Where's Liebermann?

[Tom Kunich]

That operation for a hernia of the type that Liebermann had is usually simple and involves the placement of a mesh and a few days hospital stay at the most. So why isn't he giving us his most excellent advise on Electronics Engineering as pertains to bicycle maintenance?

Of course, once they open up someone like him, they are likely to discover that he has been eating the daily newspaper and it has closed his stomach to intestinal tract down. Or perhaps he realized that the remainder of his life is too short to support people like Krygowski and Slocomb. We no longer need to include Flunky who has been reduced to a sniveling crybaby most of the time with an occasional attack of conscious and sound discussion of concerning bicycles. I haven't actually seen this myself but am told it did occur.

Back to the point of Liebermann, he has been vaccinated many times and with each jab, the chances of a terminal outcome from myocarditis or pericarditis appears to increase exponentially. Hopefully his doctor did not suggest a new vaccination and he accept. Better a pain-in-the-ass that is alive than one that isn't.

[Andre Jute]

Lieberman's missing, is he? It's possible that the hospital doesn't have Wifi. I wish him a speedy recovery/ He's been behaving badly in the last year or two, but he had credit for years of being helpful before his unfortunate obsession with you. -- AJ
>

[Tom Kunich]

My doctor despite knowing better suggested that I get a covid shot. I don't think he was prepared for the actual statistics. He didn't believe me and looked them up. The next visit he informed me that he no longer suggests covid-19 vaccines even for those in the most danger - because the vaccine have a higher kill ratio than the illness. It is very difficult to wheedle these statistics out of the CDC but they are there is you know how to find them.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 07:24:40 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 6:10:52?PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:

>> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 7:21:12?PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > That operation for a hernia of the type that Liebermann had is usually simple and involves the placement of a mesh and a few days hospital stay at the most. So why isn't he giving us his most excellent advise on Electronics Engineering as pertains to bicycle maintenance?
>> >
>> > Of course, once they open up someone like him, they are likely to discover that he has been eating the daily newspaper and it has closed his stomach to intestinal tract down. Or perhaps he realized that the remainder of his life is too short to support people like Krygowski and Slocomb. We no longer need to include Flunky who has been reduced to a sniveling crybaby most of the time with an occasional attack of conscious and sound discussion of concerning bicycles. I haven't actually seen this myself but am told it did occur.
>> >
>> > Back to the point of Liebermann, he has been vaccinated many times and with each jab, the chances of a terminal outcome from myocarditis or pericarditis appears to increase exponentially. Hopefully his doctor did not suggest a new vaccination and he accept. Better a pain-in-the-ass that is alive than one that isn't.
>> >
>> Lieberman's missing, is he? It's possible that the hospital doesn't have Wifi. I wish him a speedy recovery/ He's been behaving badly in the last year or two, but he had credit for years of being helpful before his unfortunate obsession with you. -- AJ

I'm alive. The hiatal hernia surgery was mostly successful. A few
mistakes and surprised, but I'm working my way through those. Today,
I meet with the surgeon for a post-op. If anyone wants details on my
adventure through modern medicine, please ask and write something
appropriate.

>My doctor despite knowing better suggested that I get a covid shot. I don't think he was prepared for the actual statistics. He didn't believe me and looked them up. The next visit he informed me that he no longer suggests covid-19 vaccines even for those in the most danger - because the vaccine have a higher kill ratio than the illness. It is very difficult to wheedle these statistics out of the CDC but they are there is you know how to find them.

Yes, I know where to find them, but you don't. Show me a link to a
study that backs up your claim and maybe I'll take you seriously.
While I'm waiting for your substantiation, you might want to look at
this graph:
"United States: COVID-19 weekly death rate by vaccination status, All
ages" (deaths per 100,000).
<https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status>
The peak in unvaccinated deaths is even more spectacular if you switch
to the senior age groups. If you can't see the detail at the lower
death rates, switch from a "linear" to "log" graph.

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

[William Crowell]

Don't worry, Jeff; I believe only part of what Tom says about you. Nor am I holding it against you that you are a ham radio operator. I hope you will be feeling better soon.

[AMuzi]

Interesting but not a compelling argument either way.

The original Farr's graphs from London in the mid-1800s show
the same curves for viruses generally.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Tom Kunich]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 7:54:03 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> Don't worry, Jeff; I believe only part of what Tom says about you. Nor am I holding it against you that you are a ham radio operator. I hope you will be feeling better soon.

I have published the studies many times before and am not going to repeat them. As to the morbidity of covid-19? If you knew how to use the CDC page you could discover that the people who died all had more than 2 comorbities and that the high number of deaths from respiratory illnesses (supposedly Covid-19) were almost entirely because of a ruling by Fauci that anyone that died that tested positive for Covid-19 DESPITE the real cause of death would have a cause of death entered as "Due to Covid-19). Any deaths after May of 2020 are almost entirely these falsely proscribed deaths.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/23/2023 10:24 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

>
> My doctor despite knowing better suggested that I get a covid shot. I don't think he was prepared for the actual statistics. He didn't believe me and looked them up. The next visit he informed me that he no longer suggests covid-19 vaccines even for those in the most danger - because the vaccine have a higher kill ratio than the illness. It is very difficult to wheedle these statistics out of the CDC but they are there is you know how to find them.

I don't believe any of that. It's as imaginary as your conversations
with Janet Yellen.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/23/2023 10:46 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> I'm alive. The hiatal hernia surgery was mostly successful. A few
> mistakes and surprised, but I'm working my way through those. Today,
> I meet with the surgeon for a post-op. If anyone wants details on my
> adventure through modern medicine, please ask and write something
> appropriate.

Glad you're back. I thought about you yesterday when coaxing my chainsaw
into starting.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/23/2023 10:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/23/2023 9:46 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

>> ...you might want to look at this graph:

>> "United States: COVID-19 weekly death rate by vaccination status, All
>> ages"  (deaths per 100,000).
>> <https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status>
>> The peak in unvaccinated deaths is even more spectacular if you switch
>> to the senior age groups.  If you can't see the detail at the lower
>> death rates, switch from a "linear" to "log" graph.
>>
>
> Interesting but not a compelling argument either way.
>
> The original Farr's graphs from London in the mid-1800s show the same
> curves for viruses generally.

That sounds like another claim that "correlation is not causation." When
applied to millions of data points, that's a short step away from "All
is mystery, nothing can be known. Ommmmmm..."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[pH]

On 2023-05-23, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 07:24:40 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
><cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 6:10:52?PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 7:21:12?PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> > That operation for a hernia of the type that Liebermann had is usually simple and involves the placement of a mesh and a few days hospital stay at the most. So why isn't he giving us his most excellent advise on Electronics Engineering as pertains to bicycle maintenance?
>>> >
>>> > Of course, once they open up someone like him, they are likely to discover that he has been eating the daily newspaper and it has closed his stomach to intestinal tract down. Or perhaps he realized that the remainder of his life is too short to support people like Krygowski and Slocomb. We no longer need to include Flunky who has been reduced to a sniveling crybaby most of the time with an occasional attack of conscious and sound discussion of concerning bicycles. I haven't actually seen this myself but am told it did occur.
>>> >
>>> > Back to the point of Liebermann, he has been vaccinated many times and with each jab, the chances of a terminal outcome from myocarditis or pericarditis appears to increase exponentially. Hopefully his doctor did not suggest a new vaccination and he accept. Better a pain-in-the-ass that is alive than one that isn't.
>>> >
>>> Lieberman's missing, is he? It's possible that the hospital doesn't have Wifi. I wish him a speedy recovery/ He's been behaving badly in the last year or two, but he had credit for years of being helpful before his unfortunate obsession with you. -- AJ
>
> I'm alive. The hiatal hernia surgery was mostly successful. A few
> mistakes and surprised, but I'm working my way through those. Today,
> I meet with the surgeon for a post-op. If anyone wants details on my
> adventure through modern medicine, please ask and write something
> appropriate.
>

Whew. I was worried about you. Yes, please, I would like more information:
I.e.: How you knew something was wrong and the steps taken to rememdy it by
the Sawbones.

