>
> Second hint is to use Snopes, Politifact or any of the other fact
> checking sites.
> <https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/13/ron-johnson/johnson-falsely-says-unvaccinated-people-around-wo/>
>

You're blowing smoke because you don't have a case, Scharfie. I said nothing about Ron Johnson. I don't even know who he is. And when Politifact gets something right, I'll turn into a monkey with a curly tail. You're dragging in an irrelevance because you're an idiot who always goes further than the facts and then have to depend on your Schmarmie Scarfie manner to save your slack ass.

>
> Third hint is that Andre Jute posted it!
>

When you don't have a foot stand on, and know you can't stand up against someone in debate, issue a generic condemnation of that person. You're despicable, Scharfie, but that isn't news any more.
>
Rasmussen asked Democrats about the unvaccinated, and discovered 45% of Democrats want to lock the unvaccinated up in concentration camps. Go argue with Rasmussen, Scharfie, and see if you have any more luck with them than with me.
>
Andre Jute
Every time I stroke Scharfie because he squirms so prettily to be loved, like an unmannered pup he pisses on me.

Andre Jute

unread,

Jan 17, 2022, 9:49:52 AM1/17/22

to

>
And it isn't just the rank and file Democrats tending totalitarian, it's their elite spokesmen as well, here trying to jolly Utah Governor Spencer Cox into deploying the National Guard to barricade unvaccinated citizens inside their homes:
>
***
"Were Utah a truly civilized place, the governor’s next move would be to find a way to mandate the kind of mass vaccination campaign we should have launched a year ago, going as far as to deploy the National Guard to ensure that people without proof of vaccination would not be allowed, well, anywhere." -- Editorial Board of The Salt Lake Tribune, January 15, 2022
***
>
Hey, but Scharfie claims it's not true a large part of the active Democrat Party are tending totalitarian.
>
Andre Jute

Tom Kunich

unread,

Jan 17, 2022, 10:55:38 AM1/17/22

to

Scharf believes that you get the true information from communist sources. All of those so-far-left-that-they-make-Joe-Stalin-seem-conservative each and everyone upheld the Donald Trump pee-pee hoax. And Scharf cannot understand why he can't get any votes except from people he promises free access to city coffers.

Tom Kunich

unread,

Jan 17, 2022, 11:08:49 AM1/17/22

to

The part that fills me with disgust is that I've shown everyone that only 6,525 people MAY have died from covid-19 since 2/1/2020 which is below the 2015-2019 average and everyone left and right is willing to play along with this sham. It appears to me that everyone want to use this as an excuse to gain and retain power over the populace. Hopefully they will wake up and start hanging people like Scharf and flunkmeister and ALL of the Slime Stream Media. You have a right to free speech until you advocate violence against those who you do not agree with and that is the ENTIRE BIDEN administration and most Democrat run states. We have an entire group here who would applaud concentration camps for all Republicans

Jeff Liebermann

unread,

Jan 18, 2022, 12:02:49 AM1/18/22

to

On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 03:52:36 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Prove that Townhall said a single thing in the article I referred you to that wasn't in the Rasmussen original at
>https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/covid_19_democratic_voters_support_harsh_measures_against_unvaccinated

(...)

>Rasmussen asked Democrats about the unvaccinated, and discovered 45% of Democrats want to lock the unvaccinated up in concentration camps. Go argue with Rasmussen, Scharfie, and see if you have any more luck with them than with me.

May I humbly suggest you dig a little deeper. Rasmussen Reports
conducted the survey. Heartland Institute "worked with" Rasmussen to
make sure that the money they paid Rasmussen produced the desired
result.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute>
<https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute>
They managed to find 1016 "likely voters" who were willing to answer
that question. There's no indication of how many "likely voters" were
contacted in order to obtain those 1016 replies to their survey.
<https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2022/01/15/rasmussen-poll-reveals-astonishing-percentage-of-democrats-support-unparalleled-covid-tyranny-for-the-unvaccinated-n2601911>
It's quite difficult for me to guess where Rasmussen Reports obtain
their name list. Townhall offers a clue:
"The survey consisted of both telephone and online
polling of 1,016 likely voters..."
I can see why they might only get the usual 1% response rate for
telephone. Online should have been somewhat better. Still 1016
replies is tiny.

Here are the questions asked:
<https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/questions_heartland_covid_january_5_2022>
The applicable question was:
Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose
or strongly oppose a proposal to limit the spread of the
coronavirus by having federal or state governments require
that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times,
except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19
vaccine?

That's quite different from the:

"Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor
governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in
designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get
a COVID-19 vaccine."

found in the TownHaul article at:
<https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2022/01/15/rasmussen-poll-reveals-astonishing-percentage-of-democrats-support-unparalleled-covid-tyranny-for-the-unvaccinated-n2601911>
So, why the change? Possibly some tweaks made to the report by the
Heartland Institute? I don't have any clues or evidence as to what
happened, but I do know that survey results don't change by
themselves.

Note that the survey question asks
"Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat
oppose or strongly oppose..."
Ok, that's 4 choices that can be made. Yet the survey results only
provides two choices; in favor or oppose. Kinda sounds like the
survey just lumped together strongly and somewhat:
strongly favor + somewhat favor = favor
and
somewhat oppose + strongly oppose = oppose
Depending on the distribution, lumping the results together like that
can easily sway the numbers to look like half the Democrats surveyed
were fanatics, either pro or con. In any case, the conclusion(s) in
the Townhaul article do not resemble the questions asked.

Hint: If you're not quite sure of the results or conclusions, just
dig a little and find out who's paying the bills. While Townhall may
not have coerced Rasmussen directly into fudging the result, it's in
Rasmussen's best interests to produce the results that Townhall
expected causing Rasmussen to tweak the results to whatever it takes
to get the next survey contract from Townhall.

I'm very suspicious of surveys and studies where the raw data is not
made available for inspection. That's usually an indication that
there has been some tampering to accomodate an agenda, such as
disqualifying survey results that are not aligned with the desired
result.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

John B.

unread,

Jan 18, 2022, 12:41:40 AM1/18/22

to

On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 21:02:40 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

I had a good friend who made a business of market surveys in Thailand
mainly for various businesses that were looking into expanding, or
instituting a new service, and he told me once that he could design a
survey to "prove" anything that you wanted. From memory, he said
something like, "tell me what you want and I'll make a survey to prove
it".

For what's it's worth, he explained that it isn't the question, per
se, but rather how the question is worded that is the give away.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Jeff Liebermann

unread,

Jan 18, 2022, 1:04:58 AM1/18/22

to

On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 21:02:40 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>Here are the questions asked:
><https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/questions_heartland_covid_january_5_2022>
>The applicable question was:
> Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose
> or strongly oppose a proposal to limit the spread of the
> coronavirus by having federal or state governments require
> that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times,
> except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19
> vaccine?
>
>That's quite different from the:
> "Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor
> governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in
> designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get
> a COVID-19 vaccine."
>found in the TownHaul article at:
><https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2022/01/15/rasmussen-poll-reveals-astonishing-percentage-of-democrats-support-unparalleled-covid-tyranny-for-the-unvaccinated-n2601911>
>So, why the change? Possibly some tweaks made to the report by the
>Heartland Institute? I don't have any clues or evidence as to what
>happened, but I do know that survey results don't change by
>themselves.

