I just tried two phone numbers to reach a live person about Windows 10
Home Edition. Each phone number says that everything is now done
online, gives an URL and hangs up. Damn MS. When you go to the URL,
you're provided categories but nowhere does it say how you get to talk
with a person, even if chatting, about the questions you have if they
don't fit their categories of help. The link given by phone is
help.microsoft.com

"Yes" <noone@invalid.invalid.com> wrote

|I just tried two phone numbers to reach a live person about Windows 10
| Home Edition. Each phone number says that everything is now done
| online, gives an URL and hangs up. Damn MS. When you go to the URL,
| you're provided categories but nowhere does it say how you get to talk
| with a person, even if chatting, about the questions you have if they
| don't fit their categories of help. The link given by phone is
| help.microsoft.com

That's the beauty of high-tech. It eliminates humans. Software
as a Service is even better. It eliminates humans AND charges you
for that monthly. In the past if they wanted to avoid customer
service they had to hire people to talk in circles. Now they can
just use computers to talk in circles while forcing you to give them
a credit card number so they can debit your periodic rental fees.
Ironically, you also have tto sign up for a membership to their
"community", even though you'll never have human contact.

But you should also know that if you buy an
OEM computer, Microsoft is officially not responsible. You
have to call Dell's or HP's computer instead.

On 11/8/2021 4:11 PM, Yes wrote:
> I just tried two phone numbers to reach a live person about Windows 10
> Home Edition. Each phone number says that everything is now done
> online, gives an URL and hangs up. Damn MS. When you go to the URL,
> you're provided categories but nowhere does it say how you get to talk
> with a person, even if chatting, about the questions you have if they
> don't fit their categories of help. The link given by phone is
> help.microsoft.com
>
It is not only MS. One of the biggest hits in the Covid panic is
customer service. Stores and organizations that had decent customer
service, how wants you to go through a telephone or computer labyrinth
that most of the times returns you to the starting point with out your
question answered.

At some point they will relearn the value of good Customer service, I hope.

On 11/8/21 13:58, knuttle wrote:
> On 11/8/2021 4:11 PM, Yes wrote:
>> I just tried two phone numbers to reach a live person about Windows 10
>> Home Edition.  Each phone number says that everything is now done
>> online, gives an URL and hangs up.  Damn MS.  When you go to the URL,
>> you're provided categories but nowhere does it say how you get to talk
>> with a person, even if chatting, about the questions you have if they
>> don't fit their categories of help.  The link given by phone is
>> help.microsoft.com
>>
> It is not only MS.  One of the biggest hits in the Covid panic is
> customer service. Stores and organizations that had decent customer
> service, how wants you to go through a telephone or computer labyrinth
> that most of the times returns you to the starting point with out your
> question answered.
>
> At some point they will relearn the value of good Customer service, I hope.
I called a sales guy who called me after I downloaded a
demo of a piece of software a customer wanted me to
maintain for them. I explained to the salesman what
I was up to and he answered a couple of questions for
me. I thanked him and we hung up cordially.
I had a followup question, so I called him back. He
had put me in call block. That was a first!
Times are a changing.

In message <smc3q4$iao$1@dont-email.me>, Yes <noone@invalid.invalid.com>
writes
>I just tried two phone numbers to reach a live person about Windows 10
>Home Edition. Each phone number says that everything is now done
>online, gives an URL and hangs up. Damn MS. When you go to the URL,
>you're provided categories but nowhere does it say how you get to talk
>with a person, even if chatting, about the questions you have if they
>don't fit their categories of help. The link given by phone is
>help.microsoft.com

So what are you supposed to do if your problem is such that you aren't
/able/ to go online?
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

