Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>> it's about 15% of all deaths. That's not "fuck all".

>> Corse it is.

> I'll ring your employer

Not even possible to do that.

> and tell them to cut your pay by 15% then.

And they will tell you to go and fuck yourself.

> It'll make fuck all difference.

Pathetic.

>>>>>> And no matter how desperately you bullshit, an AR-15 works a hell
>>>>>> of a lot better than a glock in plenty of situations so your
>>>>>> original ismindless pig ignorant bullshit.

>>>>> You're just making things up.

>>>> Nope, there might just be a reason why the military used those instead
>>>> of glocks, fuckwit.

>>> The military don't use AR-15s.

>> Corse they did, fuckwit.

> Nope.

You are wrong, as always.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15#History

> A non-automatic machine gun

There you go again, flaunting your pig ignorance, yet again.

> is not much use in a battle.

There you go again, flaunting your pig ignorance, yet again.

And the military isnt just about battles, you pig ignorant clown.

>>>> And why hunters of large animals do too.

>>> Lol. No self-respecting hunter would use an *assault* rifle to hunt.

>> More of your mindless pig ignorant shit with the most dangerous animals.

>>> Maybe idiotic, clueless "trophy" hunters might.

>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

>> Pity about what can be useful if some stupid gang banger is invading
>> your house.

> Doesn't happen.

Is that right ? No one ever shows up a the house
of someone who owes them a drug debt eh ?

> They're too busy shooting each other in the streets.

There you go again, flaunting your pig ignorance, yet again.

You need to watch some of the realty TV docos like First 48 you pig
ignorant clown.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-22 7:02 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> American gun owners are the most frightened people in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NRAprey
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on people's fears. No citizen ever needs an AR-15. It's all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thats bullshit if someone shows up at your place with just a
>>>>>>>>>>>> glock
>>>>>>>>>>>> and you prefer to kill them before they get close enough to
>>>>>>>>>>>> kill you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You watch too many films.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't watch any at all. I look at the official stats.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> what official stats? There aren't any in the US.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cite?
>
>>>>>> Pathetic.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you can't provide a cite to what you claim to be the case?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah.
>>>>
>>>> You are even more pathetic. The FBI has plenty of official
>>>> stats on this sort of thing. I have seen it cited previously
>>>> and Chris is just as capable of finding again as I am.
>>>
>>> So you claim, and implicit (do you know what "implicit" means?) in that
>>> claim is that you've seen them and can therefore produce a source for
>>> them.
>
>> He can't because they don't exist. Not from the FBI anyway.
>
> Bullshit.

You're full of it.

>> He's confusing criminal deaths with police shootings.
>
> Nope, that original comment was clearly about those shooting intruders.

The FBI don't have those either.

>>>>>>> Given that US police forces don't track shots fired.
>>>>
>>>>>> But the investigation of situations where the cops have gunned down
>>>>>> someone do.
>>>>
>>>>> Cite?
>>>>
>>>> Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should have
>>>> noticed that when the cops do gun someone down, there
>>>> is almost always a formal investigation of that event.
>>>
>>> A "formal investigation" does not necessarily track every bullet that's
>>> fired to its end.
>
>> They are rarely made public as well.
>
> That's bullshit too with the most newsworthy events and lots
> of them get covered in reality TV series like First 48 etc too.

Oh god! Reality TV is your source of truth? Fuck me you're an idiot!

>>>>
>>>>> But cops aren't supposed to shoot unarmed people EVER.
>>>>
>>>> Thats wrong too, most obviously with those who claim to have
>>>> a bomb that they will activate if they don't get what they want
>>>> and with those who have a knife or some other weapon.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> Cops should should someone who has a knife or "some other weapon"...
>>>
>>> ...when they have tasers?
>>
>> Exactly. Good policing is about de-escalation and arrest where possible.
>
> But isn't possible when some nut case or drug crazed
> fool is coming at you with a knife or other weapon.

Funnily enough TV only shows you the extremes. The real reality is far less
entertaining.

>> Not be judge and executioner.
>
> There is no viable alternative if some nut case or drug
> crazed fool is coming at you with a knife or other weapon.