Did you use the local surgical venues or something which many consider more
trustworthy over the hill? (That's San Jose area for you non-locals.)

pH in Aptos
WB6DWP

[Catrike Rider]

"Correlation is not causation" is not simply a claim, it's a well
known fact. People who claim otherwise are known as idiots.

[Tom Kunich]

Correlation is not necessarily causation but usually is. Just remember who you're talking with - Krygowski who believes that Janet Yellen is a Goddess and couldn't possibly be approached by mere mortals EVEN after Yellen has admitted her errors in public and agreed 100% with what I said her wild eyed errors were. I repeated that discussion here several times and SAID that her policies inevitably would lead to wild inflation.

As usual Krygowski was entirely unaware of first year economics and pretended that since Yellen has a PhD in economics she knew better than me. I simply cannot imagine some stupid ass like Frank WATCHING as all of my predictions come true and pretending that Yellen knows more than me. This is coming DIRECTLY out of his pocket. Is he that blind? Or is he still pretending that he is getting rich off of a university retirement?

I have two brothers that believed the shit the Democrats were passing out and never saved ONE cent for their retirements. Then they both retired and my older brother is living on social security despite my continued nagging him to put money away (he often worked two jobs with his main job the Southern Pacific Railroad and the union telling him he would have a rich retirement). The younger brother thinks that he going to be just fine with a Calpers retirement while Gavin Loathsome has driven the state into actual bankruptcy and the Democrats simply won't declare it because of the effect it would have on the California Democrat Party.

[AMuzi]

I felt mine tear but one may also see them- looks like a
golf ball under the skin at the first iteration (over time
they tear out larger).

[Catrike Rider]

I could feel mine bulging in and out as I pedaled(It was a Giant
Yukon). I had the hernia taken care of immediately. They wouldn't let
me leave the hospital until I'd urinated so, of course, I drank a lot
of water. When I finally went home (to my sailboat) I spent the rest
of the night and most of the next day in pain every time I had to
crawl out of the bunk to get to the head.

By the way, Back then I routinely rode from my boat at the Twin Dophin
Marina in Bradenton out to the beach on Anna Maria Island.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/23/2023 3:05 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Correlation is not necessarily causation but usually is.

People who claim otherwise at every opportunity are desperate to reject
evidence against their favorite views. If they had better rebuttals,
they'd use them.

> Just remember who you're talking with - Krygowski who believes that Janet Yellen is a Goddess and couldn't possibly be approached by mere mortals ...

I'm not claiming Janet Yellen wouldn't speak with any mere mortals. I'm
saying Janet Yellen never communicated with _you_.

While we're on the subject, how has the Pope responded to your
theological advice? ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

No, it isn't, dumbass. We've been through this before - the actually phrase is "correlation does not imply causation". It's a critically subtle distinction - not surprising floriduh dumbass doesn't get it.

> People who claim otherwise are known as idiots.

People who claim "Correlation is not causation" are idiots like you. People who state "correlation does not imply causation" and can then explain how analysis of cause and effect can show the data are or are not correlated are not idiots like you.

[Catrike Rider]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 04:34:26 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:

There was no analysis of cause and effect, in those studies, Dummy,
and of course, a real case of obvious multiple causes and effects
would be very likely to have a correlation.

I'm sorry that this is so confusing to you.

There is absolutely no evidence that having a gun makes you more
likely to be shot. Having a gun and being shot are simply two running
issues that have a rough correlation. The only fact those "studies"
show is that people who get shot often have a gun, themselves. They do
not show that the gun is the cause of getting shot. There might be,
and probably are real demonstrable reasons why people with guns get
shot. For instance, pulling out a gun towards a policeman, or maybe
breaking into someone's home with a gun.

Now, on the other hand, your ignorant attempt to relate the
correlation issue to riding a bicycle over glass *is* clearly a case
of cause and effect.

[AMuzi]

On 5/24/2023 6:34 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

People who do not own bicycles do not experience flat
bicycle tires.

[Tom Kunich]

As I stated, correlation is not necessarily causation but in this particular case it is. But it doesn't mean at all what Krygowski. Flunky or Liebermann are implying. Those statistics INCLUDE criminals wielding guns. So of course those gun owners are more likely to get shot completely changing the narrative. But those three don't want to accept that so the lies continue to flow.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 08:11:24 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

I've read that article a few times. The title of the article:
"Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19
Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)"
might lead one to believe that it compares death rates with and
without a Covid vaccine. It doesn't. Skim the article and notice the
prevalence of the words "estimate", "provisional" and "predict". That
article is really about producing a usable model for PREDICTING the
number of deaths under various conditions including vaccination. It
has nothing to do with reporting or comparing deaths from Covid
vaccinations. Again, the title is wrong and misleading.

Also, notice the References at the bottom of the page. All 4 are
about algorithms and models.

Another problem is the graph. When I check the:
"Excess deaths with and without COVID-19"
button, the graph doesn't graph actual deaths with and without
vaccinations. It graphs:
Predicted number of deaths, from all causes, including Covid-19
Predicted number of deaths, from all causes, excluding Covid-19
The compression of the vertical scale of the graph, where the width of
the data points obscures the tiny differences between these to items,
and the difference between the lines is tiny, it's impossible (for me)
to generate any useful conclusions. In other words, the graph is
useless.

I really like the disclaimer:
"Number of deaths reported on this page are the total number of deaths
received and coded as of the date of analysis and do not represent all
deaths that occurred in that period."

Also, there's nothing in text the corroborates Tom's allegation that:

"the vaccine have a higher kill ratio than the illness".

[AMuzi]

It's unclear at best but looks odd if one assumes the mRNA
jabs are a positive feature for whole populations.

https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/australias-excess-death-toll-just

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/almost-20-000-more-people-died-in-australia-last-year-than-anticipated-20230303-p5cp64.html

etc besides much similarly written about USA.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/24/2023 9:20 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/24/2023 6:34 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>> [some Floridian wrote]

>>> "Correlation is not causation" is not simply a claim, it's a well
>>> known fact.
>>
>> No, it isn't, dumbass. We've been through this before - the actually
>> phrase is "correlation does not imply causation". It's a critically
>> subtle distinction - not surprising floriduh dumbass doesn't get it.
>>
>>>   People who claim otherwise are known as idiots.
>>
>> People who claim "Correlation is not causation" are idiots like you.
>> People who state "correlation does not imply causation" and can then
>> explain how analysis of cause and effect can show the data are or are
>> not correlated are not idiots like you.
>>
>
> People who do not own bicycles do not experience flat bicycle tires.

If a woman does not own a bicycle but the man she lives with owns one,
does that cause the woman to get flat bicycle tires? No.

But women who live with men who own guns are much more likely to be shot
compared to women whose mates don't own guns. Domestic violence is real.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/24/2023 8:08 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>
> There is absolutely no evidence that having a gun makes you more
> likely to be shot.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762

https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

Since the medical establishment refuses to study who and why the excess deaths are among, we end up with people like Liebermann crying "you don't know nutin". What I do know is that the actual death counts were quite purposely exaggerated but the orders from the CDC to mark as "Cause of Death" on death certificates as "Covid-19" not if it was the actual cause of death but if the victim tested positive for the virus. Inasmuch as 99.9% of the people who contracted the virus had asymptomatic or very mild symptoms this was nothing more than a fear tactic to increase the rates of vaccinations. As a reward for such good work the pharmaceutical companies gave the head of the NIH and CDC $500 million, Yes, that's "million" with an "M".

Covid-19 is a respiratory disease and hence you judge such diseases by the number of respiratory deaths. They were almost entirely from late April of 2020 to early May of the same year and then deaths fell considerably below normal for the rest of time until now. There were and still are many deaths contributed to Covid-19 that more accurately would be attributed to the UNTESTED NEW TECHNOLOGY mRNA vaccines which we have since learned are horrible vaccines that should be entirely outlawed.

