On Sun, 5 Sep 2021 16:22:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>Tell me Jeff, exactly what merits do you think you have?

No comment. Exactly the same response I've received when I asked you
a rather harmless question: Did you read the article that you cited
as justification for not wearing a mask at Mike's Bikes?
<https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342>
I believe I asked that question 3 times.

>I will repeat this so that even you should be able to understand it - the normal yearly deaths are 2.8 million. An increase of 600,000 would be a 21% increase. So perhaps you'd like to show your meritorious case of the mortuary business losing 1.1% in profits in 2020? https://www.statista.com/statistics/883227/revenue-of-funeral-homes-in-the-us/

Paywall. Statista wants $39/year for me to read the article. My
guess(tm) is that you also didn't subscribe and therefore haven't read
the article that you cited above.

>Is it your position that this disease is so deadly that they could actually MEASURE the efficacy of masks simply by lying about infection rates and then showing that wearing of masks reduced infection rates that never existed to begin with?

Amazing. You assume that my sources are lying and then ask if that's
my position? No, it is not my position. Any other questions where
you also provide the answer for me?

>So it is I who am arguing against reality and not you.

Arguing against reality? That means that your don't believe in
reality, or at least reported reality. Could you rephrase that
statement into something that makes sense?

>This in my opinion is why you're a nobody and have never even gotten close to being successful.

True. I do not seek global acclaim. I do not seek acclaim in this
newsgroup. However, you seem to be doing so as well as harvesting
attention. Today (Sept 5, 2021) I count that you've posted 16 out of
49 messages or 33% of the total message count. I suspect you posted
even more yesterday. I suspect that you are trying to gain the
attention of this newsgroup. No problem. That's your right. However,
I'm wondering if a successful political agitator really needs to be so
prolific. Are you really successful?

[14 minutes wasted]

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

On Sun, 5 Sep 2021 15:07:00 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>Why do you find this "study" convincing when it is entirely self reported? While ACTUAL studies say otherwise? https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

That article was from May 2020. Couldn't you find something more
recent?

Under "Face Masks" your CDC article above declares:

"Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and
some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask
group."

In other words, 15 month ago, there was insufficient research, an
insufficiently large test population, no data to demonstrate that
Covid-19 acts like influenza, and little or no control over the way
the face masks were used. I also note that there were no control
groups in any of the 10 randomized studies. Please read the articles
before you claim they substantiate your pontifications.

>I am perfectly satisfied that you believe every single "My Helmet Saved My Life" story

Try really hard to stay on topic. What does my believing or not
believing that a helmet might reduce head injuries have anything to do
with why you don't believe in wearing a mask while shopping at Mike's
Bikes? (See the title at the beginning of the this thread which you
started). It's about "The stupidity of Mike's Bikes" for demanding
that you wear a mask in the store.

[17 minutes wasted]

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

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 9/5/2021 7:22 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> ... very few people died from covid-19 ...
>
> SMH
>
>

As a percentage of all of humanity, perhaps so, but for a new way to die
that didn’t exist until a couple of years back, it’s a fuck of a lot of
people.

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 6:39:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/5/2021 6:07 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > ... aerosols which are molecule size particles of virus that float in the
> air...
>
> No, Tom. Aerosols are over 1000 times larger than virus particles. The
> latter might be 5x10^-10 meters. Typical aerosols might be 2x10^-6
> meters. That's 4000 times bigger.
>
> You should be able to look this up. Google is your friend.

Google is your friend except you don't cite it. Is that because as usual you don't know what you're talking about? Large sized aerosols are associated with bacterial diseases such as measles or tuberculosis. Viral aerosols are the size of a virus and they are solitary and not clumped together. As I said, you would argue that I am wrong if I were trying to prevent your lynching. There is something dramatically wrong in your head and I suggest you see a shrink.

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:09:32 PM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Sep 2021 16:22:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Tell me Jeff, exactly what merits do you think you have?
> No comment. Exactly the same response I've received when I asked you
> a rather harmless question: Did you read the article that you cited
> as justification for not wearing a mask at Mike's Bikes?
> <https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342>
> I believe I asked that question 3 times.
> >I will repeat this so that even you should be able to understand it - the normal yearly deaths are 2.8 million. An increase of 600,000 would be a 21% increase. So perhaps you'd like to show your meritorious case of the mortuary business losing 1.1% in profits in 2020? https://www.statista.com/statistics/883227/revenue-of-funeral-homes-in-the-us/
> Paywall. Statista wants $39/year for me to read the article. My
> guess(tm) is that you also didn't subscribe and therefore haven't read
> the article that you cited above.
> >Is it your position that this disease is so deadly that they could actually MEASURE the efficacy of masks simply by lying about infection rates and then showing that wearing of masks reduced infection rates that never existed to begin with?
> Amazing. You assume that my sources are lying and then ask if that's
> my position? No, it is not my position. Any other questions where
> you also provide the answer for me?
> >So it is I who am arguing against reality and not you.
> Arguing against reality? That means that your don't believe in
> reality, or at least reported reality. Could you rephrase that
> statement into something that makes sense?
> >This in my opinion is why you're a nobody and have never even gotten close to being successful.
> True. I do not seek global acclaim. I do not seek acclaim in this
> newsgroup. However, you seem to be doing so as well as harvesting
> attention. Today (Sept 5, 2021) I count that you've posted 16 out of
> 49 messages or 33% of the total message count. I suspect you posted
> even more yesterday. I suspect that you are trying to gain the
> attention of this newsgroup. No problem. That's your right. However,
> I'm wondering if a successful political agitator really needs to be so
> prolific. Are you really successful?
>
> [14 minutes wasted]

