On 4/21/2022 2:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2022 at 11:51:19 AM PDT, "David Johnston"
> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-04-21 3:50 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Apr 18, 2022 at 12:33:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sounds like an Administrative Procedures Act violation. CDC made no
>>>> finding with respect to the benefits of masks, despite laudible goals of
>>>> fighting the virus.
>>>>
>>>> The order applies nationwide.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://apnews.com/article/biden-health-business-travel-tampa-3408cc825582126fbda5fbedd3a49dd3
>>>
>>> I'm taking an informal poll.
>>>
>>> Q: Regarding the Biden regime's mind-boggling decision to appeal the CDC
>>> mask
>>> mandate loss yesterday... What do you think? Will the administration, at the
>>> 11th Circuit:
>>>
>>> [ ] Win, but lose the midterms?
>>>
>>> [ ] Lose, harder and for good?
>>>
>>> As for those who still want to wear face blankets, here's a thought...
>>>
>>> You think I should have to wear a mask along with you wearing a mask so that
>>> if I'm infected, the virus will have to pass through two layers of masks to
>>> infect you.
>>>
>>> So if you wear two masks and I wear none, the virus still has to travel
>>> through two layers of masks to infect you.
>>>
>>> So if you're a maskhole, just wear two masks. Problem solved.
>>>
>>
>> https://preview.redd.it/bvrmovfbfxu81.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=e50ca9d59f80027ef783bd63c0a78e4299ffdfe0
>
> And that might make sense if airborne virus and liquid streams were remotely
> analogous.

Getting deja vu here, but they *are* at least remotely analogous.

On 4/21/2022 5:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <VXi8K.468491$SeK9.445611@fx97.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/21/2022 2:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Apr 21, 2022 at 11:51:19 AM PDT, "David Johnston"
>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-04-21 3:50 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>
>>>>> On Apr 18, 2022 at 12:33:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like an Administrative Procedures Act violation. CDC made no
>>>>>> finding with respect to the benefits of masks, despite laudible goals
>>>>>> of fighting the virus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The order applies nationwide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://apnews.com/article/biden-health-business-travel-tampa-3408cc82558
>>>>>> 2126fbda5fbedd3a49dd3
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm taking an informal poll.
>>>>>
>>>>> Q: Regarding the Biden regime's mind-boggling decision to appeal the
>>>>> CDC mask mandate loss yesterday... What do you think? Will the
>>>>> administration, at the 11th Circuit:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] Win, but lose the midterms?
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] Lose, harder and for good?
>>>>>
>>>>> As for those who still want to wear face blankets, here's a thought...
>>>>>
>>>>> You think I should have to wear a mask along with you wearing a mask so
>>>>> that if I'm infected, the virus will have to pass through two layers of
>>>>> masks to infect you.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you wear two masks and I wear none, the virus still has to travel
>>>>> through two layers of masks to infect you.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you're a maskhole, just wear two masks. Problem solved.
>>>>>
>>>> https://preview.redd.it/bvrmovfbfxu81.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=
>>>> e50ca9d59f80027ef783bd63c0a78e4299ffdfe0
>>>
>>> And that might make sense if airborne virus and liquid streams were
>>> remotely analogous.
>>
>> Getting deja vu here, but they *are* at least remotely analogous.
>
> Yeah, the same way a kangaroo and a sperm whale are technically remotely
> analogous.

Well, those are both in the tiny biological minority known as mammals.
Meanwhile, an airborne virus is indeed carried on a stream (of air)
that's most potent near the emitter, and which diffuses more rapidly if
there's an immediate baffle. Hmm, the analogy's getting better...