Yes there were a lot of excess deaths in 2020 from Covid-19. This would be expected in the ranks of the multiple comorbid groups who are above the average age of death. Because of the sharp dividing line that almost NO deaths were in people under 50, unless they were in exceedingly ill heath, the smart thing to do would not to be legalizing a completely untested vaccine technology but to concentrate of TREATMENT options to keep older victims alive until the virus ran its course which was very rapid (in general one week).

This was Trump's and his medical advisors choice for which he was soundly attacked by the Slime Stream Media. There is CLEAR evidence that there was total corruption of the CDC that lead to counter arguments not even being allowed to publish in medical journals.

What this all boils down to is that MOST of the deaths after the initial surge were due to the vaccines. I warned everyone that this was going to happen. And now the towering excess deaths point exactly toward the entire body being filled with Spike Proteins due to the vaccines and the HIV type slow but steady increase in excess deaths.

Isn't it time for Slocomb to tell us how the infection rate in Thailand was some small percentage of that of Thailand because of the use of masks? He loves being stupid since you couldn't go anywhere in California without a mask. People are still wearing them and excess deaths due to reasons other than Covid are still climbing. And the CDC has even manipulated the excess deaths by using statistical analysis methods of reporting rather than actual numbers.

[Catrike Rider]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 12:20:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>But women who live with men who own guns are much more likely to be shot
>compared to women whose mates don't own guns.

Assumes facts not in evidence...

[Tom Kunich]

Actually it is nothing more than Krygowski garbage. Women who live with men with guns are far more likely to be beaten. But Frank is happy to lie about anything.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 10:54:13 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/australias-excess-death-toll-just
>
>https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/almost-20-000-more-people-died-in-australia-last-year-than-anticipated-20230303-p5cp64.html
>
>etc besides much similarly written about USA.

Both sites want me to subscribe in order to read the articles.

Tom's comments were about the USA. His CDC example was about the USA,
not Australia. The situation might be different in Australia due to
differences in data collection, data interpretation, cause of death
standards, definitions, etc. Apples and oranges. The WHO has made an
effort at normalizing these differences, but I would prefer we kept
things national.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/24/2023 12:34 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> What this all boils down to is that MOST of the deaths after the initial surge were due to the vaccines.

Wow. I'm surprised that so few in the medical community are aware of
that! Tom, you should get your ideas published!

Also, we should hang whoever it was who bragged about getting that
vaccine fast-tracked. He should be charged with manslaughter, if not
murder. Who was it? President Donald something? Why is he not in jail?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

On 5/24/2023 11:20 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/24/2023 9:20 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/24/2023 6:34 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> [some Floridian wrote]
>>>> "Correlation is not causation" is not simply a claim,
>>>> it's a well
>>>> known fact.
>>>
>>> No, it isn't, dumbass. We've been through this before -
>>> the actually phrase is "correlation does not imply
>>> causation". It's a critically subtle distinction - not
>>> surprising floriduh dumbass doesn't get it.
>>>

>>>> Â People who claim otherwise are known as idiots.

>>>
>>> People who claim "Correlation is not causation" are
>>> idiots like you. People who state "correlation does not
>>> imply causation" and can then explain how analysis of
>>> cause and effect can show the data are or are not
>>> correlated are not idiots like you.
>>>
>>
>> People who do not own bicycles do not experience flat
>> bicycle tires.
>
> If a woman does not own a bicycle but the man she lives with
> owns one, does that cause the woman to get flat bicycle
> tires? No.
>
> But women who live with men who own guns are much more
> likely to be shot compared to women whose mates don't own
> guns. Domestic violence is real.
>

I think that's topic drift, but yes, domestic violence is
indeed real and not ameliorating. Almost all hands and
fists, more edged weapons than firearms, and a host of
horrible outcomes unrelated to firearms generally in USA.

https://nypost.com/2023/05/23/woman-testifies-against-her-murderous-ex-in-mtv-doc/

More examples in any city's overnight news this morning, few
with firearms.

[Frank Krygowski]

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762

"Overall rates of homicide were more than twice as high among
cohabitants of handgun owners than among cohabitants of nonowners
(adjusted hazard ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.78 to 3.05]). These elevated
rates were driven largely by higher rates of homicide by firearm
(adjusted hazard ratio, 2.83 [CI, 2.05 to 3.91]). Among homicides
occurring at home, cohabitants of owners had sevenfold higher rates of
being fatally shot by a spouse or intimate partner (adjusted hazard
ratio, 7.16 [CI, 4.04 to 12.69]); 84% of these victims were female."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 12:24:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/24/2023 8:08 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>
>> There is absolutely no evidence that having a gun makes you more
>> likely to be shot.
>
>
>https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/

I don't pay to read...

>https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762

<<LOL> More correlation, but no evidence of causation. People who get
shot, sometimes, perhaps even often, own a gun themselves.

>https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/

<EYEROLL> More of the above...

Fact is that in order to prove that owning a gun or living with
someone who owns one makes it more likely you'll be shot, you'd have
to *SHOW EVIDENCE THAT THE GUN OWNERSHIP WAS WHAT CAUSED SOMEONE TO BE
SHOT.*

Don't they teach simple logic like that in schools and colleges? I
guess not, some fools simply agree with the erroneous conclusions
because that's what they want to believe.

[Catrike Rider]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 12:57:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/24/2023 12:46 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

More ignorant group think from Krygowski.

[AMuzi]

We haven't established whether or not people in more
dangerous areas/situations arm themselves as a reaction to
potential violence.

I suspect so. You do not.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:11:30 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>I felt mine tear but one may also see them- looks like a
>golf ball under the skin at the first iteration (over time
>they tear out larger).

That's a different type of hernia from what I had.
"Different Types of Hernia in Men"
<https://www.verywellhealth.com/types-of-hernia-in-men-2328480>

Mine was a hiatal hernia, which is where the diaphragm strangles the
stomach where the esophagus goes through it. As an added bonus, my
stomach had an axial twist of about 120 degrees. Actually, had is
incorrect because the twist is still present. It will take 6 to 8
weeks for the stomach to untwist itself. Anyway, a hiatal hernia does
not exhibit a bulge. Sorry, but I (thankfully) have no experience
with the other types of hernias and can't offer any pointers or
suggestions.

[AMuzi]

On 5/24/2023 1:27 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 15:11:30 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> I felt mine tear but one may also see them- looks like a
>> golf ball under the skin at the first iteration (over time
>> they tear out larger).
>
> That's a different type of hernia from what I had.
> "Different Types of Hernia in Men"
> <https://www.verywellhealth.com/types-of-hernia-in-men-2328480>
>
> Mine was a hiatal hernia, which is where the diaphragm strangles the
> stomach where the esophagus goes through it. As an added bonus, my
> stomach had an axial twist of about 120 degrees. Actually, had is
> incorrect because the twist is still present. It will take 6 to 8
> weeks for the stomach to untwist itself. Anyway, a hiatal hernia does
> not exhibit a bulge. Sorry, but I (thankfully) have no experience
> with the other types of hernias and can't offer any pointers or
> suggestions.
>
>

Ouch. Best wishes.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/24/2023 1:41 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/24/2023 11:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/24/2023 8:08 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>
>>>   There is absolutely no evidence that having a gun makes
>>> you more
>>> likely to be shot.
>>
>>
>> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/
>>
>>
>> https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
>>
>> https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/
>>
>
> We haven't established whether or not people in more dangerous
> areas/situations arm themselves as a reaction to potential violence.
>
> I suspect so. You do not.
>

From the 3rd link above: "Finally, in measuring homicide risks, when we
compared people who were living with handgun owners to people who were
not, the comparisons were always made between people residing in the
same neighborhood. This approach helped ensure that local conditions,
like crime rates and economic conditions, had minimal impact on our
calculations."

