMHO.
>>
>> I think what is happening in Ukraine fully justifies their existence and
>> use. Because if the other side has them, you are going to be walked all
>
> Yes that's always the justification - "the bad guys have them",
> therein lies the problem.
>
>> over unless you have them, too.
>
> The ideal (almost certainly unreachable) state is that nobody has
> them. I can't help feeling that there should be a better solution to some
> people having them than everyone having them - because that's not a
> solution.

Sure it's a solution. You may not like it, but it's a solution. All you're
doing is belling the cat.

--
Tim

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On 13 Feb 2024 11:51:59 GMT

Perfectly reasonable and I did the same for the same reasons and
with the same results. There does seem to have been a recent upswing in
heavily polarised viewpoints of late though and a lot of putting people
into buckets neither of which fill me with happy thoughts.

When all around lies are being shouted how do you spot the quiet
voice of truth ? Is it even there ? Remember that every news story where you
know the details at first hand was misreported - the one time I got to
question a reporter about a specific incident he told me that the truth was
too unbelievable and would have damaged the credibility of the paper so
he softened it to make it more believable - I still have a hard time
with that logic but it's not always (ever?) conspiracy driving the lies.

[Jim Jackson]

On 2024-02-13, Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <uqf4j8$1vsp3$5...@dont-email.me>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>

>> Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
>

> Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the truth?
>
> During covid we were continuously told this and that were
> "misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.
>

> Since then, drip by drip so much of that misinformation turns out to
> be true.

Go on - elaborate.

> Fancy that.

joke

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On 13 Feb 2024 12:42:59 GMT

It's demonstrably not a solution to the problem of people getting
shot at.

[The Natural Philosopher]

As I said, a careful mixture of truth and bullshit.

Vaccinations certainly did work, but we got the ones Big Pharma made the
most cash out of...



--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 13/02/2024 12:41, TimS wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2024 at 12:14:57 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste...@eircom.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:29:08 +0000
>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/02/2024 20:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> On 12 Feb 2024 19:10:53 GMT
>>>> TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
>>>>> justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Questionable justification for them to be in any hands IMHO.
>>>
>>> I think what is happening in Ukraine fully justifies their existence and
>>> use. Because if the other side has them, you are going to be walked all
>>
>> Yes that's always the justification - "the bad guys have them",
>> therein lies the problem.
>
> It's usually a single bad guy. WW2 only happened because of Adolf, Ukraine
> only happened because of Putin. If we get trouble in the Pacific, it will be
> because of Xi.
>

No. That is criminally naive. The reasons why Adolf, Putin and Xi became
leaders are rooted in many other economic and geopolitical factors.

They were and are products of their time and place. Just like Donald
Trump is.

> It only takes one to make war; it takes two to make peace. After 1991, we all
> thought Russia was on a peaceful/democratic trajectory, and we were encouraged
> by the Chinese changing leaders every ten years. Thats all gone by the board
> now, and we have to adapt accordingly, just as we eventually did in the 1930s.
>

Putin wont hand in his guns just because you do. That's all I am saying.

And he would regard your viewpoint as that of a useless stupid idiot.

--
The higher up the mountainside
The greener grows the grass.
The higher up the monkey climbs
The more he shows his arse.

Traditional

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 13/02/2024 15:13, Bob Latham wrote:
> Certainly I can't think of anyone I know that hasn't had covid, not
> one. A good proportion have had it twice and some 3 times. I don't
> know anyone who didn't have the first 3 jabs at least.

I am not sure whether I have ever had it or not. As an 'at risk' person
I have had so many bloody jabs I look like a pincushion. But I live in
splendid isolation.

I have never tested positive for it. Can't offhand think of anyone who
hasn't had it other than me though.

--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift

[mm0fmf]

On 13/02/2024 15:32, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1...@dont-email.me>,

> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

>> Vaccinations certainly did work,
>
> Well I'm very sure they do not prevent transmission.
>
> Bob.
>
They reduce the likelihood of onward transmission.