Oops. I goofed and missed the applicable question. From the survey
contents at:
<https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/questions_heartland_covid_january_5_2022>

Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat
oppose or strongly oppose a proposal to limit the
spread of the coronavirus by having federal or state

governments require that citizens temporarily live

in designated facilities or locations if they refuse

to get a COVID-19 vaccine?

This is exactly the same as the Townhall article. Therefore, the
questions didn't change. My apologies for the screwup. However, the
rest of my comments, on the small population and the lumping of
responses in small categories, are still valid.

Andre Jute

unread,

Jan 18, 2022, 6:15:11 AM1/18/22

to

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 5:02:49 AM UTC, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 03:52:36 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute
> <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Prove that Townhall said a single thing in the article I referred you to that wasn't in the Rasmussen original at
> >https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/covid_19_democratic_voters_support_harsh_measures_against_unvaccinated
> (...)
> >Rasmussen asked Democrats about the unvaccinated, and discovered 45% of Democrats want to lock the unvaccinated up in concentration camps. Go argue with Rasmussen, Scharfie, and see if you have any more luck with them than with me.
> May I humbly suggest you dig a little deeper. Rasmussen Reports
> conducted the survey. Heartland Institute "worked with" Rasmussen to
> make sure that the money they paid Rasmussen produced the desired
> result.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute>
> <https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute>
> They managed to find 1016 "likely voters" who were willing to answer
> that question. There's no indication of how many "likely voters" were
> contacted in order to obtain those 1016 replies to their survey.
> <https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2022/01/15/rasmussen-poll-reveals-astonishing-percentage-of-democrats-support-unparalleled-covid-tyranny-for-the-unvaccinated-n2601911>
> It's quite difficult for me to guess where Rasmussen Reports obtain
> their name list. Townhall offers a clue:
> "The survey consisted of both telephone and online
> polling of 1,016 likely voters..."
> I can see why they might only get the usual 1% response rate for
> telephone. Online should have been somewhat better. Still 1016
> replies is tiny.
>

Bullshit. A 1000 replies in a rolling social study is not only more than sufficient if the sample is correctly structured, it is generous. Do you understand that a 100% legitimate sample of the entire US population is just over 3000? You should stick to what you know, Jeff. Schmarmie Scharfie isn't replying because he knows Rasmussen is right.

>
> Here are the questions asked:
> <https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/questions_heartland_covid_january_5_2022>
> The applicable question was:
> Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose
> or strongly oppose a proposal to limit the spread of the
> coronavirus by having federal or state governments require
> that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times,
> except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19
> vaccine?
>
> That's quite different from the:
> "Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor
> governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in
> designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get
> a COVID-19 vaccine."
> found in the TownHaul article at:
> <https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2022/01/15/rasmussen-poll-reveals-astonishing-percentage-of-democrats-support-unparalleled-covid-tyranny-for-the-unvaccinated-n2601911>
> So, why the change?
>

What change? I don't see any change. You haven't read carefully enough. "May I humbly suggest you dig a little deeper." Christ, you're one to talk.

>
>Possibly some tweaks made to the report by the
> Heartland Institute? I don't have any clues or evidence as to what
> happened, but I do know that survey results don't change by
> themselves.
>

Nah, you're just stirring the pot, hoping something will float to the surface, or give the other monkeys an edge to claw onto.

>
> Note that the survey question asks
> "Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat
> oppose or strongly oppose..."
> Ok, that's 4 choices that can be made. Yet the survey results only
> provides two choices; in favor or oppose. Kinda sounds like the
> survey just lumped together strongly and somewhat:
> strongly favor + somewhat favor = favor
> and
> somewhat oppose + strongly oppose = oppose
> Depending on the distribution, lumping the results together like that
> can easily sway the numbers to look like half the Democrats surveyed
> were fanatics, either pro or con. In any case, the conclusion(s) in
> the Townhaul article do not resemble the questions asked.
>

So what? It's standard practice in executive summaries to lump categories together. If you want a finer division, offer to pay Rasmussen to do the research over with a sample of 3000 plus and as many fine categories as you want. It'll cost you a million or three and I'll come giggle at your results adding up to the same as Rasmussen reported the first time.

>
> Hint: If you're not quite sure of the results or conclusions, just
> dig a little and find out who's paying the bills. While Townhall may
> not have coerced Rasmussen directly into fudging the result, it's in
> Rasmussen's best interests to produce the results that Townhall
> expected causing Rasmussen to tweak the results to whatever it takes
> to get the next survey contract from Townhall.
>

Is this omnidirectional spraying of conspiracy theories supposed to be an argument? It's crap. Save it for the likeminded RBT monkeys. A research firm that wants to survive doesn't fudge numbers, sport.

>
> I'm very suspicious of surveys and studies where the raw data is not
> made available for inspection. That's usually an indication that
> there has been some tampering to accomodate an agenda, such as
> disqualifying survey results that are not aligned with the desired
> result.
>

Same answer as above. Offer to pay for a survey, and you can inspect the questions up front (and watch the researcher stalk out when you try to massage the questions too obviously), try to massage the sample (ditto), try to group unlikely categories together (ditto).
>
Like I said above, stick to what you know.

>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
>

You shoulda let Scharmie Scharfie hoe his own row, Jeff.
>
Andre Jute
Statistics are easy to do right, but very difficult to cook without being caught out.

Andre Jute

unread,

Jan 18, 2022, 6:22:48 AM1/18/22

to

Duh. You're wasting my time, man. You now owe me an hour of electronics advice, about which you clearly know more than I do, even if you have to look up what I need to know.
>
Any time you want to know something about opinion and other social research, feel free to ask me.
>
Andre Jute
Things not dreamed of in thy firmament, Horatio -- what Shakespeare shoulda said.

funkma...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 18, 2022, 8:06:01 AM1/18/22

to

Funny you talking about others being on their knees when every post of yours is blatant worship at tommys feet. I've never kissed a ring, andre, but you kiss tommy's ring with every post, and I don't mean the one on his finger.

> He's permanent scum.

Says the lying piece of shit trying to lead us from:
federal or state governments require that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times > 45% favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations > 45% of Democrats want Concentration Camps for Unvaccinated

> The upside is that, as soon as the Bolshies discover that Flunky is permanently disgruntled too, because he can't keep his mouth shut, he'll be on the swinging end of the rope he gave them.

We give deceitful little shits like you and tommy enough rope to hang yourselves, and you do it every time with no help from anyone but each other. Any irony meters that some how survived your last claims of tommy being a victim have succumbed to _you_ - of all people - complaining that some else can't keep their mouth shut.