"People living with handgun owners died by homicide at twice the rate of
their neighbors in gun-free homes. That difference was driven largely by
homicides at home, which were three times more common among people
living with handgun owners."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

Unlike Krygowksi, I'm not afraid to have guns in my home. I always
have, I currently have several.

People who are likely to get shot, often have guns themselves,

[Tom Kunich]

Because of Krygowski's sheer panic attack at the very thought of what he falsely claims to be an "assault weapon" I will buy one when it is a bit easier to get an AR15 in California.

[Catrike Rider]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 15:04:26 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have no use for any rifle, but my daughter has an ar15.

[John B.]

While I don't se any actual statistics but I would believe that if one
lived in a household where there were guns available AND if one were
to be murdered in that household that it would be likely that a gun
would be used.

But... it seems to be a fact that some 40% of Americans live in a
household where guns are available which is about 133,922,107
individuals and a FBI firearm homicide reporting of an average of
10,252 (2015-2019) that is about 0.00767% of the population being
homicide victims.

Add to this the FBI statistics that approximately one quarter (24.7%)
of the victims were related to their offenders you are now talking
about 24.7% of 10,252 from a data base of 133,822,107, or 1 in 52,884
residents in a home where guns reside who become victims.

It might be noted that there were 35,766 fatal accidents in the U.S.
in 2020. Those accidents resulted in 38,824 deaths. So reality is that
one is far more likely to die in an auto accident then to be shot in
the home.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Thu, 25 May 2023 05:59:10 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

You'd have to have demonstrable evidence that owning a gun, and/or
having it your home, actually caused someone to be shot or killed in
order to prove that having the gun made it more likely.

There is no such evidence.

[Andre Jute]

Unfortunately, not all schools and colleges are of the same quality. It is clear to me that Krygoswky attended an inferior school and a vastly inferior college, witness his belief that a few aphorisms and formulae are all he needs to learn off by heart to "master" a subject. Or even worse, his belief that if an event hasn't transpired on his suburban street corner, it is impossible, an argument we've seen from him in various forms for many years now. Krygowski was born a thickskull Polish peasant and he'll die a quarterwit Polish peasant. It was too late for Franki-boy to acquire a decent education about the time he was born thick and stubborn with it.
>
Particularly about statistics, Franki-boy is incapable of grasping that statistical research is a sampling technique which, if done without producer-bias, draws an outline sketch of reality, not reality itself, and that the user of the data must bring intelligence and imagination to the sketch to extract its true meaning. He's just barely bright enough to grasp that when I found a full-universe dataset which indeed did draw a detailed picture of reality itself, leading inexorably to a conclusion opposite to what he believes with an undying if irrational faith (that the USA is the one exceptional case where bicycle helmets should be enforced, opposite to Franki-boy's knee-jerk reaction that enforcing bicycle helmets is to declare cycling unsafe -- no really, that's what the poor klown Krygoski argues), he should get the fuck out of my way and not argue, because he couldn't win. Unfortunately, the poor dumb kluck Krygowski doesn't have the wherewithal to take the next step and grasp that normal sampling techniques therefore need to be interpreted through a veil of confessed ignorance -- he's not only thick and stubborn, he's too arrogant to admit he doesn't know everything.
>
Andre Jute
What is one to do with an ignorant jerk like Franki-boy Krygowski? It's a question for the ages.
>

[John B.]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 12:41:12 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/24/2023 11:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/24/2023 8:08 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>>
>>> There is absolutely no evidence that having a gun makes
>>> you more
>>> likely to be shot.
>>
>>
>> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/
>>
>>
>> https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
>>
>> https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/
>>
>
>We haven't established whether or not people in more
>dangerous areas/situations arm themselves as a reaction to
>potential violence.
>
>I suspect so. You do not.

Does anyone actually read the subject they post?
In the first subject referenced above reading it shows that those who
actually conducted the study wrote:

"it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more
likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment
that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages
them to visit neighborhoods they probably shouldn’t"
and
“We don’t have an answer as to whether guns are protective or
perilous,”
and
"Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun
Policy and Research in Baltimore, Maryland, thinks it is near-sighted
to consider only the safety of gun owners and not their communities.
“It affects others a heck of a lot more,” he says."

(referencing only the original poster)
I guess the theory is, "If you read the headline and it fits your
perceived notions don't bother to actually read the article."

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 12:41:12 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>We haven't established whether or not people in more
>dangerous areas/situations arm themselves as a reaction to
>potential violence.
>
>I suspect so. You do not.

From Aug 16 to Sept 22 of 2020, we had the CZU Fire:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CZU_Lightning_Complex_fires>
Near the beginning of Sept, the authorities imposed a mandatory
evacuation. The first stopped about 1200 ft from my back door. Both
the evacuation and return were staged in a fairly organized and
peaceful manner. I evacuated to my former office in Santa Cruz
(city). I slept on the floor in a sleeping bag for about 9 days. I
brought with me my 9mm S&W automatic pistol, 4 loaded clips and two
boxes of ammunition. The problem was that I had no idea what was
going to happen next. Rumors of looting, burglaries, violence,
vandalism, police harassment, and general mayhem were epidemic. I
decided that it was best not to become a victim. The S&W remained
inside a suitcase stuffed with clothes for the duration. During the
night, someone rattled my office door to check if it was locked. I
was worried about my house. Fortunately, several neighbors ignored
the evacuation order and stayed home. That was sufficient to deter
the local looters. I know two neighbors who watched their houses
burglarized through remote security cameras. If it happens again,
there's little that I would do differently. At this time, I have the
suitcase, 3 small boxes with supplies, sleeping bag, emergency kit,
butane stove, medical supplies, bathroom supplies, etc stacked near a
door. The gun and ammunition are still in the suitcase. I can load
everything into the car in about 10 minutes, which is probably too
long.

In such situations, having a gun doesn't make me feel much better.
However, it will certainly make any prospective looter feel much
worse.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 12:57:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/24/2023 12:46 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

In California, 52% of those that died by firearms were suicides:
<https://maps.everytownresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Every-State-Fact-Sheet-2.0-042720-California.pdf>
An available firearm certainly makes suicide easier, but were one not
available, the suicide victim would likely choose other means to the
same end.

More numbers:
Gun Violence Data and Research
<https://oag.ca.gov/ogvp/data>

[AMuzi]

That all sounds typically prudent to me.

By 'typical' I mean you thought about it, made a plan and
didn't overstress details or expense.

[John B.]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 08:26:23 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

Even a casual look shows that the U.S. has, for example, administrated
some 668,168, 096 doses of the Covid vaccine... in a population of
334,805,269. Canada some 97,303,025 (257.8 per 100 population), The
U.K. some 151,248,802 doses (222.8/100 population)

If the vaccine really is poison then obviously people would be
dropping dead by the hundreds.

But they are not (:-)

It is rather interesting to see just how far divorced from reality
some people really are.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:45:23 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2023 12:41:12 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >On 5/24/2023 11:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>
> >>> There is absolutely no evidence that having a gun makes
> >>> you more
> >>> likely to be shot.
> >>
> >>
> >> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/
> >>
> >>
> >> https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
> >>
> >> https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/
> >>

> Does anyone actually read the subject they post?
> In the first subject referenced above reading it shows that those who
> actually conducted the study wrote:
>
> "it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more
> likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment
> that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages
> them to visit neighborhoods they probably shouldn’t"

What's your point, John? That paragraph is speculation about details of
the causative mechanism -- that is, the mechanism that causes this fact:
"Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as
likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens."

With over four times worse risk, at least we should be able to agree that the
common tactic of buying a gun for "protection" is probably bad strategy.

> and
> “We don’t have an answer as to whether guns are protective or
> perilous,”

That's a rephrase of the common conclusion to most research reports: "More study
is needed." Or in other words, "Give me more funding."

> "Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun
> Policy and Research in Baltimore, Maryland, thinks it is near-sighted
> to consider only the safety of gun owners and not their communities.
> “It affects others a heck of a lot more,” he says."