[Scott Alfter]

In article <l2v8pt...@mid.individual.net>,

TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>On 12 Feb 2024 at 18:50:58 GMT, "Scott Alfter" <Scott Alfter> wrote:
>> "Buybacks" are nothing of the sort. The government can't "buy back" that
>> which it never owned. Be honest and call it what it is: confiscation,
>> usually at nowhere near what the firearms involved are worth.
>

>We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
>justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.

...and that is why you're a subject of your country, not a citizen.

--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[Scott Alfter]

In article <5b31fc...@sick-of-spam.invalid>,

Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>In article <uqf4j8$1vsp3$5...@dont-email.me>,
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>

>> Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
>

>Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the truth?
>
>During covid we were continuously told this and that were
>"misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.
>

>Since then, drip by drip so much of that misinformation turns out to
>be true.

...and much of what governments were spewing out proved to be total
bullshit. Probably the worst offender in this regard was Jacinda Ardern
insisting that the Kiwis only trust her misbegotten regime, but there was
plenty of authoritarian big-government nonsense to go around.

[Scott Alfter]

In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1...@dont-email.me>,
The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Vaccinations certainly did work

For certain values of "work" that have little to do with your health...see
below.

>but we got the ones Big Pharma made the most cash out of...

Absolutely. They "worked" to line the pockets of Pfizer and Moderna execs.
Anthony Fauci also made a killing off of royalties regarding the poison
jabs...never mind that his government paycheck was already bigger than the
President's.

They also "worked" to give big-government authoritarians their wet dream of
near-absolute control over society.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 13/02/2024 16:26, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <uqg36u$258bd$1...@dont-email.me>,

> That's a new one, where did you get that from?
>
> Do I take that as a tacit admission that vaccines don't protect you
> from infection? Have we also dropped the notion that it helps if you
> get infected?
>
Oh dear. We have an ArtStudent™ mind. Stuck in Boolean logic.

You are asking an ArtStudent™ question.

The scientific questions is *how much* do vaccines reduce the risk of
infection, and the severity of the subsequent disease, and the answer
is, shitloads.

Anyone of any minor intelligence who actually thinks about it,
understands that. Vaccines increase natural immunity. It takes more of
someone else's virus load to make you sick and you wont get *as* sick.

So leave you stupid 'is it perfect?, if not it doesn't work' logic at home.

> So beforehand we were told - asymptomatic transmission, very
> important, anyone, even perfectly well people can give you covid but
> now, even people who are ill and infected are safer because of the
> vaccine?
>
> Do people cough, sneeze and breath less ?
>
Yes, they cough, sneeze and breath less virus load.

> Why then hasn't covid stopped?

It *has* stopped. Killing people.
Vaccines have brought it down to flu level - a bad week maybe in bed
with painkillers, and that's it. Not a life threatening infection with
people gasping for breath and dying.

I suffer when my blood oxygen goes below 90%, which it has done at times
when I was being loaded into an ambulance.

The [paramedics said 'its when its down at 50% an te patient is blue and
gasping for breath, that we put on the blue lights and sirens' I
saidf'whgen does that happen?'

'Covid'.



>
> My friends wife had covid for at least the second time a month ago.
>
Who cares?

Almaist everybody has had it by now

> My cousin who honestly is a GP somewhere in the Monmouthshire/Bristol
> border has just had it for the first time. Fully jabbed of course.
> I'll quote what she wrote...
>
> Cousin wrote"
> So sorry to be late replying .
> I have had Covid for the last week and have actually felt quite
> poorly . It‘s amazing that I have managed to dodge it for so long -
> my first Covid of the pandemic. Thinking that I‘ve had all the
> vaccinations offered and peoples comments that‘s it‘s ‘ like a bad
> cold now lulled me into complacency.
> I am starting to improve but along the way I have felt pretty unwell,
> breathless and lost my sense taste / smell .
> I have had to cancel 3 days of work which I hate as I don‘t like
> admitting illness .
> To someone who loves their food and adores eating experiences‘ I am
> going to be mighty upset if the sense of taste doesn‘t come back .
> Obviously I can‘t moan too much as being left on ITU on a ventilator
> is much worse !!
> Anyway I do feel I‘ve turned a bit of a corner today but (husband)
> has started sniffing and sneezing Œ..Oh dear .
> " end quote.
>

Lucky cousin. Without vaccinations she would probably be dead.