AJ proving once again that his life serves no purpose, and has no value, if not trolling a cycling newsgroup with off topic lies.

funkma...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 18, 2022, 8:25:56 AM1/18/22

to

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 6:52:38 AM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 11:14:49 PM UTC, sms wrote:
> > On 1/16/2022 11:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > It would be really bad if what Andre posted was actually true.
> >
> Oh, it's true, according to Rasmussen, who oversaw the research. I added zero information, just retiled information from a perfectly respectable source.

except that you changed 'home confinement' to 'concentration camps' and claim 'town hall' is reputable. other than that......

> >
> > Fortunately, like most of what he posts, it isn't true.
> >
> It may not be received truth to a hick Democrat pol who lies as easily as he breathes, but to rational, thinking people, what Rasmussen discovered about the growing
> fascism of the Democrat Party under Biden is only too literally true.

yeah, it's the democrats we have to worry about. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/589831-justice-department-faces-challenges-with-oathkeepers-case (that means their coming for tommy "oathkeeper" kunich, andre. Be happy they likely won't issue an extradition order for you)

> >
> > First hint that it's not true is "townhall.com" which has zero credibility.
> >
> Prove that Townhall said a single thing in the article I referred you to that wasn't in the Rasmussen original at
> https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/covid_19_democratic_voters_support_harsh_measures_against_unvaccinated

Sure thing skippy. The Rasmussen question was " federal or state governments require that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies". Town hall changed that to " requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations". WE know you're not that stupid, your misdirection is deliberate. Tommy simply swallows what ever load the ringwing media spurts in his general direction.

> >
> > Second hint is to use Snopes, Politifact or any of the other fact
> > checking sites.
> > <https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/13/ron-johnson/johnson-falsely-says-unvaccinated-people-around-wo/>
> >
> You're blowing smoke because you don't have a case, Scharfie. I said nothing about Ron Johnson. I don't even know who he is.

And yet you claim to be qualified to argue on the subject. Arguing from ignorance is tommy's shtick. Sad to see you degraded to his level.

> And when Politifact gets something right, I'll turn into a monkey with a curly tail.

And just like that, "POOF", Andre became a monkey with a curly tail.

> You're dragging in an irrelevance because you're an idiot who always goes further than the facts and then have to depend on your Schmarmie Scarfie manner to save your slack ass.
> >
> > Third hint is that Andre Jute posted it!
> >
> When you don't have a foot stand on, and know you can't stand up against someone in debate, issue a generic condemnation of that person. You're despicable, Scharfie, but that isn't news any more.

"[you] issue a generic condemnation of that person"

followed by

"You're despicable" (and of course preceded by "He's permanent scum")

If there were any irony meters left functioning, that did it.

> >
> Rasmussen asked Democrats about the unvaccinated, and discovered 45% of Democrats want to lock the unvaccinated up in concentration camps.
> Go argue with Rasmussen, Scharfie, and see if you have any more luck with them than with me.

Prove that the Rasmussen poll said anything about concentration camps (and this on the heels of "Prove that Townhall said a single thing in the article I referred you to that wasn't in the Rasmussen original". Here's a hint skippy, tommy is the only person in this forum as stupid as tommy. the rest of us see right through you.)

> Andre Jute
> Every time I stroke Scharfie because he squirms so prettily to be loved, like an unmannered pup he pisses on me.

Ah, what's the matter andre, stroking tommy to get him to piss on you isn't enough?

sms

unread,

Jan 18, 2022, 10:43:18 AM1/18/22

to

On 1/17/2022 10:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

<snip>

> This is exactly the same as the Townhall article. Therefore, the
> questions didn't change. My apologies for the screwup. However, the
> rest of my comments, on the small population and the lumping of
> responses in small categories, are still valid.

In 1985: "The Los Angeles Times Poll found that 51 percent of the
respondents supported a quarantine of acquired immune deficiency
syndrome patients, 48 percent would approve of identity cards for those
who have taken tests indicating the presence of AIDS antibodies and 15
percent supported tattooing those with AIDS."

I suspect that a high percentage of that 51% would oppose quarantining
those with active Covid cases.

This was for a virus that was not spread through the air, and where a
quarantine would have had little effect on the population not at risk.

Since 1983, AIDS has killed 36.3 million people, that's in about 38
years, or about 1 million people per year. Since 2020, Covid has killed
about 5.5 million people, that's about 2.25 million people per year.
Covid doesn't care about your sexual preferences, whether or not you're
an IV drug user, or how many or how few sexual partners you have.

Of course quarantining for Covid is already happening by many countries
when people arrive by air or ship and test positive.

A better approach is for airlines, hotels, stores, restaurants, movie
theaters, and other venues open to the public, to require proof of
vaccination, not with a card, that is easily forged, but with what many
states are doing, a QR code that the place can scan to confirm that the
person is who they say they are, and that they've been vaccinated.

The equipment for vaccination verification is not expensive, just a
phone with a QR code reader, but it would require that an employee check
people as they enter. Still, in areas with high vaccination rates, it
would probably be a net positive for many businesses. A lot of cautious
people have given up on going out to restaurants, given up flying, etc.,
and many of those would be willing to be less cautious about venturing
out if they knew that unvaccinated individuals were not permitted to be
in the same place as regular people.

AMuzi

unread,

Jan 18, 2022, 10:54:14 AM1/18/22

to

Verificatio of an ineffective shot, or four shots, achieves
what, in terms of medicine/epidemiology, exactly?

https://www.hngn.com/articles/240064/20220118/israel-still-pushes-2nd-booster-shot-research-enough-prevent-omicron.htm

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bc-ml-virus-outbreak-israel_n_61e69b74e4b0c6802eeb95ef

https://nypost.com/2022/01/18/fourth-covid-vaccine-still-doesnt-stop-omicron-israeli-study/

just gonna leave that there....

Tom Kunich

unread,

Jan 18, 2022, 1:58:25 PM1/18/22

to

You're going to leave it at things you don't understand? Good move and highly unusual for you.

Message has been deleted

funkma...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 18, 2022, 2:07:45 PM1/18/22

to

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 1:09:29 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 3:15:11 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > Statistics are easy to do right, but very difficult to cook without being caught out.

Like reading a chart that lists deaths per 100,000, then claiming the marker at 85 means 85 total deaths.

> The entire house of cards is collapsing. Masks do nothing other than virtue signaling to others of what a fine citizen you would like to be.

Funny, andre's NYT link that he said we simply _must_ believe says the exact opposite.

> Imagine the belief that once you are in a restaurant and sitting down that you are no longer a
> danger to others and may remove your mask! Social distancing on the order of anything less
> than that measured in 100's of meters is of no effect on an airborne illness. How the hell do
> people think that influenza spreads? By kissing their fellow workers?

It's been pretty much proven that you are the least qualified person in this forum to make such assertions.