Everyone deserves not to be shot dead when they're in a crisis.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-22 7:02 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American gun owners are the most frightened people in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NRAprey on people's fears. No citizen ever needs an AR-15.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thats bullshit if someone shows up at your place with just a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> glock and you prefer to kill them before they get close
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You watch too many films.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Don't watch any at all. I look at the official stats.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> what official stats? There aren't any in the US.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cite?
>>
>>>>>>> Pathetic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you can't provide a cite to what you claim to be the case?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are even more pathetic. The FBI has plenty of official
>>>>> stats on this sort of thing. I have seen it cited previously
>>>>> and Chris is just as capable of finding again as I am.
>>>>
>>>> So you claim, and implicit (do you know what "implicit" means?)in
>>>> that claim is that you've seen them and can therefore producea
>>>> source for them.
>>
>>> He can't because they don't exist. Not from the FBI anyway.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
> You're full of it.

Any 3 year old could leave that for dead. Get one to
help you before posting again, if anyone is actually
stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.

>>> He's confusing criminal deaths with police shootings.

>> Nope, that original comment was clearly about those shooting intruders.

> The FBI don't have those either.

You are wrong, as always.

>>>>>>>> Given that US police forces don't track shots fired.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the investigation of situations where the cops have gunned down
>>>>>>> someone do.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>
>>>>> Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should have
>>>>> noticed that when the cops do gun someone down, there
>>>>> is almost always a formal investigation of that event.
>>>>
>>>> A "formal investigation" does not necessarily track every bullet
>>>> that's fired to its end.
>>
>>> They are rarely made public as well.
>>
>> That's bullshit too with the most newsworthy events and lots
>> of them get covered in reality TV series like First 48 etc too.

> Oh god! Reality TV is your source of truth?

Nope, just some of the details like that, fuckwit.

>>>>>> But cops aren't supposed to shoot unarmed people EVER.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thats wrong too, most obviously with those who claim to have
>>>>> a bomb that they will activate if they don't get what they want
>>>>> and with those who have a knife or some other weapon.
>>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> Cops should should someone who has a knife or "some other weapon"...
>>>>
>>>> ...when they have tasers?
>>>
>>> Exactly. Good policing is about de-escalation and arrest where
>>> possible.
>>
>> But isn't possible when some nut case or drug crazed
>> fool is coming at you with a knife or other weapon.
>
> Funnily enough TV only shows you the extremes.

More utterly mindless bullshit, your trademark.

> The real reality is far less entertaining.

Plenty nut cases or drug crazed fools come
at a cop with a knife or other weapon.

>>> Not be judge and executioner.

>> There is no viable alternative if some nut case or drug
>> crazed fool is coming at you with a knife or other weapon.

> Everyone deserves not to be shot dead when they're in a crisis.

Pity we are fresh out of magic wands to wave in the situation, fuckwit.

On 23/02/2022 18:31, Rod Speed wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> it's about 15% of all deaths. That's not "fuck all".
>
>>> Corse it is.
>
>> I'll ring your employer
>
> Not even possible to do that.
>
>> and tell them to cut your pay by 15% then.
>
> And they will tell you to go and fuck yourself.
>
>> It'll make fuck all difference.
>
> Pathetic.

Welcome to your argument.

>>>>>>> And no matter how desperately you bullshit, an AR-15 works a hell
>>>>>>> of a lot better than a glock in plenty of situations so your
>>>>>>> original ismindless  pig ignorant bullshit.
>
>>>>>> You're just making things up.
>
>>>>> Nope, there might just be a reason why the military used those instead
>>>>> of glocks, fuckwit.
>
>>>> The military don't use AR-15s.
>
>>> Corse they did, fuckwit.
>
>> Nope.
>
> You are wrong, as always.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15#History

That article agrees with me.

>> A non-automatic machine gun
>
> There you go again, flaunting your pig ignorance, yet again.
>
>> is not much use in a battle.
>
> There you go again, flaunting your pig ignorance, yet again.
>
> And the military isnt just about battles, you pig ignorant clown.
>
>>>>> And why hunters of large animals do too.
>
>>>> Lol. No self-respecting hunter would use an *assault* rifle to hunt.
>
>>> More of your mindless pig ignorant shit with the most dangerous animals.
>
>>>> Maybe idiotic, clueless "trophy" hunters might.
>
>>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>>> Pity about what can be useful if some stupid gang banger is invading
>>> your house.
>
>> Doesn't happen.
>
> Is that right ?  No one ever shows up a the house
> of someone who owes them a drug debt eh ?