Of course it affects a lot more! Proliferation of guns leads to more thefts of
guns, more guns in the hands of criminals, more public expense to have
police match criminal firepower, more public expense to defend schools and
other public spaces, etc. all of which are community concerns and gun fetish
detriments.

> (referencing only the original poster)
> I guess the theory is, "If you read the headline and it fits your
> perceived notions don't bother to actually read the article."

No, John. I think our disagreement is related to reading comprehension,
in your case probably triggered by your deep love for guns.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 9:28:33 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> An available firearm certainly makes suicide easier, but were one not
> available, the suicide victim would likely choose other means to the
> same end.

Nope. That's not what the data and studies show. Try
https://www.kff.org/other/issue-brief/do-states-with-easier-access-to-guns-have-more-suicide-deaths-by-firearm/

For those who prefer anecdotes: I've known four people who attempted suicide.
The two who slashed their wrists did not succeed. Both received mental treatment
(each in different institutions), both recovered and both are doing fine many years later.

Both who attempted suicide using guns succeeded. Experts say the different results
are typical. One line is "Suicide is usually a permanent solution to a temporary problem."

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

If we look at results instead of "coulda, woulda" hypotheticals:
You prepared yourself for combat. You didn't need to. Your gun did you
no good.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 19:21:18 -0400, Catrike Rider

Well, as I think I previously wrote, IF you live in a household with a
gun and IF you are murdered and IF the murderer is a member of the
household than it is probable that a gun will be used.

But, that is a lot of "IF's" and as some 40% of the U.S. population
lives in a household where there are guns - about 133,805,106 people -
and the FBI reports something like an average of 10,252 firearm
homicides (1915-1919) that means that means that the maximum possible
danger is 1 in every 13,052 people may die of a household gunshot.

As a comparison, there seem to be 233 million licensed drivers in the
U.S. as of 2021 and there were 42,915 road fatalities the same year.
so... 1 in 5,429 drivers die on the roads annually.

So... motor vehicles in the yard are some 2.4 times as deadly as
firearms in the home....

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 19:21:18 -0400, Catrike Rider

No there is no data, per se, that guns cause firearm homicides and in
fact I have mentioned numerous times that I lived in a 3rd generation
(nearly 150 years) family that had always had guns in the house with
no problems at all.

But, as a friend in the financial study business once said, "Tell me
what you want to prove and I'll design a survey to prove it".
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Wed, 24 May 2023 19:27:18 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:45:23?PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 May 2023 12:41:12 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/24/2023 11:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> There is absolutely no evidence that having a gun makes
>> >>> you more
>> >>> likely to be shot.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
>> >>
>> >> https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/
>> >>
>
>> Does anyone actually read the subject they post?
>> In the first subject referenced above reading it shows that those who
>> actually conducted the study wrote:
>>
>> "it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more
>> likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment
>> that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages
>> them to visit neighborhoods they probably shouldn’t"
>
>What's your point, John? That paragraph is speculation about details of
>the causative mechanism -- that is, the mechanism that causes this fact:
>"Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as
>likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens."

People who don't understand that Correlation does not imply causation
are logic impaired.


Correlation simply means there is a statistical association between
variables.

Causation means that a change in one variable causes a change in
another variable.

There's zero evidence that simply having a gun causes people to get
shot.

>With over four times worse risk, at least we should be able to agree that the
>common tactic of buying a gun for "protection" is probably bad strategy.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

>> and
>> “We don’t have an answer as to whether guns are protective or
>> perilous,”
>
>That's a rephrase of the common conclusion to most research reports: "More study
>is needed." Or in other words, "Give me more funding."
>
>> "Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun
>> Policy and Research in Baltimore, Maryland, thinks it is near-sighted
>> to consider only the safety of gun owners and not their communities.
>> “It affects others a heck of a lot more,” he says."
>
>Of course it affects a lot more! Proliferation of guns leads to more thefts of
>guns, more guns in the hands of criminals, more public expense to have
>police match criminal firepower, more public expense to defend schools and
>other public spaces, etc. all of which are community concerns and gun fetish
>detriments.
>
>> (referencing only the original poster)
>> I guess the theory is, "If you read the headline and it fits your
>> perceived notions don't bother to actually read the article."
>
>No, John. I think our disagreement is related to reading comprehension,
>in your case probably triggered by your deep love for guns.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

The disagreement is about Krygoeski's fear of guns.

[Catrike Rider]

On Thu, 25 May 2023 10:58:29 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

And motorcycles are even more dangerous.

[John B.]

I like it. Frankie posts "a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, has found...."

And a rather quick look at the stats shows that:
Philadelphia has a rather large difference in firearm violence ranging
from Zip Code area 19134 - 270 shooting incidents (in 2022), to Zip
Code 19131 which had only 31 incidents. Zip 19134 has a population
density of 15,914,2 per sq. mile while Zip 19131 has a density of
8,187.3/sq mile.

Now, I read, that population density is likely to be associated with
crime rates, one comment was "you don't shoot your neighbor out in the
country, do you". And another question is the ethnic make up of the
population and the districts as some groups do seem to commit more
crimes then other groups.

So does Franks figures equate to the U.S. as a whole? Only to
Philadelphia, Only to parts of Philadelphia?

We don't know and I don't believe that Frank knows but, of course, it
does support his current fancies, and he seizes the report with great
glee.... "See what I found!"

So I can only quote my friend who did financial surveys, "Tell me what

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/25/2023 4:09 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> So I can only quote my friend who did financial surveys, "Tell me what
> you want to prove and I'll design a survey to prove it".

Yes, John, I understand your thinking. Nothing can be known. All is
mystery. And anything that conflicts with your gun fetish must be
disregarded or mocked.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/25/2023 12:12 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> No there is no data, per se, that guns cause firearm homicides ...

Quite obviously, guns _enable_ firearm homicides. And the correlation
between gun prevalence and gun homicide rates is very strong. It's
disputed only by those who fetishize guns.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

Nobody disputes that guns enable firearm homicides, but they also
enable self defense. That's only disputed by those who are afraid of
guns.

[Frank Krygowski]

Congratulation on two full sentences!

But I've posted plenty of links showing the "self defense" idea is
false. People with guns in any given neighborhood are more likely to be
shot than people without guns. People who attempt to defend themselves
by use of a gun are more likely to be shot. And for our local anecdotal
example, if John had tried to grab a gun when three thugs burst into his
home and held a gun directly at him, he wouldn't be posting now. He'd be
dead.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

On Thu, 25 May 2023 13:01:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski

<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/25/2023 12:54 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 May 2023 12:18:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/25/2023 12:12 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No there is no data, per se, that guns cause firearm homicides ...
>>>
>>> Quite obviously, guns _enable_ firearm homicides. And the correlation
>>> between gun prevalence and gun homicide rates is very strong. It's
>>> disputed only by those who fetishize guns.
>>
>> Nobody disputes that guns enable firearm homicides, but they also
>> enable self defense. That's only disputed by those who are afraid of
>> guns.
>
>Congratulation on two full sentences!
>
>But I've posted plenty of links showing the "self defense" idea is
>false.

No you haven't.

>People with guns in any given neighborhood are more likely to be
>shot than people without guns.

Assumes "facts" not in evidence.

>People who attempt to defend themselves
>by use of a gun are more likely to be shot.

More assumption of "facts" not in evidence.

>And for our local anecdotal
>example, if John had tried to grab a gun when three thugs burst into his
>home and held a gun directly at him, he wouldn't be posting now. He'd be
>dead.

<LOL> Weren't you just recently complaining about people focusing on
one isolated incident?

[AMuzi]

And others have noted the huge volume of successful self
defense involving firearms.

But hey you're only 37 State legislatures away from repeal
of the 2d Amendment. That pursuit might make an excellent hobby.

[John B.]