> PCR is no longer accepted as proof of covid-19. Flunkmeister had a nice citation saying that it wasn't because
> PCR didn't work but because we didn't need it. Is there anything more brain dead than believing a bit of ignorance like that?

So you post a link from the CDC saying PCR is withdrawn and claim it's because _you_ told them it didn't work (while is a complete delusion), and we should believe the CDC webpage. Then you're shown another webpage from the CDC which states the test is perfectly accurate, and it's no longer recommended as a test protocol for practical reasons, but _that_ web page we should _not_ believe. Then you post a link to a study on the CDC website about mask effectiveness which you incorrectly claim is a CDC study and the we should believe it, then when sown a _real_ CDC study contradicting it you say we _shouldn't_ believe it. Now your little ass-buddy posts a link claiming the CDC now says masks are in effective and we should believe it, but when we read the link it states the exact so now you both say we _shouldn't_ believe it. You're getting a little confused tommy, should we believe the CDC or not? Or should we only believe what you tell us an never bother to look anything up for ourselves? Gee with that logic, we'd all be believing the north lost every civil war battle before the emancipation proclamation.

>
> Now we know that if ANYONE at all was killed by covid it was only the unidentified 6,525 people

No tommy, no one "knows" that. You and your fellow qanon idiots _think_ that. Everyone else knows the CDC data to be real and valid.

> who might just as well have died from snorting cocaine and not covid-19.
>
> The hate group has had their field day all to no avail. I am still here, I still know what I'm talking about

yup, tommy "light lines" kunich dazzles us all once again....

> and they know just as much as they did in the first place

That you're an ignorant baboon, and andre is your sorry little sycophant whom you let lead you around by the nose.

> nothing but what they seek so hard to find on Google to disprove me.

> https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-myocarditis-young-men-after-vaccination-happens-is-very-rare-2021-6?op=1 (extremely rare? After 150 million doses of vaccine?)

Yes, sparky, 434 cases after 100 million doses is extremely rare. From your link:
"434 cases of myocarditis have been documented in males from 12-29 years of age, in the 21 days after their second shot. That's a rate of about 0.004%"
Again, inflammation (myocarditis), not blood clots.
Also from your link "Dr. Eliot Peyster, a cardiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, previously told Insider that the incidence of myocarditis from a vaccine is about 100 times lower than the incidence when you actually get [a COVID-19] infection."
Strike 3

> "VAERS confirmed over 6000 additional COVID-19 vaccine death reports" https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/covid-19-vaccine-related-fatalities-updated

Which the link states "Since more than 338 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the USA, this data reflects a vaccination-death ratio of 0.0018%."
No mention of "dozens of healthy athlete young athletes dropping dead on playing fields within 30 days of being vaccinated from blood clots", and the article only briefly mentions myocarditis (1,148 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people ages 30 and younger who received a COVID-19 vaccine as of July 19th., or 0004% for both)

>
> You have the intellectual capacity of a sea slug.

Obviously vastly smarter than you, since it took me all of 15 minutes to completely destroy your argument using your own information.

> There is really something wrong with you and it is plain that you don't even know it.

Or maybe the problem is with the addled old high-school dropout who claimed ""dozens of healthy athlete young athletes dropping dead on playing fields within 30 days of being vaccinated from blood clots" then posted four links of which the claim isn't even addressed.

> Perhaps you'll run out and get your next booster and that will be the end of all of your problems.

but tommy, you wrote "No one said that the vaccinations were certain death. " Now they are? make up what little of a mind you have left.
Oh, and shut the fuck up.

Tom Kunich

unread,

Jan 19, 2022, 10:50:05 AM1/19/22

to

Head exploding from your ignorance leading to still more loses? https://openvaers.com/covid-data

funkma...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 19, 2022, 12:17:52 PM1/19/22

to

No, but your head is obviously exploding because you keep posting links that don't support your claims. It might help if you actually understood the VAERS (helpful hint, set the slide switch to "us/territories" rather than "all", since international reporting data is skewed towards a lower rate.)

Contrary to the bullshit you're trying to peddle here, VAERS doesn't attribute the cause of death to the vaccine. From https://vaers.hhs.gov/:
"VAERS collects and reviews reports of adverse events that occur after vaccination. An “adverse event” is any health problem or “side effect” that happens after a vaccination. VAERS cannot determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event, but can determine if further investigation is needed."
It's used to help spot trends, nothing more.

Nothing in that link supports any of your claims let alone refute any of the previous links you listed (which all contradict your claims as well).
Gee sparky, what's next? Gonna pull the "vaccine death report" which claims it contains "living tentacled organisms" and graphine which alters the human body magnetic field and makes you susceptible to mind control through the 5g cell network? How vaccinated pregnant women give birth to babies with black eyes and are showing highly accelerated aging?
Or better yet, how the whole vaccine program is a global conspiracy theory in which Bill Gates is being telepathically controlled by a shadow leader behind the Pope Francis called the grey pope - "[the] supreme puppet master operates entirely in the shadows, from where he yields enormous power over the world."!
Yes folks, this lunacy not only exists in a formal report, but there are people who actually believe it https://nhjournal.com/gops-weyler-pushing-conspiracy-theory-about-creature-with-tentacles-in-vax/
This time tommy, I'm not going to tell you to shut the fuck up. I want you to keep writing. Entertain us more with details on how deadly the vaccine is. And BTW - still waiting for _any_ information on testing cables with PWM.

William Crowell

unread,

Jan 19, 2022, 12:20:47 PM1/19/22

to

today in the LA Times:

https://news.yahoo.com/abcarian-persuade-willfully-unvaccinated-lives-110533795.html

Tom Kunich

unread,

Jan 19, 2022, 12:26:56 PM1/19/22

to

As I said, with every posting you get a better comic routine. Even though the US data which is by far the most reliable shows a great deal more deaths via reaction to the vaccines you prefer the poor international data. I don't give a shit what people are claiming is causing the deaths - they aren't medical people. But the death rates within 30 days of vaccinations cannot be hidden. Oh, wait, you can simply deny that they occurred and they disappear off of the face of the Earth. Fine - isn't it time you have another booster to save you from that deadly Omicron that has a 1 on 53,000 chance of killing you, if you have one or more serious comorbidities whereas if you're out in a thunder storm you have a 1 in 15,000 chance of being killed by lightning?

I think that it is time that you start another clown show for the readers who are so susceptible to your ignorance.

funkma...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 19, 2022, 12:28:17 PM1/19/22

to

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 12:20:47 PM UTC-5, William Crowell wrote:
> today in the LA Times:
>
> https://news.yahoo.com/abcarian-persuade-willfully-unvaccinated-lives-110533795.html

I don't see much difference between that and laws requiring people to wear pants in public, but at least public nudity doesn't result in unknowingly getting infected with a virus.

funkma...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 19, 2022, 12:37:27 PM1/19/22

to

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 12:26:56 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

> As I said, with every posting you get a better comic routine. Even though the US data which is by far the most reliable shows a great deal more deaths via
> reaction to the vaccines you prefer the poor international data.