> I've seen no evidence vaccines do much good but they do do harm.

The evidence is that the episode your cousin has is now as bad as it gets.

If you cant see that, don't get jabbed and die in a respirator gasping
for breath, like so many others have.

>
> Bob.
>

--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
...than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 13/02/2024 16:44, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <FNMyN.223034$yEgf....@fx09.iad>,

> Scott Alfter <sc...@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
> Probably the worst offender in this regard was Jacinda
>> Ardern insisting that the Kiwis only trust her misbegotten regime,
>> but there was plenty of authoritarian big-government nonsense to go
>> around.
>

> Yes, indeed fully agree and she is awful.
>
So would you be if some dippy parents had named you 'Jacinda'

It's like a 'boy named sue'
Its not her fault that people simply fall for the promises of the Big
State to change their nappies for them and make everything all right.


I think I shall start the 'Life's a bitch, and then you die' party.
Sack 90% of all government, let the people spend their money and make
the world how they want it to be without government interference




--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 13/02/2024 16:58, Scott Alfter wrote:
> In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1...@dont-email.me>,
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Vaccinations certainly did work
>
> For certain values of "work" that have little to do with your health...see
> below.
>

As I said, babies and bathwater. The people making those vaccines really
did try and they did succeed. Then it got into the hands of Marketing
and Crony Capital

>> but we got the ones Big Pharma made the most cash out of...
>
> Absolutely. They "worked" to line the pockets of Pfizer and Moderna execs.
> Anthony Fauci also made a killing off of royalties regarding the poison
> jabs...never mind that his government paycheck was already bigger than the
> President's.
>
> They also "worked" to give big-government authoritarians their wet dream of
> near-absolute control over society.

Well they were always going to seize that chance,m weren't they? But
that doesn't mean they engineered it.

Don't be a simpleton. It's a mixture of fact and bullshit. To think its
all one or the other is to be made a fool of.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 13/02/2024 17:12, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <FcNyN.284157$Ama9....@fx12.iad>,

> Scott Alfter <sc...@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
>
>> Anthony Fauci also made a killing
>

> And allegedly funding 'gain of function' work on viruses at the Wuhan
> lab.

>
>> They also "worked" to give big-government authoritarians their wet
>> dream of near-absolute control over society.
>

> Some people in governments and in society revealed themselves as
> ruthless authoritarian bullies. I understood for the first time some
> of what happened to the German people in the early 1930s. How on
> mass, people lost it and became an uncivilised mob.
>
It's always the same when left leaning idealists grab the reins. Grand
designs. Unintended consequences.


> Bob.
>

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

[TimS]

On 13 Feb 2024 at 15:20:41 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"

<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 13/02/2024 12:41, TimS wrote:
>> On 13 Feb 2024 at 12:14:57 GMT, "Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste...@eircom.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 09:29:08 +0000
>>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/02/2024 20:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>> On 12 Feb 2024 19:10:53 GMT
>>>>> TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
>>>>>> justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Questionable justification for them to be in any hands IMHO.
>>>>
>>>> I think what is happening in Ukraine fully justifies their existence and
>>>> use. Because if the other side has them, you are going to be walked all
>>>
>>> Yes that's always the justification - "the bad guys have them",
>>> therein lies the problem.
>>
>> It's usually a single bad guy. WW2 only happened because of Adolf, Ukraine
>> only happened because of Putin. If we get trouble in the Pacific, it will be
>> because of Xi.
>>
> No. That is criminally naive. The reasons why Adolf, Putin and Xi became
> leaders are rooted in many other economic and geopolitical factors.