As I've mentioned a number of times previously, the solution is
simple... just revoke the 2nd amendment. The means of revoking
portions of the Constitution have been, I believe, a part of the
Constitution since it was originally written.

Now, the essence of a democratic system is that the majority get to
rule so, logically, if the majority of the U.S. public want to
eliminate the 2nd amendment it can be done and the fact that even the
most wild eyed and fanatical of the anti gunners haven't attempted to
do so appears to be evidence that they, themselves, understand that
the U.S. voters do not want it to happen.

So, what would one call a group who wish to override or ignore a
section of the basic law of the land.... without due process of the
law?

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

Well, Liebermann and Flunky also have problems grasping reality. I suppose it wouldn't matter if they weren't filled with the belief that they are absolute geniuses capable of ruling the world if only given the chance. I didn't even like managing 6 engineers though I could manage it. From that point on I would only accept consulting jobs for my services alone. I did not like to do my job and that of everyone else so they could continue to get paid. And I really did not want them to lose their jobs for being in over their heads. Slocomb isn't in over his head, he drowned 10 years ago and is nothing more than a loud corpse. He DOES know about guns and I can tell that because of my own involvement over the years with everything gunpowder.

[Tom Kunich]

The stronger the correlation the higher the chances are that they are causative. But the figures that Frank gives as usual are bullshit. 40% of those "gun owners hence deaths" are suicides. So it only takes 11% of the remainder to be people that own a gun because they live in dangerous areas or THEMSELVES are criminals owning guns legal or not to be able to spout his sort of bullshit; As for that 4:1, Frank is a perfect example of just how screwed up he is. Living in a upper middle class ALL WHITE neighborhood exactly what are his chances of being shot if he owned a gun or not. He has to lie about everything because he has no answers and so he invents his own reality. People that own guns for self protection are largely in heavily crime ridden areas. If they DIDN'T own a gun they would have almost the identical chances of being shot. But Franks can lie and lie and lie his way into actually believing his own bullshit. The US especially west of the Ohio and Mississippi are almost entirely people who own guns and are never shot nor ever shoot anyone.

Where are people shot? Everyone of them are Democrat strongholds that keep their power by telling everyone to HATE their neighbor. Frank know all about this - if a black family moved into Poland he would become a member of the Klu Klux Klan overnight.

[Tom Kunich]

Statistically only. Motorcycles ridden properly are VERY safe. They are a much smaller target and they accelerate or brake rapidly so can stay out of trouble. But there are a rather small number of continuously ridden motorcycles so even a couple of stupid riders can twist the statistics around.

[Tom Kunich]

A far, far more productive hobby than posting here.

[John B.]

The https://www.heritage.org/ states that a firearm was used in
defense 762 times, in 2019, 676 times in 2020, 683 times in 2021, 781
times in 2922, 278 in 2923 (to date) and 142 times in the last 90
days. The site even has a map to show the location and date of the
events.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 2:09:55 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:

The only way to repeal an amendment is to PASS another amendment repealing it. This is virtually impossible unless it is something like 18th Amendment which was passed largely at the behest of women. This led to the same levels of crime that Biden and the Soros DA's have done and it swiftly led to the 21st Amendment.

Take a look at what it requires: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

[AMuzi]

As clearly stated, that Heritage database is the absolutely
most conservative, defensible, documented number (I am a
member and supporter of Heritage Foundation).

Here's a good discussion of methodology:
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/

Estimates vary. Lots. Six or seven hundred per year are the
actual documented police/FBI reports with firearm use as
opposed to mere brandishing or the most frequent outcome
which is 'no police report':

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/dontcall.jpg

p.s. This is your correct link:
https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/25/2023 9:28 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> The https://www.heritage.org/ states that a firearm was used in
> defense 762 times, in 2019, 676 times in 2020, 683 times in 2021, 781
> times in 2922, 278 in 2923 (to date) and 142 times in the last 90
> days. The site even has a map to show the location and date of the
> events.

And as just one example: Your 781 defenses in 2022 is balanced by over
20,000 gun homicides, plus something like 28,000 suicides.
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/gun-violence-deaths-statistics-america/

Very similar numbers exist for the other years. But those are for the
U.S. For countries with more rational gun policies, the numbers are far,
far lower and better.

Benefits vs. detriments, yet again. Why is that so difficult?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/25/2023 7:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> As I've mentioned a number of times previously, the solution is
> simple... just revoke the 2nd amendment. The means of revoking
> portions of the Constitution have been, I believe, a part of the
> Constitution since it was originally written.

Oh good grief!

John, it's an AMENDMENT! Look up the definition!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Thu, 25 May 2023 17:54:23 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 5:12:43?PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:

And yet.... The marvelous Tommy lives in a shack built nearly 70 years
ago in an district he refers to a slum - guns going off all night and
illegal's running up and down the road stealing bicycles.

He's obviously died and gone to Heaven (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

It's not difficult... Individuals, inluding myself, have more
benefits from having gun(s) than detriments. The only detriments for
me are the costs, which for me aren't significant, and the time (a few
seconds) it takes to check them and place them in my various carrying
positions. The major benfits are the enjoyment of occasional target
shooting and the comfort of being able to defend myself and others. We
do quite a bit of traveling by vehicle and I'm able to drive long
hours, often 24 hours straight. Whenever we stop somewhere for gas in
the middle of "Podunk," in the wee hours of the morning, my wife asks
me to go with her into the gas station and "bring your gun."

There have been other smaller benefits. The enjoyment of designing and
fabricating the device for carring a concealed gun on the Catrike. The
enjoyment of disassembing one of my guns, figuring out and disabling
the "safety" mechanism that prevents it from firing unless the
magazine is in place.

There's also the guilty pleasure of knowing how much my guns upset gun
fearing fools like you.

[John B.]

You will note that Foolish Frankie has carefully deleted the earlier
parts of the thread where he talks about "But I've posted plenty of

links showing the "self defense" idea is false. People with guns in
any given neighborhood are more likely to be shot than people without
guns."

And when I quote statistics showing that people do defend themselves
and provided data to prove it Frankie leaped to a whole new
subject...Suicide.

I assume that his careful deletion of his previous comments was so he
could leap into the fray shouting "I Din't Say That! I Din't Say
That!"

Slippery, Frank is very slippery.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Fri, 26 May 2023 16:41:29 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Using a gun is a "false idea" for timid people like Frank, who is
afraid of guns.

[John B.]

On Fri, 26 May 2023 06:38:42 -0400, Catrike Rider

I find this, what appears to be a U.S. tendency to fear guns, rather
strange. As a kid, everyone I grew up with played Cowboys and Indians
- bang, bang, bang, with "cap pistols" and a few years later everyone
had a "BB Gun".

Now-a-days, when you mentioned taking a gun with you on rides Frank
was screaming, "No!, No!, No!

It struck me as rather odd as I had read your post earlier and sort of
mentally yawned... he's got a gun... so what... About the same
attention I would have paid if you had said, "Oh! My sister has blue
eyes!" "Ayup... isn't that exciting (yawn)."

And then the screaming started. GUN! Terrible! Oh My Goodness! NO!
NO! NO!

But perhaps it a correlation to Frank's disparaging advertising.
People don't know anything about something and might be coerced into
buying it.

And, by the same token, people don't know anything about guns so they
fear them.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Fri, 26 May 2023 18:30:00 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

Krygowski's agenda is to start an argument, which he calls a
discussion. He'll insist that those who disagree with his opinions
defend their opinions, which then becomes targets that he can attack,
because his primary purpose is to belittle and depreciate other people
in a futile attempt to elevate his own poor self-image.

He gets frustrated (angry) when people simply don't bother to defend
their position, and instead, target his opinions, which are often
fallacious. He understands that he cannot defend his own fallacious
opinions, (see correlation/causation issue) so he'll simply repeat
them ad nauseam, as if they've not actually been discredited.