In message <smc8f6$3v5$1@news.mixmin.net>,
=?UTF-8?B?8J+YiSBHb29kIEd1eSDwn5iJ?= <Hello.World@example.onion> writes
>On 08/11/2021 21:11, Yes wrote:
> I just tried two phone numbers to reach a live person about Windows 10
> Home Edition. Each phone number says that everything is now done
> online, gives an URL and hangs up. Damn MS. When you go to the
> URL,
> you're provided categories but nowhere does it say how you get to talk
> with a person, even if chatting, about the questions you have if they
> don't fit their categories of help. The link given by phone is
> help.microsoft.com
>
>The reason is that there are so many nutters wasting time calling
>Microsoft when there is no need to do so. The people phoning Microsoft
>are mainly Pirates who wants their pirated key to be activated. Microsoft
>got fed up of them so now they have to use the phone line or Microsoft
>Forums for support.
>
>
>There is no need to phone Microsoft when you are using Windows 10 or
>Windows 11. The activation is automatic and it just works. Why would
>anybody wants to phone Microsoft when it is working alright?
>
>
>Where did you get the pirated key from? Did you try the online tool the
>pirates provide to activate Windows? You should really be phoning the
>people who sold you the dud key rather than phoning Microsoft.

The OP didn't say anything about his problem being to do with activation
or with his key. Why did you assume the worst of him/her?
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

"John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote

| So what are you supposed to do if your problem is such that you aren't
| /able/ to go online?

Same as with people who don't use cellphones and people
who smoke: They're ritually treated to public humiliation for
being uncooperative. That's happening, for example, with
COVID vaccines. If you're adept online you can search gov't
sites for available vaccines. If not, good luck. When you call
drugstore phone numbers you'll be lucky to get a person. If
you do they'll try to tell you to go online. I found that I couldn't
even schedule a booster shot in person. They told me I'd
need to call or go online! When I called the 800 number I was
scolded for not going online. I told them the website was
broken. They recommended that I try Chrome. Across the world
of the tech illiterate, the mysterious panacea called "Chrome"
is known to cure all maladies. :)

I'm increasingly finding that I have to act like a senile senior
in order to get people to stop acting like machines and deal
with human communication. To some extent I have fun with it,
but it can be annoying to face a tribunal of condescending,
20-year-old college girls who've been tasked with fitting
people like me, who don't scan QR codes, into a computerized
system. They're so young that they don't remember a time
when humans didn't serve machines. I imagine they're probably
wondering why these elderly square pegs are allowed to continue
infesting the Earth with non-mechanization.

On 11/9/21 8:16 AM, this is what Mayayana wrote:
> "John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote
>
>
> | So what are you supposed to do if your problem is such that you aren't
> | /able/ to go online?
>
> Same as with people who don't use cellphones and people
> who smoke: They're ritually treated to public humiliation for
> being uncooperative. That's happening, for example, with
> COVID vaccines. If you're adept online you can search gov't
> sites for available vaccines. If not, good luck. When you call
> drugstore phone numbers you'll be lucky to get a person. If
> you do they'll try to tell you to go online. I found that I couldn't
> even schedule a booster shot in person. They told me I'd
> need to call or go online! When I called the 800 number I was
> scolded for not going online. I told them the website was
> broken. They recommended that I try Chrome. Across the world
> of the tech illiterate, the mysterious panacea called "Chrome"
> is known to cure all maladies. :)
>
> I'm increasingly finding that I have to act like a senile senior
> in order to get people to stop acting like machines and deal
> with human communication. To some extent I have fun with it,
> but it can be annoying to face a tribunal of condescending,
> 20-year-old college girls who've been tasked with fitting
> people like me, who don't scan QR codes, into a computerized
> system. They're so young that they don't remember a time
> when humans didn't serve machines. I imagine they're probably
> wondering why these elderly square pegs are allowed to continue
> infesting the Earth with non-mechanization.
>
>
👍
I bought a cell phone as kind of a toy/joke. Had no idea how much I could use it for but wanted the toy to play with. If I had only known
then what I know now. HOW does society live without a cell phone? Like you, I constantly try to test support on the phone when they want
to text me a like or code, and I just say "I don't have one.". Really puts a monkey wench in the works. LOL

--
Linux Mint Cinnamon 20.2 64bit, Dell Inspiron 5570 laptop
Quad Core i7-8550U, 16G Memory, 512G SSD, 750G & 1TB HDDs

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 08:26:05, Big Al <Bears@invalid.com> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
>On 11/9/21 8:16 AM, this is what Mayayana wrote:
>> "John Hall" <john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote
>>
>> | So what are you supposed to do if your problem is such that you
>> |aren't
>> | /able/ to go online?
>> Same as with people who don't use cellphones and people
>> who smoke: They're ritually treated to public humiliation for

I hadn't thought of the smoking analogy. But it's unfair (OK, life is, I
know): smoking is definitely bad for me and those around me. Not using a
fobile moan isn't, AFAIK.