No, stoopid, I suggested turning the international data OFF. Learn to read.

> I don't give a shit what people are claiming is causing the deaths - they aren't medical people.

Correct, and the medical researchers are the ones claiming it's safe and effective - still not doing much to help your cause skippy....

> But the death rates within 30 days of vaccinations cannot be hidden.

No one is hiding them.

> Oh, wait, you can simply deny that they occurred and they disappear off of the face of the Earth. Fine -

Nope, I willing share all data from VAERS, the CDC, the WHO, across all demographics. Including data for deaths within 30 days. None of that data supports your claim.

> isn't it time you have another booster to save you from that deadly Omicron that has a 1 on 53,000 chance of killing you, if you have one or more serious comorbidities

Since I don't have any comorbidities, I don't have much to worry about.

> whereas if you're out in a thunder storm you have a 1 in 15,000 chance of being killed by lightning?

and, wrong again, as usual https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/lightning/victimdata.html

> I think that it is time that you start another clown show for the readers who are so susceptible to your ignorance.

You're the one failing to support any claims, being proven wrong at every turn, and getting laughed at. We're laughing _at_ you tommy, not with you.

Tom Kunich

unread,

Jan 19, 2022, 1:05:27 PM1/19/22

to

Since you're a queer, you already have every sexually transmitted virus known to man-kind.

Tom Kunich

unread,

Jan 19, 2022, 1:07:44 PM1/19/22

to

Your comedy routine is getting old. Do anything you want but don't tell me what I must do. Slimy cowards hiding behind anonymity and distance grow tiresome rapidly and you've overstayed your welcome..

funkma...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 19, 2022, 1:45:49 PM1/19/22

to

You can project your homosexual fantasies on me all you want, you can't have me.

Message has been deleted

funkma...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 19, 2022, 1:57:45 PM1/19/22

to

feel free to change the channel.

> Do anything you want but don't tell me what I must do

shut the fuck up.

> Slimy cowards hiding behind anonymity and distance grow tiresome rapidly

And yet you not only keep responding, you keep referring to me in threads I'm not participating in.

> and you've overstayed your welcome..

That's what your parents said the day after you were born

Jeff Liebermann

unread,

Jan 19, 2022, 2:17:32 PM1/19/22

to

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 05:02:58 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>However, in the _real_ world, there is no PWM method for testing cables. it's done with simple DC continuity and TDR. More accurate characterization is done with swept-frequency analysis, and RF/microwave cables are tested with S-parameter equipment to determine insertion loss, VSWR, and LC impedance vectors.

You may want to add to your cable test list a high voltage insulation
leakage test using a Megger or megger clone:
<https://us.megger.com/products/cable-fault,-test-and-diagnostics>
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/Megger/Megger-Major.jpg>
<https://www.google.com/search?q=megger&tbm=isch>
I've seen cables, where it was difficult to make a determination using
a TDR or VNA because the cable was rather lossy due to water incursion
or was so long that reflections could barely be seen. A high voltage
leakage test usually settled the issue. While my crank type Megger
uses 2,500VDC, there are models that use high voltage DC pulses
(mostly to save on battery power).

Note: I don't use mine much for testing RF coax cables. Mostly, I
use it for testing insulation breakdown on motors and generators.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Tom Kunich

unread,

Jan 19, 2022, 2:28:15 PM1/19/22

to

More of the outstanding bravery of anonymity and distance. Bravo.

Tom Kunich

unread,

Jan 19, 2022, 2:32:13 PM1/19/22

to

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 11:17:32 AM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 05:02:58 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >However, in the _real_ world, there is no PWM method for testing cables. it's done with simple DC continuity and TDR. More accurate characterization is done with swept-frequency analysis, and RF/microwave cables are tested with S-parameter equipment to determine insertion loss, VSWR, and LC impedance vectors.
> You may want to add to your cable test list a high voltage insulation
> leakage test using a Megger or megger clone:
> <https://us.megger.com/products/cable-fault,-test-and-diagnostics>
> <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/Megger/Megger-Major.jpg>
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=megger&tbm=isch>
> I've seen cables, where it was difficult to make a determination using
> a TDR or VNA because the cable was rather lossy due to water incursion
> or was so long that reflections could barely be seen. A high voltage
> leakage test usually settled the issue. While my crank type Megger
> uses 2,500VDC, there are models that use high voltage DC pulses
> (mostly to save on battery power).
>
> Note: I don't use mine much for testing RF coax cables. Mostly, I
> use it for testing insulation breakdown on motors and generators.

A megger doesn't test the cables, it tests the insulation. PWM testing can check for shorts and opens via frequency shift or reflections. It is especially effective in long distance wiring. Because he doesn't understand this doesn't mean that it isn't commonly used.

Jeff Liebermann

unread,

Jan 19, 2022, 6:20:29 PM1/19/22

to

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:32:11 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>A megger doesn't test the cables, it tests the insulation.

That's actually true[1] but is like saying testing an individual
component only tests the component, not the device. The insulation is
just one part of the coaxial cable and testing only the insulation is
insufficient to declare that the coaxial cable is working properly.

One thing that the RF and pulse based tests cannot easily check in a
coaxial cable is leakage through the dielectric between the center
conductor and the shield. You can't see millions of ohms with an
instrument designed to work at 50 ohms. That's what the Megger does.
Try to think of checking the dielectric as an additional test, not the
sole test used to declare the cable as good.

>PWM testing can check for shorts and opens via frequency shift or reflections. It is especially effective in long distance wiring. Because he doesn't understand this doesn't mean that it isn't commonly used.

funkma...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 20, 2022, 9:53:29 AM1/20/22

to

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 2:32:13 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 11:17:32 AM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 05:02:58 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> > <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >However, in the _real_ world, there is no PWM method for testing cables. it's done with simple DC continuity and TDR. More accurate characterization is done with swept-frequency analysis, and RF/microwave cables are tested with S-parameter equipment to determine insertion loss, VSWR, and LC impedance vectors.
> > You may want to add to your cable test list a high voltage insulation
> > leakage test using a Megger or megger clone:
> > <https://us.megger.com/products/cable-fault,-test-and-diagnostics>
> > <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/Megger/Megger-Major.jpg>
> > <https://www.google.com/search?q=megger&tbm=isch>
> > I've seen cables, where it was difficult to make a determination using
> > a TDR or VNA because the cable was rather lossy due to water incursion
> > or was so long that reflections could barely be seen. A high voltage
> > leakage test usually settled the issue. While my crank type Megger
> > uses 2,500VDC, there are models that use high voltage DC pulses
> > (mostly to save on battery power).
> >
> > Note: I don't use mine much for testing RF coax cables. Mostly, I
> > use it for testing insulation breakdown on motors and generators.
>
> A megger doesn't test the cables, it tests the insulation.

Which is part of a cable. It can be used to diagnose a cable used for a high voltage application.