I ride a Catrike, (he calls it a tricycle ) most often on bike trails,
(he calls them kiddy paths) carrying a gun, and refusing any
significant social activity. I'm sure there are other things I've
mentioned that he tries to belittle, but after my initial surprise at
seeing his serious animosity toward me, I see his silly attacks as
very entertaining. Pretty much how I see the squirrels scolding me
from high in the trees.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:11:13 AM UTC-4, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2023 04:34:26 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 2:31:37?PM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:27:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 5/23/2023 10:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >> On 5/23/2023 9:46 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >> >>> ...you might want to look at this graph:
> >> >
> >> >>> "United States: COVID-19 weekly death rate by vaccination status, All
> >> >>> ages" (deaths per 100,000).
> >> >>> <https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status>
> >> >>> The peak in unvaccinated deaths is even more spectacular if you switch
> >> >>> to the senior age groups. If you can't see the detail at the lower
> >> >>> death rates, switch from a "linear" to "log" graph.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Interesting but not a compelling argument either way.
> >> >>
> >> >> The original Farr's graphs from London in the mid-1800s show the same
> >> >> curves for viruses generally.
> >> >
> >> >That sounds like another claim that "correlation is not causation." When
> >> >applied to millions of data points, that's a short step away from "All
> >> >is mystery, nothing can be known. Ommmmmm..."
> >> "Correlation is not causation" is not simply a claim, it's a well
> >> known fact.
> >
> >No, it isn't, dumbass. We've been through this before - the actually phrase is "correlation does not imply causation". It's a critically subtle distinction - not surprising floriduh dumbass doesn't get it.
> >
> >> People who claim otherwise are known as idiots.
> >
> >People who claim "Correlation is not causation" are idiots like you. People who state "correlation does not imply causation" and can then explain how analysis of cause and effect can show the data are or are not correlated are not idiots like you.
> There was no analysis of cause and effect, in those studies, Dummy,

How the fuck would you know, dumbass? you stated that you refused to read them.

> and of course, a real case of obvious multiple causes and effects
> would be very likely to have a correlation.
>
> I'm sorry that this is so confusing to you.

That's not confusing to me at all, mr. "correlation is not causation, never was, never will be". You, like the shit-stained troll, don't understand what is and isn't good science. You, like the shit-stained troll, believe good science is that which confirms your world view.

>
> There is absolutely no evidence that having a gun makes you more

> likely to be shot. Having a gun and being shot are simply two running
> issues that have a rough correlation. The only fact those "studies"
> show is that people who get shot often have a gun, themselves. They do
> not show that the gun is the cause of getting shot. There might be,
> and probably are real demonstrable reasons why people with guns get
> shot. For instance, pulling out a gun towards a policeman, or maybe
> breaking into someone's home with a gun.

yes, dumbass, we know...'guns don't kill people, people kill people'....tell that to the dozens of kids killed each year by getting into their parents firearms in the home.....gawd yer a dumbass....

>
> Now, on the other hand, your ignorant attempt to relate the
> correlation issue to riding a bicycle over glass *is* clearly a case
> of cause and effect.

No, dumbass, it was a way to show your constant refrain of "correlation is not causation, never was, never will be" is stupid and wrong, It's seems you actually engoy being stupid and wrong, you do it so often.

[Tim R]

Question for Tom:

If vaccines caused the deaths, and if Republicans are less likely to be vaccinated,

why did Republicans die of covid at twice the rate of Democrats?

https://news.yahoo.com/almost-twice-many-republicans-democrats-175245935.html

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 9:20:51 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/24/2023 6:34 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 2:31:37 PM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 May 2023 11:27:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5/23/2023 10:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2023 9:46 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> >>>>> ...you might want to look at this graph:
> >>>
> >>>>> "United States: COVID-19 weekly death rate by vaccination status, All
> >>>>> ages" (deaths per 100,000).
> >>>>> <https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status>
> >>>>> The peak in unvaccinated deaths is even more spectacular if you switch
> >>>>> to the senior age groups. If you can't see the detail at the lower
> >>>>> death rates, switch from a "linear" to "log" graph.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Interesting but not a compelling argument either way.
> >>>>
> >>>> The original Farr's graphs from London in the mid-1800s show the same
> >>>> curves for viruses generally.
> >>>
> >>> That sounds like another claim that "correlation is not causation." When
> >>> applied to millions of data points, that's a short step away from "All
> >>> is mystery, nothing can be known. Ommmmmm..."
> >> "Correlation is not causation" is not simply a claim, it's a well
> >> known fact.
> >
> > No, it isn't, dumbass. We've been through this before - the actually phrase is "correlation does not imply causation". It's a critically subtle distinction - not surprising floriduh dumbass doesn't get it.
> >
> >> People who claim otherwise are known as idiots.
> >
> > People who claim "Correlation is not causation" are idiots like you. People who state "correlation does not imply causation" and can then explain how analysis of cause and effect can show the data are or are not correlated are not idiots like you.
> >

> People who do not own bicycles do not experience flat
> bicycle tires.
> --

"correlation is not causation, never was, never will be" - The floriduh dumbass

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 3:06:21 AM UTC-4, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2023 19:27:18 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 8:45:23?PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 May 2023 12:41:12 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 5/24/2023 11:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >>>

> >> >>> There is absolutely no evidence that having a gun makes
> >> >>> you more
> >> >>> likely to be shot.
> >> >>
> >> >>

> >> >> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762
> >> >>
> >> >> https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/
> >> >>
> >
> >> Does anyone actually read the subject they post?
> >> In the first subject referenced above reading it shows that those who
> >> actually conducted the study wrote:
> >>
> >> "it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more
> >> likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment
> >> that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages
> >> them to visit neighborhoods they probably shouldn’t"
> >
> >What's your point, John? That paragraph is speculation about details of
> >the causative mechanism -- that is, the mechanism that causes this fact:
> >"Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as
> >likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens."
> People who don't understand that Correlation does not imply causation
> are logic impaired.

oh my! whatever happened to "correlation is not causation, never was, never will be"? Now, after having your nose rubbed into it a half-dozen times, you change your tune to parroting what we've been telling you for moths:

>
>
> Correlation simply means there is a statistical association between
> variables.
>
> Causation means that a change in one variable causes a change in
> another variable.
>
> There's zero evidence that simply having a gun causes people to get
> shot.

Such a good little NRA tool...'guns don't kill people, people kill people'

[Catrike Rider]

Even if that were true, which I doubt, you might understand that the
older one is, the more likely they are to be a Republican... and
older people were more vulnerable to Covid.

[Tom Kunich]

Guns used as protection and brandished a hundred times more often than a bullet discharges. Police are never called and reports are never made which means that the reports of the Heritage Foundation are largely only the worst of the worst cases. Usually those cases gave police involvement and discharge of the weapon.

[AMuzi]

You see what you want to see and all the arguments on every
position have been well established here. Where principles
differ, facts become overshadowing or invisible as needed.

[Tom Kunich]

My cousin who was an astonishingly beautiful woman had been coping with a sexually transmitted disease that she apparently were having a great deal of difficulty curing. She was in continuous pain and doctors no longer are allowed to prescribe Oxycontin because it is a very potent pain killer but an opioid and rapidly addictive. Her husband was an antigun freak (and had given her the disease to begin with, contacted apparently before they were married.)

With no other option and with no hope for relief, she hung herself in the bathroom with a pair of nylons. The process was very slow and agonizing and she was discovered there by her teenage daughter. Frank happily is one of those idiots that forbid the use of pain medication and is perfectly fine with the result and the slow agonizing death rather than the quick bullet that even soldiers on the battle field have used when wounds obviously would never return to normal.

I grew up the the house with my Uncle Harry who had contracted polio. He was in a house with guns but chose the hard road and lived another 30 years on crutches and braces. Not everyone could face that where getting on an off of the fucking toilet requires a major project.