>> being uncooperative. That's happening, for example, with
>> COVID vaccines. If you're adept online you can search gov't

And other things to do with them - in the UK, you can order (lateral
flow) tests, or report their result, online - _if_ you have a fobile.
When you get to the screen where it asks you for the number, there _is_
a button to say you haven't got one - at which point it refuses to go
further, but tells you to dial 119. (If you do, you go through a menu
obviously not designed with you in mind, then a wait, then speak to an
individual who asks the same questions you've already answered,
including what is your mobile number - though s/he _is_ able to
continue, as they have a dummy number they can put in at that point.)

I finally gave in and told them my fobile number - though I still don't
know why they need it. When I now report my negative test result online,
a few seconds later, I get a text message telling me my test was
negative. Er, I know that: I just told _you_ that! (OK, it tells me
things like don't assume, be safe, etc., but then so did the website.)

>> sites for available vaccines. If not, good luck. When you call
>> drugstore phone numbers you'll be lucky to get a person. If
>> you do they'll try to tell you to go online. I found that I couldn't
>> even schedule a booster shot in person. They told me I'd
>> need to call or go online! When I called the 800 number I was
>> scolded for not going online. I told them the website was
>> broken. They recommended that I try Chrome. Across the world
>> of the tech illiterate, the mysterious panacea called "Chrome"
>> is known to cure all maladies. :)

It _does_ tend to work with most of the (badly-designed and bloated, of
course) websites that are the norm nowadays. [I think of it much like my
AV.] Not that that's any excuse for them writing (or rather creating -
they can't _write_ them, most of them) fragile websites, but we're *ing
into the wind if we think we can change that.

>> I'm increasingly finding that I have to act like a senile senior
>> in order to get people to stop acting like machines and deal
>> with human communication. To some extent I have fun with it,

Me too - partly as, like you, I like winding them up, but also because I
feel I'm campaigning on behalf of the - diminishing, but still
significant - proportion who _don't_ play with these toys all the time.
(I do the same on behalf of the blind; I'm just waiting for someone with
deep enough pockets to actually _use_ the Americans with Disabilities
legislation to make a high-profile case.)

>> but it can be annoying to face a tribunal of condescending,
>> 20-year-old college girls who've been tasked with fitting
>> people like me, who don't scan QR codes, into a computerized
>> system. They're so young that they don't remember a time
>> when humans didn't serve machines. I imagine they're probably

I like that way of putting it!

>> wondering why these elderly square pegs are allowed to continue
>> infesting the Earth with non-mechanization.
>>
Square pegs unite! (And stick up for the rights of the triangular ones
too!)
>0 >I bought a cell phone as kind of a toy/joke. Had no idea how much I
>could use it for but wanted the toy to play with. If I had only known

Me too. My first mobile (about 100 IIRR! Not a smart!) was to spend
Grandma's birthday gift on something specific. When that died, I _did_
get a smartphone, but resent the fact that I'm expected to replace it
(it's Android 4.3) frequently.

(As a small portable computer, it has its uses: I think the "app" [I
hate that word!] I use most is the wifi monitor, for which it's useful,
being so portable.)

>then what I know now. HOW does society live without a cell phone?

Increasingly, it doesn't. (One of my supermarkets - Lidl, which I gather
is growing in US too - has a discount "card" that's app-_only_.)