> PWM testing can check for shorts and opens via frequency shift or reflections. It is especially effective in long distance wiring.

1) There is no such thing as a PWM cable test. To this point you haven't posted any link to any test equipment or testing configuration for PWM cable testing, which is because it doesn't exist. All we are asking is for you to post such a link, any link. Claiming that you won't do it because you don't think we would understand it is just proof you're pulling it out of your ass like you do everything else.

2) Cables don't cause frequency shift. Not even a bad cable can cause a frequency shift. Worst case is that you might see phasing issue due an impedance mismatch (hence the application of S-parameter testing). Helpful hint - Phase shift is _not_ the same thing as frequency shift (see FM vs PM, and FSK vs PSK). I have a wide background in RF/Microwave sparky, you're way out of your league here (well, not just here actually, but anywhere)

3) Testing for cable defects using reflections is done by using TDR, _especially_ in long-distance applications.

> Because he doesn't understand this doesn't mean that it isn't commonly used.

PWM isn't any more used for cable testing than "light lines" is a common term for fiber optics. Show me a link, _any_ link.
Making a claim that PWM is used for cable testing (or that 'light lines" is a common term for fiber optics) is simply bullshit unless you can show a specific application or supporting information.
If it were _commonly_ used the major test equipment manufacturers (Fluke, Keysight (formerly Agilent formerly HP)) would make equipment for it or discuss PWM cable testing applications. They don't.
In fact searching knowledge bases for PWM cable testing, from the Keysight the only return is:

https://edadocs.software.keysight.com/kkbopen/for-cable-testing-should-i-use-a-time-domain-reflectometer-tdr-a-network-analyzer-or-both-620139527.html
If PWM were a"commonly used" method, it would be discussed. PWM isn't mentioned.

from the Fluke knowledge base the only return
https://www.fluke.com/en-us/learn/blog/power-quality/cable-length-vfd-motors
"The output of the frequency inverter is characterized by a PWM signal" - which has no application in directly diagnosing cable integrity.

Face it shitferbrains - you're exposed. You have no clue what you're talking about. PWM isn't any more used for cable testing than "light lines" is a common term for fiber optics.
Prove us wrong sparky. Show a link - any information at all - that supports the claim that PWM is used for cable testing (or that "light lines" is a common term for fiber optics).

(predicted response, ad hominem + change of subject).

funkma...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 20, 2022, 9:54:58 AM1/20/22

to

_and_ his delusions.

Tom Kunich

unread,

Jan 20, 2022, 10:25:08 AM1/20/22

to

Poor little baby cannot figure it out for himself so he needs google references from someone else to show him how. Real talent on show there Flunky. Because a little pansy like you has such a difficult time understanding what "light line" means doesn't make it anything other than what it is. Ahh, the courage of anonymity and distance. You are so obviously proud of your ignorance.

Andre Jute

unread,

Jan 20, 2022, 12:57:30 PM1/20/22

to

On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 2:49:28 PM UTC, Andre Jute wrote:
> "Poll Reveals Astonishing Percentage Of Democrats Support Unparalleled Covid Tyranny For Unvaccinated"
>
> According to the respected pollster Rasmussen:
> "Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine."
>
> See more extracts from the report at:
> https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2022/01/15/rasmussen-poll-reveals-astonishing-percentage-of-democrats-support-unparalleled-covid-tyranny-for-the-unvaccinated-n2601911
>
> Andre Jute
> I was born in South Africa, where the British invented the Concentration Camp. I'm therefore familiar with the deep, generations-long societal scars such a policy would create.
>
What I find interesting is that none of the left creeps have denied that even 1% of their fellow Democrats want to deny the unvaccinated their constitutional liberty, never mind 45%, that even 1% totalitarian tendency in a supposedly mature political party is a worrying tendency and the 45% could easily be the death knell of the party (is there anyone silly enough to think city gangbangers will win a shooting war against flyover country?) and even sever the unum that used to be the strength of the US.
>
Andre Jute
No, Jeff didn't argue that the revealed totalitarian tendency didn't exist, he merely argued that some of the 45% were less passionate than all the rest in the spiteful passion of their totalitarianism.

funkma...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 20, 2022, 2:03:48 PM1/20/22

to

Sure tommy. This is your golden opportunity. I'm claiming you're full of shit and you have no proof. Prove me wrong. Prove to everyone here how much smarter you are than everyone else by posting something (anything) that backs up your claim. You thought you could do that with links about covid deaths (which turned out to be wrong). Why would now be any different? Nope, You're such an idiot you didn't even catch the mistake I made in my last post. No, I'm not going to point it out, you're the genius who claims PWM is used for cable testing, it should be obvious to you.

> Real talent on show there Flunky.

Yup, like the talent that you can't provide a link to prove your claim? I've backed up my claim repeatedly in this discussion. All you've done is:

> Because a little pansy like you has such a difficult time understanding what "light line" means

It doesn't mean anything. You made it up. You're lying and are too much of a coward to admit it, or you would have provided a link to support it.

> doesn't make it anything other than what it is.

> because I don't have a degree.

That's not why.

unread,

Jan 20, 2022, 7:24:36 PM1/20/22

to

On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:19:17 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich

<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 11:03:48 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 10:25:08 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>I have no intentions of designing a PWM wire tester

Nobody asked you to design a PWM cable tester. Since you claim that
it exists, I asked you to find me one or describe how it works.

>and waste any more time on you.

I forgot about that. You promised not to respond to the "haters".
That would be me. I hate you. So, why are you responding?

>You aren't even a technician and you're telling an engineer
>that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

You are not an engineer. You may have written firmware and worked
with engineers on various products, but that does not make you an
engineer. Whether you are or are not an engineer doesn't matter. You
still don't know what you're talking about.

>If you had ANY reputable experience at all you could at least
>understand how that would work.

I already declared that I have no knowledge, experience or familiarity
with a PWM cable tester. Please display your vast knowledge and
enlighten me as to how such a device might operate.

>You and Jeff can agree with each other than you can in some
>manner use a megger to check a mile of wire for shorts or opens.

You didn't read what I scribbled. A Megger (high voltage dielectric
and insulation leakage tester, only tests one of the numerous
specifications required for a cable to be acceptable. Nobody
mentioned using one for a continuity tester by just checking for
shorts or opens. I can do that with a common multimeter.

>After he cites Time Domaine Reflectometry which is really
>what I was speaking of since it CAN use PWM to give additional
>information,

What additional information will PWM provide in time domain
reflectometry? Are you aware that the TDR only uses the leading edge
of the pulse and generally ignores the rest of the waveform? The
pulse can be as narrow as you want (within rise time limitations) or
as wide as you want (within power consumption limitations), and the
TDR will display much the same information. What additional
information do you believe it can provide?

>Even
>in that Fluke comment it describes modification of waveforms due
>to signal input and cable length but stupid doesn't understand
>anything that means.