The fact is that I actually read the article. You did not. All you read was that this article was retracted. It does not say on what grounds it was retracted and the very fact that they proved transmission through a mask shows that any retraction was due to things other than the actual study itself. But as usual without a passing knowledge of anything, you shoot your mouth off.

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 7:12:36 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:09:32 PM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 Sep 2021 16:22:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Tell me Jeff, exactly what merits do you think you have?
> > No comment. Exactly the same response I've received when I asked you
> > a rather harmless question: Did you read the article that you cited
> > as justification for not wearing a mask at Mike's Bikes?
> > <https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342>
> > I believe I asked that question 3 times.
> > >I will repeat this so that even you should be able to understand it - the normal yearly deaths are 2.8 million. An increase of 600,000 would be a 21% increase. So perhaps you'd like to show your meritorious case of the mortuary business losing 1.1% in profits in 2020? https://www.statista.com/statistics/883227/revenue-of-funeral-homes-in-the-us/
> > Paywall. Statista wants $39/year for me to read the article. My
> > guess(tm) is that you also didn't subscribe and therefore haven't read
> > the article that you cited above.
> > >Is it your position that this disease is so deadly that they could actually MEASURE the efficacy of masks simply by lying about infection rates and then showing that wearing of masks reduced infection rates that never existed to begin with?
> > Amazing. You assume that my sources are lying and then ask if that's
> > my position? No, it is not my position. Any other questions where
> > you also provide the answer for me?
> > >So it is I who am arguing against reality and not you.
> > Arguing against reality? That means that your don't believe in
> > reality, or at least reported reality. Could you rephrase that
> > statement into something that makes sense?
> > >This in my opinion is why you're a nobody and have never even gotten close to being successful.
> > True. I do not seek global acclaim. I do not seek acclaim in this
> > newsgroup. However, you seem to be doing so as well as harvesting
> > attention. Today (Sept 5, 2021) I count that you've posted 16 out of
> > 49 messages or 33% of the total message count. I suspect you posted
> > even more yesterday. I suspect that you are trying to gain the
> > attention of this newsgroup. No problem. That's your right. However,
> > I'm wondering if a successful political agitator really needs to be so
> > prolific. Are you really successful?
> >
> > [14 minutes wasted]
> The fact is that I actually read the article. You did not. All you read was that this article was retracted. It does not say on what grounds it was retracted and the very fact that they proved transmission through a mask shows that any retraction was due to things other than the actual study itself. But as usual without a passing knowledge of anything, you shoot your mouth off.

Jeff linked the retraction statement from the authors. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/L20-0745 Also read the comments to the original article and retraction statement. Then go to the recent research.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 7:20:54 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 7:12:36 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 8:09:32 PM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sun, 5 Sep 2021 16:22:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Tell me Jeff, exactly what merits do you think you have?
> > > No comment. Exactly the same response I've received when I asked you
> > > a rather harmless question: Did you read the article that you cited
> > > as justification for not wearing a mask at Mike's Bikes?
> > > <https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342>
> > > I believe I asked that question 3 times.
> > > >I will repeat this so that even you should be able to understand it - the normal yearly deaths are 2.8 million. An increase of 600,000 would be a 21% increase. So perhaps you'd like to show your meritorious case of the mortuary business losing 1.1% in profits in 2020? https://www.statista.com/statistics/883227/revenue-of-funeral-homes-in-the-us/
> > > Paywall. Statista wants $39/year for me to read the article. My
> > > guess(tm) is that you also didn't subscribe and therefore haven't read
> > > the article that you cited above.
> > > >Is it your position that this disease is so deadly that they could actually MEASURE the efficacy of masks simply by lying about infection rates and then showing that wearing of masks reduced infection rates that never existed to begin with?
> > > Amazing. You assume that my sources are lying and then ask if that's
> > > my position? No, it is not my position. Any other questions where
> > > you also provide the answer for me?
> > > >So it is I who am arguing against reality and not you.
> > > Arguing against reality? That means that your don't believe in
> > > reality, or at least reported reality. Could you rephrase that
> > > statement into something that makes sense?
> > > >This in my opinion is why you're a nobody and have never even gotten close to being successful.
> > > True. I do not seek global acclaim. I do not seek acclaim in this
> > > newsgroup. However, you seem to be doing so as well as harvesting
> > > attention. Today (Sept 5, 2021) I count that you've posted 16 out of
> > > 49 messages or 33% of the total message count. I suspect you posted
> > > even more yesterday. I suspect that you are trying to gain the
> > > attention of this newsgroup. No problem. That's your right. However,
> > > I'm wondering if a successful political agitator really needs to be so
> > > prolific. Are you really successful?
> > >
> > > [14 minutes wasted]
> > The fact is that I actually read the article. You did not. All you read was that this article was retracted. It does not say on what grounds it was retracted and the very fact that they proved transmission through a mask shows that any retraction was due to things other than the actual study itself. But as usual without a passing knowledge of anything, you shoot your mouth off.
> Jeff linked the retraction statement from the authors. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/L20-0745 Also read the comments to the original article and retraction statement. Then go to the recent research.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
Jay, go ahead and shiver in fear and shit your pants. Your death is upon you nonetheless.