>Like you, I constantly try to test support on the phone when they want
>to text me a like or code, and I just say "I don't have one.". Really
>puts a monkey wench in the works. LOL
>
Indeed. (I have had such things sent me on my landline - something
synthesized reads them out to me - but I think fewer and fewer are using
that option. They often decline such an entry on the website [in UK, you
can recognise whether a number is fobile or not].)
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Actors are fairly modest...A lot of us have quite a lot to be modest about. -
Simon Greenall (voice of Aleksandr the "Simples!" Meerkat), RT 11-17 Dec 2010

On 11/9/2021 6:16 AM, Mayayana wrote:

> When you call drugstore phone numbers [about Covid Vaccine] you'll
> be lucky to get a person. If you do they'll try to tell you to go
> online. I found that I couldn't even schedule a booster shot in
> person. They told me I'd need to call or go online! When I called the
> 800 number I was scolded for not going online. I told them the
> website was broken.

Must be your area. All the pharmacies in my area are booster walk-ins,
no appointment necessary. I waited 2 weeks past when it became available
to avoid the crowds and I was the only one there at the time.

> They recommended that I try Chrome. Across the world of the tech
> illiterate, the mysterious panacea called "Chrome" is known to cure
> all maladies. :)

You don't use Chrome?? That explains it then... ;)

On 11/9/2021 11:21 AM, AJL wrote:

>
> You don't use Chrome?? That explains it then...  ;)

The powers that be, seem to allow Chrome and MSEdge,
and Firefox. And that's about it, when it comes to
hidden shaming.

A web page today, doesn't have to say "use one of the
three blessed browsers please". The web page instead,
simply spins a cursor, tells you a lie about
"no appointments are available", "you must have the
wrong web page", "you happen to be an idiot", but
they won't come out and say "please try one
of the approved browsers" as a hint.

I had that fun with the government vaccine web site.
Just a silent failure while using Seamonkey. If only
I had conformed to the "only clear choices". Next
I'll be swinging my cane at the kids and telling
them to get off my lawn.

Paul

"AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

| > When you call drugstore phone numbers [about Covid Vaccine] you'll
| > be lucky to get a person. If you do they'll try to tell you to go
| > online. I found that I couldn't even schedule a booster shot in
| > person. They told me I'd need to call or go online! When I called the
| > 800 number I was scolded for not going online. I told them the
| > website was broken.
| | Must be your area. All the pharmacies in my area are booster walk-ins,
| no appointment necessary. I waited 2 weeks past when it became available
| to avoid the crowds and I was the only one there at the time.

That was true here, too. They told me no appt needed.
But the next day when I went it had suddenly got busy.
I had to go online and was lucky to find a place with an
opening in 2 days. Without online I would haver been lost.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| >> Same as with people who don't use cellphones and people
| >> who smoke: They're ritually treated to public humiliation for
| | I hadn't thought of the smoking analogy. But it's unfair (OK, life is, I
| know): smoking is definitely bad for me and those around me. Not using a
| fobile moan isn't, AFAIK.

If people don't smoke near you then you're not suffering.
Making them pariahs is not justified. Harm from phones? They
don't seem so harmless to me when I see someone trying to
text on the highway. Or someone walking out into the street
in front of my car. I don't mind if they walk into trees and end
up in comas that my taxes are not paying for, but I'll be very
mad if I end up hitting one of them, with no chance to stop,
and then get sued by the family.

Even if they don't get run over, what kind of life is it? In
40 years the smoker has advanced emphysema. The phone
addict has missed their life. Both are limited by being attached
to a cumbersome device -- one is on an oxygen tank, the other
on a phone. Both have difficulty understanding when you speak
to them. The emphysema patient at least doesn't have to
read Facebook.

| >I bought a cell phone as kind of a toy/joke. Had no idea how much I
| >could use it for but wanted the toy to play with. If I had only known
| | Me too. My first mobile (about 100 IIRR! Not a smart!) was to spend
| Grandma's birthday gift on something specific. When that died, I _did_
| get a smartphone, but resent the fact that I'm expected to replace it
| (it's Android 4.3) frequently.
| I think a lot of older people have gone that route. I first
got a Tracfone because an older couple recommended it
for someone who only calls occasionally and wants to just
buy a few minutes. I like it. I only call occasionally. I turn
it on about once a month. But that elderly couple now call each
other constantly when one leaves the house. They had
to upgrade. :)

| >then what I know now. HOW does society live without a cell phone?
| | Increasingly, it doesn't. (One of my supermarkets - Lidl, which I gather
| is growing in US too - has a discount "card" that's app-_only_.)
| Whole Foods does that here. Bezos bought it and now
they try to get people to join Prime and ID themselves when
they shop. People are such fools. The specials for Prime members
are scams. Apples are $2.50/# this week. Next week it's
$2.99/#, $2.50 for Prime members. Yet nearly every time I
shop the person in front of me is a Prime member, happily
registering their phone and ID, telling Bozo what they bought.