It makes fuck all difference as it's a irrelevant to most crimes.
Certainly <15% ;)

>> They're too busy shooting each other in the streets.
>
> There you go again, flaunting your pig ignorance, yet again.
>
> You need to watch some of the realty TV docos like First 48 you pig
> ignorant clown.

I don't. I really don't.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>> it's about 15% of all deaths. That's not "fuck all".

>>>> Corse it is.

>>> I'll ring your employer

>> Not even possible to do that.
>
>>> and tell them to cut your pay by 15% then.

>> And they will tell you to go and fuck yourself.

>>> It'll make fuck all difference.

>> Pathetic.

> Welcome to your argument.

You are pathetic.

>>>>>>>> And no matter how desperately you bullshit, an AR-15 works a hell
>>>>>>>> of a lot better than a glock in plenty of situations so your
>>>>>>>> original ismindless pig ignorant bullshit.
>>
>>>>>>> You're just making things up.
>>
>>>>>> Nope, there might just be a reason why the military used those
>>>>>> instead of glocks, fuckwit.
>>
>>>>> The military don't use AR-15s.
>>
>>>> Corse they did, fuckwit.
>>
>>> Nope.

>> You are wrong, as always.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15#History

> That article agrees with me.

Bullshit it does with Vietnam.

>>> A non-automatic machine gun

>> There you go again, flaunting your pig ignorance, yet again.

>>> is not much use in a battle.

>> There you go again, flaunting your pig ignorance, yet again.

>> And the military isn't just about battles, you pig ignorant clown.

>>>>>> And why hunters of large animals do too.

>>>>> Lol. No self-respecting hunter would use an *assault* rifle to hunt.

>>>> More of your mindless pig ignorant shit with the most dangerous
>>>> animals.

>>>>> Maybe idiotic, clueless "trophy" hunters might.

>>>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

>>>> Pity about what can be useful if some stupid gang banger is invading
>>>> your house.

>>> Doesn't happen.

>> Is that right ? No one ever shows up a the house
>> of someone who owes them a drug debt eh ?

> It makes fuck all difference as it's a irrelevant to most crimes.

We arent talking about most crimes. We are discussing what can be
useful if someone shows up at your place with a handgun, fuckwit.

>>> They're too busy shooting each other in the streets.

>> There you go again, flaunting your pig ignorance, yet again.

>> You need to watch some of the realty TVdocos like First 48 you pig
>> ignorant clown.

> I don't. I really don't.

You do because then even you wouldn't be so pig ignorant.

In message <sv5nv1$1qr6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> What I care about is ignorant people like you and Steve trying to _force_ a
> potent new drug into people's bodies when those people might not want it.

Here's an example of the problem. Unless and until you accept the reality
that what we are discussing is /not/ a drug, you can't take part in any
sensible discussion.

To claim that it's a drug is factually untrue. It's not something that
you can be mistaken about, so what you are doing is trying to propagate
a lie. Not a mere mistake; a lie.

David

On 2022-02-24 11:34 a.m., David Higton wrote:
> In message <sv5nv1$1qr6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> What I care about is ignorant people like you and Steve trying to _force_ a
>> potent new drug into people's bodies when those people might not want it.
>
> Here's an example of the problem. Unless and until you accept the reality
> that what we are discussing is /not/ a drug, you can't take part in any
> sensible discussion.
>
> To claim that it's a drug is factually untrue. It's not something that
> you can be mistaken about, so what you are doing is trying to propagate
> a lie. Not a mere mistake; a lie.
>
> David

+1

On 2/24/2022 11:34 AM, David Higton wrote:
> In message <sv5nv1$1qr6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> What I care about is ignorant people like you and Steve trying to _force_ a
>> potent new drug into people's bodies when those people might not want it.
>
> Here's an example of the problem. Unless and until you accept the reality
> that what we are discussing is /not/ a drug, you can't take part in any
> sensible discussion.
>
> To claim that it's a drug is factually untrue. It's not something that
> you can be mistaken about, so what you are doing is trying to propagate
> a lie. Not a mere mistake; a lie.

One of his lies is that it's a drug. But that's minor and he is
certainly not alone in not understanding the difference between a
vaccine and a drug (he also didn't understand the difference between
bacterial infections and viral infections).

The other lie is that anyone is trying to force someone to get vaccinated.