I know that. But instead of being warmongers they might have merely been
strong leaders for their countries. Unluckily for the world, they *are/were*
warmongers, when there was no need. And *that* is what we have to guard
against and prepare for.

> They were and are products of their time and place. Just like Donald
> Trump is.
>
>> It only takes one to make war; it takes two to make peace. After 1991, we all
>> thought Russia was on a peaceful/democratic trajectory, and we were encouraged
>> by the Chinese changing leaders every ten years. Thats all gone by the board
>> now, and we have to adapt accordingly, just as we eventually did in the 1930s.
>>
> Putin wont hand in his guns just because you do. That's all I am saying.

I'm not saying we should hand in our guns, because, essentially, we don't have
any. But the govt should be training us to handle them, and laying in
stockpiles.


--
Tim

[TimS]

On 13 Feb 2024 at 15:13:13 GMT, "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <l313ev...@mid.individual.net>,

> TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 13 Feb 2024 at 09:50:25 GMT, "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> In article <uqf4j8$1vsp3$5...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Online misinformation is a whole new can of worms.
>>>
>>> Who decides which is misinformation and which is censoring the
>>> truth?
>>>
>>> During covid we were continuously told this and that were
>>> "misinformation" or a conspiracy theory. Someone decided.
>
>> Well, you figure it out.
>

> I do remember a tremendous number of people demanding all sorts of
> extreme actions against those that didn't want the vaccine. It opened
> my eyes to how quickly normal people could become unhinged and
> barbaric. People should be able to decide if they want the medication
> or not, extreme pressure placed on people was disgusting.

Remember Typhoid Mary. And then there was the MMR nonsense, as a result of
which measles is now on the increase.

> video) the manufacturer Pfizer if I recall correctly, said that no
> testing of transmission was ever done. There was never any basis for
> the madness. Some have since apologised most have not, most notably
> the unhinged media.

Why would you test transmission, for a vaccine? It would never occur to me for
a moment to imagine that a vaccine would affect transmission. What a vaccine
does is prime your immune system so that, when you get infected, you beat off
the infection double-quick, or at any rate only have a low-grade infection.

> Certainly I can't think of anyone I know that hasn't had covid, not
> one. A good proportion have had it twice and some 3 times. I don't
> know anyone who didn't have the first 3 jabs at least.

Yes, I know a number of people who've had it more than once.

> I'm 90% sure that the vaccine does not affect transmission.

That is so obvs I can't even believe people might dicsuss it.

> They *may* help if you get infected not seen enough data.
> Vaccines have caused many people serious injury.

Here you are exaggerating.

> Masks even N95 masks are useless they're just theatre.
> Asymptomatic transmission was never a serious factor, I will not
> claim it didn't happen but for the most part it was propaganda from
> the nudge units.
>
> PCR testing in the UK used double the sensible levels of
> amplification cycles. People who should know said you could find
> anything in anyone with that level of amplification.
>
> Remember the videos from China of people dropping dead at bus stops.

I don't waste time looking at random internet videos, so, no.

>> We were told the vaccines were coming, and they did,
>

> Yes, remarkably quickly, too quickly.

I've no idea what this means.

> My wife and I had the first 3 jabs. Had we known then what we think
> we know now, including what happened to us, we would not have done so.

What is it you think you now know?

--
Tim

[TimS]

On 13 Feb 2024 at 15:51:56 GMT, "mm0fmf" <no...@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 13/02/2024 15:32, Bob Latham wrote:
>> In article <uqg11c$24ou7$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Vaccinations certainly did work,
>>
>> Well I'm very sure they do not prevent transmission.
>>

> They reduce the likelihood of onward transmission.

This makes much more sense.