When they ask me "are you Prime?" I sometimes explain that
I couldn't be because I'm holding a wad of cash, and Prime
members are afraid of cash. Sometimes that draws a smile.
Other times, only confusion. (WF has actually been toying with
making cash customers second class citizens, by having some
aisles credit-only and claiming it's becayuse of a coin shortage.)

But I have to admit that under
Bozo, while quality has gone down in some categories, the
prices have also gone down and Whole Foods is now cheaper
than the crap chains, with better products. They're much better
for produce. So I shop a combination of WF and a couple of
small natural foods stores that often carry better, small
company organic produce.

That's getting tricky. WF now tends to make deals with big
corporations. That can have hidden issues. For example, a
couple of years ago I was reading that grape growers in Calif
were using toxic fracking water for irrigation. That's not illegal
under the US organic law because when it was written no one
knew about fracking water. I checked at WF. Sure enough, the
two brands they were carrying were from industrial growers
using fracking water, potentially introducing heavy metals,
cadmium, etc.

On 11/9/2021 11:32 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> "AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote
>
> | > When you call drugstore phone numbers [about Covid Vaccine] you'll
> | > be lucky to get a person. If you do they'll try to tell you to go
> | > online. I found that I couldn't even schedule a booster shot in
> | > person. They told me I'd need to call or go online! When I called the
> | > 800 number I was scolded for not going online. I told them the
> | > website was broken.
> |
> | Must be your area. All the pharmacies in my area are booster walk-ins,
> | no appointment necessary. I waited 2 weeks past when it became available
> | to avoid the crowds and I was the only one there at the time.
>
> That was true here, too. They told me no appt needed.
> But the next day when I went it had suddenly got busy.
> I had to go online and was lucky to find a place with an
> opening in 2 days.

> Without online I would have been lost.

Maybe not if you'd have waited a few weeks like I did to avoid the
crowd. Then I just walked right in with no line, no appointment, and no
online needed...

On 11/9/21 05:16, Mayayana wrote:
> They're ritually treated to public humiliation for
> being uncooperative. That's happening, for example, with
> COVID vaccines.

Hi Mayayana,

Looking past propaganda narratives, here is some actual data
from the British government:

SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and
variants under investigation in
England

Technical briefing 23

17 September 2021

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018547/Technical_Briefing_23_21_09_16.pdf

Scroll down to page 20:

Table 5. Attendance to emergency care and deaths of sequenced and
genotyped Delta cases in England by vaccination status

(1 February 2021 to 12 September 2021)

Total deaths
mRNA Therapy (it is not a vaccine)
under 50 years of age: 48
over 50 years of age: 1565
Total: 1613

No jab:
under 50 years of age: 132
over 50 years of age: 590
Total: 722

Jab: 1613 deaths
no Jab: 722 deaths

Put aside all propaganda narrative and ask yourself,
"which is more dangerous", especially if you are old?

These is other data from Israel that is even more damning.

And speaking of social pressure, this is not the
first time such techniques have been used. From
one of the three major Marxist movements of the
last century, look up "Gleichschaltung": absolute
unequivocal conformity. One of the other major
Marxists movements called it "political correctness".