No state or municipality in the United States has mandated that anyone
get vaccinated, it's purely voluntary. There are certainly inducements
to get, such as the ability to enter certain buildings, the ability to
work at certain companies and in certain government jobs, the ability to
travel to certain places and on certain types of transport. Of course
the biggest inducement is to prevent contracting a serious case of Covid!

I just saw that Google is lifting their vaccination requirement and will
instead allow unvaccinated employees to substitute testing and masking
(unless local regulations require masks) “unvaccinated employees who are
approved to enter offices will still need to follow additional
protocols, including testing and wearing a mask.”

The key thing is that despite his lies, Andy/Arlen/Harry is being
educated by those of us that understand epidemiology, statistics, and
science. Soon he will admit his mistakes and move on.

In article <sv8no3$3q9$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> The key thing is that despite his lies, Andy/Arlen/Harry is being
> educated by those of us that understand epidemiology, statistics, and
> science.

no he isn't.

> Soon he will admit his mistakes and move on.

hah, no he very definitely won't

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> And yet you can't name even a single lie that you fabricated existing.
>>
>> That's another lie.
>>
>> You stated that your CDC "fact" could be found with CTRL+F. It couldn't
>> because it wasn't there. Even your corrected - by me - factoid still
>> cannot be found with CTRL+F. That's one example of many.
>
> Chris,

<yawn>

David Higton wrote:

> Here's an example of the problem. Unless and until you accept the reality
> that what we are discussing is /not/ a drug, you can't take part in any
> sensible discussion.

Notice you are making claims again, sans even a _single_ factual cite.
a. I provided the definition of a drug, which this shot meets completely.
b. I provided the vaccine definition, which is missing how the shot works.

As an _adult_ should, I made my claim, and I backed it up with the facts.
As a kindergarten child, you didn't.

Where is _your_ definition of a drug vs a vaccine and your explanation?
Not bullshit. But facts.

And don't give us a cite to a politician or to Fox News again.
We know that's all you read.

> To claim that it's a drug is factually untrue. It's not something that
> you can be mistaken about, so what you are doing is trying to propagate
> a lie. Not a mere mistake; a lie.

You being ignorant is me saying a lie.
It just means you lack the massive education that I happen to have earned.

Where is _your_ definition of a drug vs a vaccine and your explanation?
HINT: You fabricated everything since your belief is based on zero facts.

sms wrote:

> One of his lies is that it's a drug.

The FDC, who approved the shot, defines what a drug is, Steve. Not me.
<https://www.fda.gov/industry/regulated-products/human-drugs>

Specifically, in pure legalese:
<https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title21-section321&num=0&edition=prelim>

To wit:
"(1) The term "drug" means (A) articles recognized in the official United
States Pharmacopoeia,1 official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United
States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;
and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and
(C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any
function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended
for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B),
or (C). A food or dietary supplement for which a claim, subject to
sections 343(r)(1)(B) and 343(r)(3) of this title or sections
343(r)(1)(B) and 343(r)(5)(D) of this title, is made in accordance
with the requirements of section 343(r) of this title is not a drug
solely because the label or the labeling contains such a claim.
A food, dietary ingredient, or dietary supplement for which a truthful
and not misleading statement is made in accordance with section
343(r)(6) of this title is not a drug under clause (C) solely because
the label or the labeling contains such a statement."

OK. That's a legal bite to swallow, but the government simplifies it here:
<https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/drug>
"Any substance (other than food) that is used to prevent, diagnose,
treat, or relieve symptoms of a disease or abnormal condition."

Given we already proved the CDC definition of a vaccine _omits_ how this new
drug works (which is the most important aspect about it, no less!), the
definition of a drug fits at least whereas a vaccine does not fit at all.

Intelligent people (i.e., not Steve or Chris) will comprehend that argument.
Steve, like the iKooks, simply denies all the facts sans even a single cite.

Where's Steve's cite for what he thinks a "vaccine" is, for example?
HINT: He won't provide it because he can't find any that fit what it is.

> But that's minor and he is
> certainly not alone in not understanding the difference between a
> vaccine and a drug (he also didn't understand the difference between
> bacterial infections and viral infections).

Stop claiming ridiculous things, Steve, because _you_ don't have any
background whatsoever in the {virology,immunology,genetics} sciences.

Your _entire_ argument is based on strawmen that you build out of nothing.
It's no different than when nospam fabricates iOS functionality out of
nothing.