I really would like Frank to talk about forbidding guns around me and I would make certain that he was in so much pain for the rest of his life that he would be an addict buying fentanyl from some street pusher for the rest of his life and begging for the addicts end of an overdose finally killing him. Do you think that with one punch I couldn't shatter a vertebrae in the lower back in a spot that cannot be replaced with a plastic fake?

[AMuzi]

Many of us would prefer a 70 year old (or 120) house to a
new one.

[Frank Krygowski]

What I want to see is data. Data does have to be evaluated, because
people with varying objectives do tend to gather and present data in a
way that's helpful to their predetermined views. But reasonable
evaluations should be possible.

There are mountains of data collected by dozens or hundreds of agencies
indicating beyond reasonable doubt the net detriments of gun
fetishization. There are dozens of developed countries similar to the
U.S. that have very different gun policies and far, far less gun
homicides, suicides, and public protection expenses.

I'm with Jim Jeffries summary evaluation: "But ah _like_ guns!" isn't
more valid than all the above data.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

Tim, in the first place perhaps you can tell me how you can tell a Democrat from a Republican? Do they all wear a button? Maybe they carry a card in their pockets reminding them who to vote for? Conservatives tend to be older people who have been around the block and have better judgement than those who haven't. Most combat veterans are EXTREMELY conservative. But apparently you would chose the judgement of a college undergrad to that of a Veteran. OK, Slocomb is an outstanding exception.

In the second place, do you have ANY idea what the numbers of excess deaths are? Apparently not since while high percentagewise, they are a SMALL number.

Please try to avoid talking about things you don't understand with "gotcha" articles written by morons.

You are under no pressure whatsoever to believe me what I tell you that most of the excess deaths since 2020 were due to the vaccinations. Finding SARS spike proteins in the brain with negative tests for covid-19 infections could be just chance - right? That mRNA vaccines turn the body into a drug factory making spike proteins and the increase in deaths are largely myocarditis, pericarditis and dementia means nothing - right? That the vaccine manufacturers lied to you that the vaccine never leaved the injection site (the arm) means nothing. And the brain of these dementia deaths are not being investigated with autopsies for a good reason, correct?

Watch the entire video so that you understand at least a small part of the problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFZJuJdKvrg

Also there are TWO strong problems 1. The CDC ordered those who fill out death certificates to use covid-19 as the primary cause of death if the test showed any covid-19 present. This is entirely false because 99.9% of covid cases are either asymptomatic or have symptoms no worse than the common cold. So you could die in a car accident and be marked as a covid-19 death.

2. A very large percentage of covid-19 deaths were black people. Were they more sensitive to the SARS virus (some have theorized that the virus was purposely aimed at blacks by Fauci) or is this nothing more than the false reporting of black deaths because of the above CDC order since blacks have a higher mortality rate than whites and the false claim that they have unequal access to medical care (If illegals can get emergency medical care so can blacks. And private doctors are only interested in medicine.) My doctor spends a lot of time in African with Doctors Without Borders. So I often have to make appointments a month ahead of time.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/26/2023 10:21 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Many of us would prefer a 70 year old (or 120) house to a new one.

Ours is 80. We love it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

Slocomb must always show people just how stupid he is. Whenever he is quoted as here he is saying things so stupid that the Stupid 4 title fits them far too well.

[Catrike Rider]

Works for me, and millions of other gun owners.

[John B.]

On Fri, 26 May 2023 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 6:08:51?AM UTC-7, Tim R wrote:
>> Question for Tom:
>>
>> If vaccines caused the deaths, and if Republicans are less likely to be vaccinated,
>>
>> why did Republicans die of covid at twice the rate of Democrats?
>>
>> https://news.yahoo.com/almost-twice-many-republicans-democrats-175245935.html
>
>Tim, in the first place perhaps you can tell me how you can tell a Democrat from a Republican? Do they all wear a button? Maybe they carry a card in their pockets reminding them who to vote for? Conservatives tend to be older people who have been around the block and have better judgement than those who haven't. Most combat veterans are EXTREMELY conservative. But apparently you would chose the judgement of a college undergrad to that of a Veteran. OK, Slocomb is an outstanding exception.
>

Well Tom, if you had read the study you'd know. the compared the state
voter lists, voter registration, whatever you call it with the names
of the persons that died.

>In the second place, do you have ANY idea what the numbers of excess deaths are? Apparently not since while high percentagewise, they are a SMALL number.

It wasn't excessive deaths it was the persons who death certificate
stated that the primary cause of death was Covid.

>Please try to avoid talking about things you don't understand with "gotcha" articles written by morons.

He cited the report... and you apparently didn't bother to read it so
YOU are the one doesn't know what he is talking about.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

(:-) Ever live in a 120 year old house and discover that you had to
rewire the entire house because the rats had eaten the insulation off
the knob and tube electrical system? (:-)

Luckily my Grand Parents youngest daughter (My Aunt) had married a
bloke that was a professionally electrician (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

On 5/26/2023 10:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/26/2023 10:15 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/25/2023 9:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2023 9:28 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The https://www.heritage.org/ states that a firearm was
>>>> used in
>>>> defense 762 times, in 2019, 676 times in 2020, 683 times
>>>> in 2021, 781
>>>> times in 2922, 278 in 2923 (to date) and 142 times in the
>>>> last 90
>>>> days. The site even has a map to show the location and
>>>> date of the
>>>> events.
>>>
>>> And as just one example: Your 781 defenses in 2022 is
>>> balanced by over 20,000 gun homicides, plus something like
>>> 28,000 suicides.
>>> https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/gun-violence-deaths-statistics-america/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Very similar numbers exist for the other years. But those
>>> are for the U.S. For countries with more rational gun
>>> policies, the numbers are far, far lower and better.
>>>
>>> Benefits vs. detriments, yet again. Why is that so
>>> difficult?
>>>
>>
>> You see what you want to see and all the arguments on

>> every position have been well established here. Where

>> principles differ, facts become overshadowing or invisible
>> as needed.
>
> What I want to see is data. Data does have to be evaluated,
> because people with varying objectives do tend to gather and
> present data in a way that's helpful to their predetermined
> views. But reasonable evaluations should be possible.
>
> There are mountains of data collected by dozens or hundreds
> of agencies indicating beyond reasonable doubt the net
> detriments of gun fetishization. There are dozens of
> developed countries similar to the U.S. that have very
> different gun policies and far, far less gun homicides,
> suicides, and public protection expenses.
>
> I'm with Jim Jeffries summary evaluation: "But ah _like_
> guns!" isn't more valid than all the above data.
>

Always counered promptly by your reversal, "But ah _don'
like_ guns!"

[John B.]

On Fri, 26 May 2023 08:50:32 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh! You mean your house isn't at 3539 Monterey Blvd, a 1,454 square
foot house on a 4,940 square foot lot with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.
last sold on November 21, 1978 for $70,000. Source:
Public Records
Home facts
Status Sold
Property Type Single Family Residential
Year Built1955

Ok I made a mistake and your house isn't 70 years old... it is 66
years old.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

My 1904 house had knob and tube but the previous owner
already bypassed it. Didn't have mice so the shellacked
linen wrap was still (dried, crumbly)mostly intact.

[John B.]

Oh now we have suicide rate as yet another drama to add to Frankie's
dementia's.

And yet again he speaks from a position of ignorance. The ten
countries with the highest suicide rate are,

Lesotho - 72.4
Guyana - 40.3
Eswatini - 29.4
South Korea - 28.6
Kiribati - 28.3
Federated States of Micronesia - 28.2
Lithuania - 26.1
Suriname - 25.4
Russia - 25.1
South Africa - 23.5

The poor old USA can only make it to 24th place.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

Slocomb lives in a 50 year old hovel in Thailand way out in the sticks and tells is about how our homes are junk when the latest estimate for the price of my home is $880,000. His home is probably a 1,000 baht a month rental. Good thing he has a military retirement because that is the extent of his income.

[Radey Shouman]

That's just broken in. I have heard that in Japan people don't like to
buy "used" houses, and tend to build new ones often. Is that also the
case in Thailand?