--
Tim

[TimS]

On 13 Feb 2024 at 16:19:47 GMT, "Scott Alfter" <Scott Alfter> wrote:

> In article <l2v8pt...@mid.individual.net>,
> TimS <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 12 Feb 2024 at 18:50:58 GMT, "Scott Alfter" <Scott Alfter> wrote:
>>> "Buybacks" are nothing of the sort. The government can't "buy back" that
>>> which it never owned. Be honest and call it what it is: confiscation,
>>> usually at nowhere near what the firearms involved are worth.
>>
>> We don't actually give a flying fuck about that. There was never any
>> justification for these weapons to be in private hands anyway.
>
> ...and that is why you're a subject of your country, not a citizen.

Not according to my passport, which says "British Citizen".

You're out of date.

And there is still no justification for these weapons to be in private hands.
Train us on them, yes, but only in an official context. Anything else is
lunacy.

--
Tim

[TimS]

On 13 Feb 2024 at 21:32:57 GMT, "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> The vaccines don't stop you getting infected, absolute fact !!
>
> I've seen no evidence the vaccines improve your recovery.
> It *may* do but I've seen zero evidence only conjecture and wishful
> thinking by the guilty.
>
> I've seen no evidence that it reduces transmission at all. The
> manufacturers have admitted that no testing on transmission was done.
>
> Perhaps you've forgotten , the virus mutated to a much milder forms
> again and again, Alpha, Beta, Delta, Omicron.

Look, we know all this. Why d'ye keep trotting it out as if it's profound in
some fashion?

a) vaccines prime your immune system. So if you do get it, covid won't be as
bad as it would otherwise have been.

b) viruses mutate. Which is why I keep taking the jabs as they are offered.
It's routine now: I get a message from the climic and I go there are they give
me a covid jab in one arm, and flu in the other, at the same time. This will
now happen every winter. Prior to covid, I was getting the annual flu jab late
every year. Only had flu once in the last 20 years - and that was because that
particular jab was only goodd for 3 of the 4 strains going around, and I was
unlucky.

c) Vaccines/transmission. Just because I'm vaccinated doesn't affect the virus
load someone coughs on me. What vaccination *does* affect is subsequent
events. Which is what counts. So stop bleating that the manufacturers did no
transmission tests. Why would they? Why would anyone expect them to?

--
Tim

[mm0fmf]

A vaccinated person who contracts the virus (normally with reduced
effects) will normally have coughs and sneezes with a reduced viral
payload compared to a non-vaccinated person. This is how transmission is
reduced by vaccination. The word being reduced not eliminated.

[mm0fmf]

On 13/02/2024 21:32, Bob Latham wrote:
> The
> manufacturers have admitted that no testing on transmission was done.

Straw-man. Some manufacturers said that they did no testing on
transmission as they were not required to do such testing for approval.
They had plenty of other tests to perform for approval which were performed.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 13/02/2024 21:32, Bob Latham wrote:

> Right so there is a video that shows presidents, prime ministers
> doctors and professors all claiming they didn't say it stopped you
> getting covid. Then the video goes on to show them all saying exactly
> that.

Again, you are confusing facts with narratives.

And expecting politicians to tell the complicated truth, which at that
point they don't even know, rather than a simple narrative they think
the plebs will understand.

You are inferring far too much from human weakness. And expecting far
too much from 'experts'

I don't know what you are actually referring too, but at leats in my
personal memory all I saw was a lot of politicians in a panic, and a lot
of epidemioligsts with some extremely sketchy models, all of which said
(in the case of the UK), that if something wasn't done, deaths were
likely to exceed 50,000, and the peak rate of the sperad would
completely overwhelm the hospitals.

And the only real tool of merit at their disposal at that time was
lockdown and social distancing. Which would *reduce* (not eliminate)
viral load so that hopefully they would catch it* less*, and catch it
*less severely*. This is not a *qualitative* issue. It's not a catch
it/dont catch it or a die/dont die binary outcome. It's quantitative.
Less likely to catch it, less severe if you do.