Stop it.
It just proves my point your brain is that of a small child, Steve.
Stop it.
> The other lie is that anyone is trying to force someone to get vaccinated.

Taking you livelihood away is force, Steve.
> The key thing is that despite his lies, Andy/Arlen/Harry is being
> educated by those of us that understand epidemiology, statistics, and
> science. Soon he will admit his mistakes and move on.

Jesus Christ.
Does anyone else see from that... Steve lives in a fantasy world?

Steve is so ignorant about Covid that he doesn't even realize his ignorance.
That's classic Dunning Kruger first quartile behavior on self assessment.
--
The very adult point is the most ignorant are the ones using force.

nospam wrote:

> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The key thing is that despite his lies, Andy/Arlen/Harry is being
>> educated by those of us that understand epidemiology, statistics, and
>> science.
>
> no he isn't.

Hehhehheh... I have to smile at Steve's childish remarks as shown above.

Steve doesn't even realize he's first quartile dunning kruger on self
assessment of his ability to "teach" {virology,genetics,immunology}.

Interestingly, I just noticed I'm an "honest" Democrat, certainly moreso
than is Steve, since I at least _believe_ in the Democrat's oft-stated main
slogan of "My Body... My Choice" as being one of their principles in fact.

Steve, on the other hand, uses his own slogan always in pure deceit.
My Body My Choice when Steve wants it to be applied
My Body No Choice when Steve wants it to not be applied

As nospam stated, the only thing Steve "proved" is that he's ignorant.
(Which is OK. Most people are ignorant.)

The other thing Steve "proved" is when his emotional fear-based arguments
don't work on intelligent well-educated people like I am, then Steve resorts
to force.

It's why Gavin Newsom said he had no patience for intellectuals who don't
believe him when he claims all the PG&E fires were caused by climate change.

Every time a politician like Steve claims he "proved it", I have to wonder:
a. Does Steve really _believe_ what he just claimed?
b. Or is he simply making up facts that he never claimed existed?

What Steve doesn't understand, and what he never will comprehend...
*Is that Steve is a wacko to the left just as Fox is wacko to the right*
There's no difference between them other than their wacko stances are polar.

Every single claim from Steve was just wacko.
Devoid of facts.
All politics.

>> Soon he will admit his mistakes and move on.
>
> hah, no he very definitely won't

What remains is the _adult_ conversation, whether Steve comprehends it or
not, of why are the most ignorant people the ones who want to most force
others to have a novel new drug injected into their bodies - a novel new
drug which those people clearly don't trust (and they shouldn't trust it).

I, for one, _understand_ why the wackos like Steve are scared of covid.
And yet I also _understand_ why people are fearful of this new drug.

Most importantly, I understand Covid.
So I made a decision to get the drug injected into me.
But my decision wasn't based on Steve's emotional fears.

And, more to the point, my decision wasn't based on Steve forcing it into me
because I believe every person has the right to say what Steve lied about:
*My Body* *My Choice*

1. Those most ignorant about covid are those most emotionally scared
2. Their entire belief system, as Steve showed, is politics & clickbait
3. Steve incessantly claimed that Trump is the cause of logical people

I don't care that Steve is ignorant.
Most people are ignorant.

What I worry about is people like Steve who can't get intelligent educated
people to believe his political fear-based "the sky is falling" arguments,
then wants to force you to do what he does because _he_ is scared.

Note this is a very adult concept that explains all of Steve's actions:
a. Steve is scared
b. Steve can't convince intelligent educated people to be like he is
c. So... Steve wants to then FORCE everyone to act just like he does.

As long as Steve isn't in politics, he deserves his emotional opinions.
But he would be a dangerous man indeed, if he were to be elected to office.
--
Heh heh... I just noticed I'm a "better" Democrat than Steve is since I at
least _believe_ in the Democrat's main slogan of "My Body... My Choice".

On 2/24/2022 11:57 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <sv8no3$3q9$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The key thing is that despite his lies, Andy/Arlen/Harry is being
>> educated by those of us that understand epidemiology, statistics, and
>> science.
>
> no he isn't.
>
>> Soon he will admit his mistakes and move on.
>
> hah, no he very definitely won't

In Norway we are doing better than the United States in vaccination
percentages.

We don't have so many incredibly stupid people as Andy Burnelli that
don't understand the scientific method.