-T

On 11/9/2021 11:04 PM, T wrote:
> On 11/9/21 05:16, Mayayana wrote:
>> They're ritually treated to public humiliation for
>> being uncooperative. That's happening, for example, with
>> COVID vaccines.
>
> Hi Mayayana,
>
> Looking past propaganda narratives, here is some actual data
> from the British government:
>
> SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and
> variants under investigation in
> England
>
> Technical briefing 23
>
> 17 September 2021
>
>
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018547/Technical_Briefing_23_21_09_16.pdf
>
>
> Scroll down to page 20:
>
> Table 5. Attendance to emergency care and deaths of sequenced and
> genotyped Delta cases in England by vaccination status
>
> (1 February 2021 to 12 September 2021)
>
>
> Total deaths
> mRNA Therapy (it is not a vaccine)
>     under 50 years of age: 48
>     over 50 years of age:  1565
>     Total:                 1613
>
>
> No jab:
>     under 50 years of age: 132
>     over 50 years of age:  590
>     Total:                 722
>
>
> Jab:    1613 deaths
> no Jab:  722 deaths
>
> Put aside all propaganda narrative and ask yourself,
> "which is more dangerous", especially if you are old?
You are either reading bad statistics or reporting them improperly. (BTW
I'm not even sure whether you meant "jab" as shorthand for mRNA.) Lets
look at what your report might mean: say 1,000,000 people got mRNA and
1613 died. That comes out to a death rate of .1613% - not too bad. On
the other hand the population for no jab might be 10,000 giving a death
rate of 7.22%, a living fucking disaster. That's only one scenario to
demonstrate what you have reported is not appropriate and could very
well be misleading. Of course it might not be misleading but who can
tell without density information.
There are several possibilities leading to this lack of a proper reporting:
1. Web site did not give density information and you reported what they
did give => you shouldn't be reporting statistics that are this deeply
flawed and web site is either incompetent or malicious.
2. Web site did give density data and you elided that information => you
are either statistically naive in reporting or lying.
In either case you have participated in silly nonsense. I have no idea
what the actual data was, what was reported, or what we should learn
from it. But I can tell, absolutely, from your report here that you
should better understand a discipline. in this case statistics, before
reporting data. I suggest a statistics course (on line, night school
maybe) before pontificating any more.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you either picked a political site
trying to lie with numbers you liked or you "invented" a presentation
that tries to sell a lie. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but then I double
down on the claim that you need to take a beginning statistics course.
What you are doing might very well kill a few naive people if you have
mangled the information. What you reported may or may not lead to a
successful strategy but no one can tell from the report you have made.
Please either read better or report better (preferably both) in the future.
--
Jeff Barnett

Jeff Barnett wrote:

> T wrote:
>
>> Jab:    1613 deaths
>> no Jab:  722 deaths
>
> You are either reading bad statistics or reporting them improperly.

Basically he's ignoring the sizes of the fully/partly/non-vaccinated
populations, additionally he's ignoring 207 deaths from the partly vaccinated.

At the time of that report, adult population 58m, of which

74% were double vaccinated by 2 weeks or longer
8% were either single vaccinated, or double vaccinated by under 2 weeks
18% were unvaccinated

1613 deaths from 74%
207 deaths from 8%
772 deaths from 18%

1,613 / 43m = 0.000037
207 / 4.6m = 0.000045
722 / 10.4m = 0.000069

On 11/10/21 01:03, Andy Burns wrote:
> Jeff Barnett wrote:
>
>> T wrote:
>>
>>> Jab:    1613 deaths
>>> no Jab:  722 deaths
>>
>> You are either reading bad statistics or reporting them improperly.
>
> Basically he's ignoring the sizes of the fully/partly/non-vaccinated
> populations, additionally he's ignoring 207 deaths from the partly
> vaccinated.
>
> At the time of that report, adult population 58m, of which
>
> 74% were double vaccinated by 2 weeks or longer
> 8% were either single vaccinated, or double vaccinated by under 2 weeks
> 18% were unvaccinated
>
> 1613 deaths from 74%
> 207 deaths from 8%
> 772 deaths from 18%
>
> 1,613 / 43m = 0.000037
>  207 / 4.6m = 0.000045
> 722 / 10.4m = 0.000069
>
More people died that had the jab than did not. It
is right there at the end of table five.
Of course, if the jab being effective is an Axoim,
then no data will persuade you.

T wrote:

> More people died that had the jab than did not.

Yes, twice as many people died from a vaccinated population that was four times
as large as the unvaccinated population, half the death rate

> It is right there at the end of table five.