The comment was:

> from the Fluke knowledge base the only return
> https://www.fluke.com/en-us/learn/blog/power-quality/cable-length-vfd-motors
> "The output of the frequency inverter is characterized by a PWM signal" - which has no application in directly diagnosing cable integrity.

I don't see anything describing "modification of waveforms due to
signal input and cable length" in the comment. The article describes
problems that might occur in a VFD (variable frequency drive) where
the fast rise time (needed to reduce power consumption), and long
cables, can cause a (power) transmission line impedance mismatch,
which produces high voltage overshoots, which might blow something up.
The PWM signal to a VFD is modulated to create a sine wave and change
the speed and direction of an attached motor:
<https://www.kebamerica.com/blog/pulse-width-modulation-in-vfds/>
None of this has any application to *TESTING* a cable.

>...can't even understand that you use PWM

>to achieve Time Domaine Reflectometry since that pulse width of
>necessity changes with the length and other particulars of the wires
>being tested.

It would seem that you are doing a credible job of demonstrating that
you don't understand how a TDR works and how it's used.

>While you two are sucking each other off remember that you're the one that looked directly at this and couldn't see the fucking functions I was talking about: https://hvtechnologies.com/the-basics-of-time-domain-reflectometry-tdr/

Which functions and on what page does it show how to test a cable with
PWM? I couldn't find anything that mentions PWM.

BTW, the article is really basic and covers what a lineman needs to
know about how a TDR works for testing power lines. After all, that's
the business of the vendor who posted the article on their site.

Also, it's bad enough when you don't bother to substantiate your
claims with references and links. It's worse when you waste my time
with unrelated URL's and references that have nothing to do with the
discussion.

Stand and deliver. I want to know how to use PWM to test cables, and
I want it now or post a retraction.

[ I can't believe I wasted 60 mins on this ]

Jeff Liebermann

unread,

Jan 20, 2022, 7:41:02 PM1/20/22

to

On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:02:01 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Did Jeff ever claim to be an engineer? I must have missed that.

Yes, I made that claim at some point in the past. Photo of the
diploma:
<http://learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/diploma-jeffl.jpg>
Notice that it's signed by Ronald Reagan, when he was governor of
California.

pH

unread,

Jan 20, 2022, 7:56:42 PM1/20/22

to

85% of Democrats, 76% of Republicans and 100% of Undecided want
re-education camps for weridos who still post to good old Usenet.

(Heck with them...Usenet will rise again to its proper place...it's not
censored, after all.)

pH in Aptos

pH

unread,

Jan 20, 2022, 7:58:32 PM1/20/22

to

Reading Jeff's posts often leads to neat URL's to bookmark!

pH

oh yes......"bicycle"

John B.

unread,

Jan 20, 2022, 8:02:39 PM1/20/22

to

On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 16:40:54 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:02:01 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
><funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Did Jeff ever claim to be an engineer? I must have missed that.
>
>Yes, I made that claim at some point in the past. Photo of the
>diploma:
><http://learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/diploma-jeffl.jpg>
>Notice that it's signed by Ronald Reagan, when he was governor of
>California.

Ah well, Jeff - many, Tommy - zero. So Jeff wins by a landslide (:-)
That is, unless Tommy can PROVE voter fraud (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

unread,

Jan 20, 2022, 8:41:18 PM1/20/22

to

sms

unread,

Jan 20, 2022, 11:00:03 PM1/20/22

to

On 1/20/2022 5:41 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/20/2022 7:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 16:40:54 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:02:01 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Did Jeff ever claim to be an engineer? I must have missed that.
>>>
>>> Yes, I made that claim at some point in the past. Photo of the
>>> diploma:
>>> <http://learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/diploma-jeffl.jpg>
>>> Notice that it's signed by Ronald Reagan, when he was governor of
>>> California.
>>
>> Ah well, Jeff - many, Tommy - zero. So Jeff wins by a landslide (:-)
>> That is, unless Tommy can PROVE voter fraud (:-)
>>
>
> How about video of a felony in progress and telephone location data
> which matches?
>
> Last September first reports:
> https://www.worldtribune.com/report-video-shows-traffickers-dumping-thousands-of-ballots-in-georgia-drop-boxes-in-middle-of-the-night/
>
>
> Follow up this month:
> https://www.worldtribune.com/report-georgia-investigating-alleged-illegal-ballot-harvesting-in-2020-election/

You do your credibility no good by quoting worldtribune.com

John B.

unread,

Jan 21, 2022, 1:11:06 AM1/21/22

to

On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 20:00:00 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 1/20/2022 5:41 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 1/20/2022 7:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 16:40:54 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:02:01 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>>> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Did Jeff ever claim to be an engineer? I must have missed that.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I made that claim at some point in the past. Photo of the
>>>> diploma:
>>>> <http://learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/diploma-jeffl.jpg>
>>>> Notice that it's signed by Ronald Reagan, when he was governor of
>>>> California.
>>>
>>> Ah well, Jeff - many, Tommy - zero. So Jeff wins by a landslide (:-)
>>> That is, unless Tommy can PROVE voter fraud (:-)
>>>
>>
>> How about video of a felony in progress and telephone location data
>> which matches?
>>
>> Last September first reports:
>> https://www.worldtribune.com/report-video-shows-traffickers-dumping-thousands-of-ballots-in-georgia-drop-boxes-in-middle-of-the-night/
>>

Note the above is dated September 3, 2021
Strangely, if one searches for "Georgia+voter fraud" one finds:
Dec 30, 2021
https://www.ajc.com/politics/election/five-fraud-claims-what-investigators-found/ISF2NV2RKBF2TIEI4ULXWJFZNA/
Jan 7 2022
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/01/07/fact-check-trump-makes-misleading-claim-georgia-2020-election/9128609002/
December 24, 2021
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/kanye-west-publicist-pressed-georgia-election-worker-confess-bogus-fraud-charges-2021-12-10/

>>
>> Follow up this month:
>> https://www.worldtribune.com/report-georgia-investigating-alleged-illegal-ballot-harvesting-in-2020-election/

the above dated January 5, 2022
the following dated 7 Jan 2022
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/01/07/fact-check-trump-makes-misleading-claim-georgia-2020-election/9128609002/

>
>You do your credibility no good by quoting worldtribune.com

--
Cheers,

John B.