We don't have dumb truckers driving around the country with flags acting
like idiots like in Canada and the United States (we thought Canada was
smarter than that!).

Our death rate in Norway is about 0.03% of the population. The U.S. is
about 0.29% of the population.

We ended most Covid restrictions a few weeks ago though it may have been
a little soon to do so since we had a spike in infections shortly afterward.

When did the United States begin to have so much uneducated people like
Andy Burnelli? Can't the government help to educate people like him?

On Feb 22, 2022, sms wrote
(in article<news:sv3ktf$shc$1@dont-email.me>):

> No public officials has advocated for forced Covid-19 vaccinations. It
> is true that those that voluntarily choose to not get vaccinated often
> must face consequences for their refusal, in order to protect public health.

How are the most common of those "consequences" you speak of not force?

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On 2/25/2022 5:20 PM, KenW wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 17:12:24 -0800, Gustav Omdahl
> <Gustav.Omdahl@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/24/2022 11:57 AM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <sv8no3$3q9$1@dont-email.me>, sms
>>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The key thing is that despite his lies, Andy/Arlen/Harry is being
>>>> educated by those of us that understand epidemiology, statistics, and
>>>> science.
>>>
>>> no he isn't.
>>>
>>>> Soon he will admit his mistakes and move on.
>>>
>>> hah, no he very definitely won't
>>
>> In Norway we are doing better than the United States in vaccination
>> percentages.
>>
>> We don't have so many incredibly stupid people as Andy Burnelli that
>> don't understand the scientific method.
>>
>> We don't have dumb truckers driving around the country with flags acting
>> like idiots like in Canada and the United States (we thought Canada was
>> smarter than that!).
>>
>> Our death rate in Norway is about 0.03% of the population. The U.S. is
>> about 0.29% of the population.
>>
>> We ended most Covid restrictions a few weeks ago though it may have been
>> a little soon to do so since we had a spike in infections shortly afterward.
>>
>> When did the United States begin to have so much uneducated people like
>> Andy Burnelli? Can't the government help to educate people like him?
>
> The US has about 350 million. Big difference in population.

Yes, that's why I cited percentages of the population, not absolute numbers.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:17:41 +1100, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

> On Feb 22, 2022, sms wrote
> (in article<news:sv3ktf$shc$1@dont-email.me>):
>
>> No public officials has advocated for forced Covid-19 vaccinations. It
>> is true that those that voluntarily choose to not get vaccinated often
>> must face consequences for their refusal, in order to protect public
>> health.
>
> How are the most common of those "consequences" you speak of not force?

You are free to not visit those places.

On Feb 25, 2022, Jacob Jones wrote
(in article<news:op.1h6brcd1dsjozi@pvr2.lan>):

>>> No public officials has advocated for forced Covid-19 vaccinations. It
>>> is true that those that voluntarily choose to not get vaccinated often
>>> must face consequences for their refusal, in order to protect public
>>> health.
>>
>> How are the most common of those "consequences" you speak of not force?
>
> You are free to not visit those places.

If you are free to no longer visit your place of work, then that is force.
I'm not going to continue to argue with you about what is Captain Obvious.

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

On 2/25/2022 5:17 PM, RonTheGuy wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2022, sms wrote
> (in article<news:sv3ktf$shc$1@dont-email.me>):
>
>> No public officials has advocated for forced Covid-19 vaccinations. It
>> is true that those that voluntarily choose to not get vaccinated often
>> must face consequences for their refusal, in order to protect public health.
>
> How are the most common of those "consequences" you speak of not force?

Because each person can choose whether or not to be subject to those
consequences.

If you don't want to wear a mask then you can't enter many public and
private buildings--it's your choice.

If you don't want to get vaccinated, and your company requires
vaccinations to work there, you can find a different job--it's your choice.

If you don't want to get vaccinated you might not be able to travel to
the places you desire if the place you're going, or the conveyance
you're using, requires vaccinations--it's your choice.

"Freedom of choice" doesn't give someone the right to negatively impact
the lives of other people that make different, more intelligent, choices.

On 2/25/2022 5:32 PM, RonTheGuy wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2022, Jacob Jones wrote
> (in article<news:op.1h6brcd1dsjozi@pvr2.lan>):
>
>>>> No public officials has advocated for forced Covid-19 vaccinations. It
>>>> is true that those that voluntarily choose to not get vaccinated often
>>>> must face consequences for their refusal, in order to protect public
>>>> health.
>>>
>>> How are the most common of those "consequences" you speak of not force?
>>
>> You are free to not visit those places.
>
> If you are free to no longer visit your place of work, then that is force.