Its not the politicians fault per se that the world is full of
ArtStudents™ who want clear simple qualitative answer - four legs good,
two legs bad etc.

People like to think in simple terms, and counting up to two is hard for
some people, and beyond ten with their socks on, beyond the realms of
possibility.

They want an answer to the impossible question 'am I safe or not?' - as
it seems, do you.

No one is ever safe from anything. Its the same BS in the climate change
narrative. Its not a question of whether or not any particular thing is
happening. Mostly *every* thing is happening, its a question of *how
much* is it happening.

I call this insistence on using simple binary logic coupled with an
emotional narrative as ArtStudent™ thinking, because it is utterly
characteristic of people with reasonable intelligence education and
training but who don't grasp and never have grasped the idea of
quantity properly. Who cant see risk beyond a 'its not safe/its safe'
dichotomy.

If you dont want to be referred to that way stop displaying the clear
signs that you are one of those people.

Those measures gave time for vaccines to be developed. Vaccines were
supposed to do the same as lockdown. Reduce (but not eliminate) the
speed of spread, and the severity of infection. Of course the speed at
which they were rushed into place meant that massive long term tests
were skimped.

*HOWEVER* the trials did show that they were in general less dangerous
than getting infected.

Once again, ArtStudents™ then attack this by saying 'well you don't know
that they did anything, because there were no countries that didn't
vaccinate' etc etc. And its easy to spin that into a conspiracy theory
about injecting whole populations with mind control chips etc.

And saying (since they have *denied* the efficacy of the vaccines) that
the only effects were side effects of a negative nature.

Look. I am at some level an (amateur) philosopher, and this is all
covered by the 'problem of induction' or the impossibility of proving
any inferential conclusion to be true.

Almost any scenario, right down to being ruled buy giant invisible
lizards, is *possible*. In the end you have to select an interpretations
that is demonstrably not false, at least, and that's what science is.
Our best shot.

If you start with a metaphysical assumption that they, the blob that
runs things, are smart, devious and lying to you at every turn, and that
*everything* that happens is, if not by God's Design, at least the
design of some evil Illuminati, then you will arrive at the position you
seem to have arrived.

But I've met these people, I've observed how they think, I've observed
what they understand, and let me assure you, that while they are
devious and prone to lying at every turn, smart they ain't.

They are clumsy, inept, ignorant, greedy corrupt and venal, and a
combination of arrogance because they are on the winning side, and
paranoia because they subconsciously realise how little they deserve to
be, and how just one election can change it all.

What they say is not therefore the truth, it is simply whatever they
think at the time is likely to be the least politically damaging, so
they construct a simplistic emotional narrative around the facts and
hope the fuck that the plebs believe them.
Some do, some instantly disbelieve them on *everything*, on principle,
and the rest of us try to distil the wheat from the chaff, the data from
the carefully crafted bullshit, and act accordingly. Supporting
whichever bunch of cunts seems to be leading towards a slightly better
outcomes than the other bunch, so to speak.

In the case of Covid, they clearly didn't plan it, and didn't realise
what the implications were, and so left many of the decisions to the
medical professionals. Who did what medical professionals do, tried to
save lives *no matter what the cost*. So lockdown was economically very
very damaging. Then big pharma got into the act with some vaccines that
were at least partially effective, then they did what they do best,.
made as much money by as much lobbying and passing of brown envelopes
under the table as *they* could...This isn't a particularly Grand
Conspiracy. Its a shabby little play of corrupt human beings struggling
to maintain their jobs, status, power and wealth in the face of a
situation they didn't anticipate.

That is my conclusion based on what I understand of biology,
epidemiology, computer modelling , exposure to the Great and the Good,
and exposure to the boardrooms of companies which have massive income
streams.

In short the usual buggers muddle of insufficient data, insufficient
analytical skills, incompetence, opportunism, greed and insecurity.

Welcome to the RealWorld™







--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.