funkma...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 21, 2022, 6:14:48 AM1/21/22

to

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 5:19:19 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 11:03:48 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Poor little baby cannot figure it out for himself so he needs google references from someone else to show him how.
> > Sure tommy. This is your golden opportunity. I'm claiming you're full of shit and you have no proof. Prove me wrong. Prove to everyone here how much smarter you are than everyone else by posting something (anything) that backs up your claim. You thought you could do that with links about covid deaths (which turned out to be wrong). Why would now be any different? Nope, You're such an idiot you didn't even catch the mistake I made in my last post. No, I'm not going to point it out, you're the genius who claims PWM is used for cable testing, it should be obvious to you.
> > > Real talent on show there Flunky.
> > Yup, like the talent that you can't provide a link to prove your claim? I've backed up my claim repeatedly in this discussion. All you've done is:
> > > Because a little pansy like you has such a difficult time understanding what "light line" means
> > It doesn't mean anything. You made it up. You're lying and are too much of a coward to admit it, or you would have provided a link to support it.
> > > doesn't make it anything other than what it is.
> > Correct. It's a fabrication on your part. You made it up, thinking it was true, and now that you can't back up your claim, you resort to
> > " (predicted response, ad hominem + change of subject)."
> > > Ahh, the courage of anonymity and distance. You are so obviously proud of your ignorance.
> > QED.
> > Prove me wrong, you impotent half-wit. Ignorance is claiming PWM is used for cable testing and 'light lines' = fiber optics. Only an absolute moron with the technical background of a high school drop out that got kicked out of the air force would make such a claim, then stick by it with nothing more than ad hominems for support, and be proud of that behaviour. Your mother must have been incredibly disappointed in how much of an absolute loser you turned out to be, and if she wasn't she was a pretty shitty mother. The sad thing here, is that you've somehow deluded yourself into actually believing PWM is used for cable testing and 'light lines' = fiber optics. It's no wonder you were fired from every job you've ever had. You're an absolute idiot with the moral character of a pedophile priest. Either put up, or shut the fuck up.
>
> I have no intentions of designing a PWM wire tester and waste any more time on you.

Now tommy claims he was talking about TDR all the time - liar. Anyway, I didn't ask you to design one, I asked for a simple link - just one link - any link - that discusses using PWM in any context for testing cables. Besides that, If your clam was true that PWM is used for cable testing, You wouldn't have to design one, you could simple point to a link showing a test set-up for it.

> You aren't even a technician and you're telling an engineer that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'm an engineer, you're not.

> If you had ANY reputable experience at all you could at least understand how that would work.

I have no doubt that if someone had designed a PWM cable tester, I'd be able to figure out how it works. I can even understand how a PWM tester can be used to verify an adequate cable connection, but a PWM tester is _not_ used to test cables.

> You and Jeff can agree with each other than you can in some manner use a megger to check a mile of wire for shorts or opens.

And you can't?

>
> Flunky already uses a rather stupid comments. After he cites Time Domaine Reflectometry which is really what I was speaking of

No, tommy. You _never_ spoke of TDR. You _only_ spoke of PWM. Jeff and I have both mentioned TDR several times, and in every case you insisted you were talking about PWM.

> since it CAN use PWM to give additional information

No, tommy, TDR testers do _not_ use PWM. Changing the pulse width of a TDR signal is a common feature for most TDR testers, but changing the width of a TDR pulse is not PWM, it's changing the width of the TDR pulse - two very different things. The only time you mentioned TDR was to claim that TDR couldn't be used for testing fiber optic cables, and you were wrong about that too.

> like the idiot he is he talks about PWM motor drives.

and like the idiot hes is, tommy seems to dismiss what is probably the major application of PWM in order to attempt to dig himself out of his hole (and failing badly).

> Even in that Fluke comment it describes modification of waveforms due to signal input and cable length but stupid doesn't understand anything that means.

Because a faulty cable or one that has too much LC vector can roll off the transient (rise time) and limit the duration of the positive pulswidth, or there might be a voltage increase due to VSWR from an impedance mismatch in higher frequency applications. The PWM tester doesn't give you that information. it only provides a PWM signal. You need an oscilloscope or some other piece of signal analysis equipment to evaluate the signal, or as is the case in that article a Motor Drive Analyzer (MDA), listed under their oscilloscopes.

> Flunky and his butt buddy can't even understand that you use PWM to achieve Time Domaine Reflectometry since that pulse width of necessity changes with the length and other particulars of the wires being tested.

BZZZZT. Wrong again. TDR does _not_ use PWM. TDR is a signal pulse test technique. Changing the width of a TDR pulse is not PWM, it's changing the width of the TDR pulse - two very different things.

> While you two are sucking each other off remember that you're the one that looked directly at this and couldn't see the fucking functions I was talking about: https://hvtechnologies.com/the-basics-of-time-domain-reflectometry-tdr/

haha....this is good. He's been claiming all along that PWM is used to test cables, then sends me a link on TDR.
OK sparky, can you point to any place in that article that mentions PWM, or even manipulating pulse width?
No, you can't.
Why?
It isn't there.
Why?
Because PWM isn't used to test cables.

Still batting .000 sparky.

funkma...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 21, 2022, 6:20:58 AM1/21/22

to

The sniveling is from the person who can't provide links to his claims.

> They just happen to be lines that light travels down.

No one calls them that.

> They just happen to be what the phone company technicians call them.

No, they don't. Show a link, any link.

> They just happen to be what my house is connected to the Internet on.

You house is connected to a fiver optic line. Tell ya what sparky, call your ISP customer service and tell them you're having a problem with your "light line", see how far you get before they use the term "fiber connection".

funkma...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 21, 2022, 6:31:48 AM1/21/22

to

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 6:43:20 PM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:21:48 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >They just happen to be lines that light travels down.
> Perhaps light pipe? That was used at one time.

Not for fiber communication, a light pipe is generally used to bring an LED indicator from a PCB mounted LED out to a panel for the operator to see. I've seen applications where an LED signal is transferred from one device to another using a light pipe*, and I do seem to recall a rigid fiber application for transferring an optic data signal between to PCB - a type of optocoupling - but as far as a generic term for fiber optic cables, I've never seen 'light pipe' used.

* One brilliant engineer at my company came up with a novel method for detecting octane rating - run an IR signal through a light pipe in the fuel, then analyze the amount of loss which was due to absorption of the IR signal into the fuel. It worked but you had to recalibrate with every test due to variations in additives from each different fuel brand - season and regional formulations differ. It was fun, but impractical.

funkma...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 21, 2022, 6:32:25 AM1/21/22

to

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 7:41:02 PM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 14:02:01 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Did Jeff ever claim to be an engineer? I must have missed that.
> Yes, I made that claim at some point in the past. Photo of the
> diploma:
> <http://learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/diploma-jeffl.jpg>
> Notice that it's signed by Ronald Reagan, when he was governor of
> California.
> --

Kudos! Reagan notwithstanding

funkma...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jan 21, 2022, 6:35:08 AM1/21/22

to

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 8:30:35 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/20/2022 4:39 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> > This all started with him and Frank claiming that I wasn't an engineer because I don't have a degree.
> Tom, I worked with some brilliant guys who did not have an engineering
> degree. There's no shame in that; but they did not claim to be qualified
> engineers.
>
> The one guy I once worked with who falsely claimed to be an engineer
> exhibited behavior similar to yours. He hid evidence of his mistakes,
> took credit for work done by others, lied freely, etc. (BTW, he actually
> _did_ have the nickname "Sparky." It was given to him by an electrician
> who watched him nearly electrocute himself.)

LOL!!!!