It's your choice. There are plenty of jobs where vaccinations are not a
condition of employment. Employers have an obligation to provide a safe
workplace and part of that obligation means preventing those that make
bad choices about protecting public health, from infecting the general
population.

> I'm not going to continue to argue with you about what is Captain Obvious.

Whatever. You lost the debate so it's a good decision to stop arguing.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:32:54 +1100, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:

> On Feb 25, 2022, Jacob Jones wrote
> (in article<news:op.1h6brcd1dsjozi@pvr2.lan>):
>
>>>> No public officials has advocated for forced Covid-19 vaccinations. It
>>>> is true that those that voluntarily choose to not get vaccinated often
>>>> must face consequences for their refusal, in order to protect public
>>>> health.
>>>
>>> How are the most common of those "consequences" you speak of not force?
>>
>> You are free to not visit those places.
>
> If you are free to no longer visit your place of work, then that is
> force.

You are free to work somewhere else.

> I'm not going to continue to argue with you about what is Captain
> Obvious.

No one cares what you comment on.

On Feb 26, 2022, sms wrote
(in article<news:svc045$1tnq$1@gioia.aioe.org>):

> Because each person can choose whether or not to be subject to those
> consequences.

If you put your gun to someone's head and demand their wallet - to you -
that's your choice and it's all fair as it's their choice to comply.

You deny their civil rights at the end of a gun & called it their choice.
With Covid almost gone, maybe you'll put your gun back into your pocket
and leave the people alone to live without fear of your forced actions.

Ron, the humblest guy in town.

RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2022, sms wrote
> (in article<news:sv3ktf$shc$1@dont-email.me>):
>
>> No public officials has advocated for forced Covid-19 vaccinations. It
>> is true that those that voluntarily choose to not get vaccinated often
>> must face consequences for their refusal, in order to protect public health.
>
> How are the most common of those "consequences" you speak of not force?

The same way a parking ticket is not force.

RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2022, Jacob Jones wrote
> (in article<news:op.1h6brcd1dsjozi@pvr2.lan>):
>
>>>> No public officials has advocated for forced Covid-19 vaccinations. It
>>>> is true that those that voluntarily choose to not get vaccinated often
>>>> must face consequences for their refusal, in order to protect public
>>>> health.
>>>
>>> How are the most common of those "consequences" you speak of not force?
>>
>> You are free to not visit those places.
>
> If you are free to no longer visit your place of work, then that is force.

If you break *any* company rules the consequences are the same. There's no
tyranny or force involved.

> I'm not going to continue to argue with you about what is Captain Obvious.

Well why get involved if you're not prepared to understand a different
point of view.?

> Ron, the humblest guy in town.
>
>

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> One of his lies is that it's a drug.
>
> The FDC, who approved the shot, defines what a drug is, Steve. Not me.
> <https://www.fda.gov/industry/regulated-products/human-drugs>
>
> Specifically, in pure legalese:
> <https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title21-section321&num=0&edition=prelim>
>
> To wit:
> "(1) The term "drug" means (A) articles recognized in the official United
> States Pharmacopoeia,1 official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United
> States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;
> and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
> treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and
> (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any
> function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended
> for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B),
> or (C). A food or dietary supplement for which a claim, subject to
> sections 343(r)(1)(B) and 343(r)(3) of this title or sections
> 343(r)(1)(B) and 343(r)(5)(D) of this title, is made in accordance
> with the requirements of section 343(r) of this title is not a drug
> solely because the label or the labeling contains such a claim.
> A food, dietary ingredient, or dietary supplement for which a truthful
> and not misleading statement is made in accordance with section
> 343(r)(6) of this title is not a drug under clause (C) solely because
> the label or the labeling contains such a statement."
>
> OK. That's a legal bite to swallow, but the government simplifies it here:
> <https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/drug>
> "Any substance (other than food) that is used to prevent, diagnose,
> treat, or relieve symptoms of a disease or abnormal condition."

Please underline the bit which says drugs initiate an immunological
response that lasts months to years.

> Given we already proved the CDC definition of a vaccine _omits_ how this new
> drug works

You've proved nothing.