Agreed. FFS I thought you had *some* intelligence?

"AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

| > Without online I would have been lost.
| | Maybe not if you'd have waited a few weeks like I did to avoid the
| crowd. Then I just walked right in with no line, no appointment, and no
| online needed...
|

You're missing the point. What you suggest is possible.
But either way, finding out about available vaccines is only
realistically done online.

"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote

| >� It is right there at the end of table five.
| | Agreed. FFS I thought you had *some* intelligence?
|

I find it fascinating that people like T always demonstrate
a great deal of intelligence. It's just that that intelligence
is in the service of self deception. Nowhere does genius
manifest as clearly as in the inventive logics of self deception.

And what's the reason that "they" want to dupe us all into
taking a fake vaccine? Mind control? Yet those same paranoiacs
are hanging around on Facebook and being tracked by their
phones. They're looking for the Mark of the Beast in microchips
administered via vaccine, while they pay to carry around a
tracking device.

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Wed, 10 Nov 2021 08:46:54 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <smg0tu$efk$3@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

AfUywTT6wpjh

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> posted this via news:smgfi8$kqs$1@dont-
email.me:

> "AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote
>
>| > Without online I would have been lost.
>|
>| Maybe not if you'd have waited a few weeks like I did to avoid the
>| crowd. Then I just walked right in with no line, no appointment, and no
>| online needed...
>|
>
> You're missing the point. What you suggest is possible.
> But either way, finding out about available vaccines is only
> realistically done online.

I get ALL my information from the internets because that's really the only
source of information that says exactly what I want to hear. Without the
internets, people are unable to form their own conclusions - and that is
WHY God gave us the internets.

Hope this helps (to thin the herd, that is).

--

I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^;

And *NO*, that is *NOT* a Jedi Light Saber I have in my pocket!

But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm happy to see you either.

On 11/10/2021 5:55 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> "AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

>>> Without online I would have been lost.

>> Maybe not if you'd have waited a few weeks like I did to avoid the
>> crowd. Then I just walked right in with no line, no appointment,
>> and no online needed...

> You're missing the point.

You earlier posted:

"when I went it had suddenly got busy.
I had to go online and was lucky to find a place with an
opening in 2 days. Without online I would have been lost."

I read that to mean you couldn't have gotten a quick 2 day later jab
without going online for an opening (appointment). Otherwise you would
have been lost. Lost?? A bit dramatic there too don't you think? :)

> What you suggest is possible. But either way, finding out about
> available vaccines is only realistically done online.

All the majors in my town: Walmart, Target, Walgreens, CVS, Frys,
Safeway, etc, had them. So going online to find one was pretty much
unnecessary here.

In my case I grocery shop 2 days a week and just kept an eye on the
pharmacy line. After around 2 weeks there was no line.
And no online... ;)

On 11/10/21 05:02, Mayayana wrote:
> "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote
>
> | >� It is right there at the end of table five.
> |
> | Agreed. FFS I thought you had *some* intelligence?
> |
>
> I find it fascinating that people like T always demonstrate
> a great deal of intelligence. It's just that that intelligence
> is in the service of self deception. Nowhere does genius
> manifest as clearly as in the inventive logics of self deception.
>
> And what's the reason that "they" want to dupe us all into
> taking a fake vaccine? Mind control? Yet those same paranoiacs
> are hanging around on Facebook and being tracked by their
> phones. They're looking for the Mark of the Beast in microchips
> administered via vaccine, while they pay to carry around a
> tracking device.
>
>
What a bunch of bull shit. I am using science.
You using Gleichschaltung.
The mRNA therapy is showing "though record
keeping" that is does not work all that well
and those who took it are dying at a higher rate
than those without it.
But of course, don't let your "intelligence"
over rule your religious/political axioms.
Anyone that shows any disagreement with
your religious beliefs has to be mocked.
OH MY GOD YOU DID NOT CONFORM!
Oh did your religion tell you that every
prior attempt at a mRNA therapy had to
be pulled?
Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-00789-5
Not told this before taking the jab? Hmmm. It
violate your religious/political axioms? No
actual science necessary? Mocking is all that
is required?