On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 10:04:19 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 9/5/2021 7:22 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> ... very few people died from covid-19 ...
> >
> > SMH
> >
> >
> As a percentage of all of humanity, perhaps so, but for a new way to die
> that didn’t exist until a couple of years back, it’s a fuck of a lot of
> people.
Ralph, I think that this is your first rodeo. Pandemics occur every few years and depending on their targets, young or old, you are usually unaware of them. Most older people die from Pneumonia - this amounts to some 2 million people in the US every year. Or some 130 Million lives lost to it in the average lifetime. This is in the US alone and we have a longer lifespan on the whole so how many people would you think die each year from pneumonia alone? Pneumonia is the cause of most death in children under 5.

Any death is a loss to humanity, even those executed since they might have been another Einstein or Hawking in another reality. But man is born to die and the Democrats discovered a way to put your coming death into the forefront of your mind. Jesus was sent to this Earth to show you that man need not fear death. This is one of the reasons that socialism abhors religion. It removes one of the means of controlling a population.

If you look at the CDC statistical chart I showed Andrew in "https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm" and look at the red lines, you will see that only some 2,000 people were killed by covid-19 directly. And the last case was in the last week of April 2020. There was another 12,000 or so that died from the EFFECTS of covid-19 but not from it. This is because these were all people close to death with circulatory illnesses. This is the final stages of life, you get serious circulatory diseases, become less and less able to move about, finally become bedridden and develop pneumonia. People in this condition are ripe for covid-19 CAUSING pneumonia.

As I showed Andrew, there are no deaths being caused directly from covid-19.. Why does ever outlet of the Lame Stream Media continue to tell you that people are dying by the millions? Corona viruses are so common that most people (60% or so) have natural immunity. Another 20% or so are so nearly immune that if they catch the illness they are completely asymptomatic. All but a miniscule number of people suffer no worse than symptoms of a minor cold or the influenza which it is. That miniscule number of people that would DIE from any influenza pandemic are being used as a sword at your neck.

You ARE going to die and you have no control over that. Covid-19 is not going to be the cause of it. Masks will not in any way, shape or form, protect you any more than a foam helmet on your head would protect you from being killed by a car running you over at 40 mph.

Live your life and LAUGH at people that decry "anti-vaxxers". This people are insane and nothing is going to change that.

Why is it that the Democrats say the government can't tell a woman what to do with her body, even if it means murdering a viable child in utero, but that nobody else can decide whether they want to be forced to wear a mask, or be immunized? Clearly, it's all B.S. politics. Follow the science? But WHICH scientists should we follow? They all claim to be right. If you buy into a screwed-up value system like that merely because it makes you feel good, then you've got no moral or intellectual standing to criticize my decisions.

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 4:17:14 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> Why is it that the Democrats say the government can't tell a woman what to do with her body, even if it means murdering a viable child in utero, but that nobody else can decide whether they want to be forced to wear a mask, or be immunized? Clearly, it's all B.S. politics. Follow the science? But WHICH scientists should we follow? They all claim to be right. If you buy into a screwed-up value system like that merely because it makes you feel good, then you've got no moral or intellectual standing to criticize my decisions.
That is a very good argument for people that don't know the truth about what is going on. But like everything else, there isn't any way to argue to deniers that there isn't a pandemic now and hasn't been since May of 2020.

I just read a story off of Yahoo that is warning people about a new disease that they should be afraid for their lives from. No doubt that manager of Mike's Bikes will put it on his list of fears.

On 9/7/2021 11:17 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

> ... there isn't a pandemic now and hasn't been since May of 2020.

Wow.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 8:49:27 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 9/7/2021 11:17 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > ... there isn't a pandemic now and hasn't been since May of 2020.
>
> Wow.

Again and again no matter WHAT the statistics from the CDC say you are going to believe the Lame Stream Media over the actual data. This is precisely why no one wanted you as an engineer.

William Crowell <retroguybilly@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why is it that the Democrats say the government can't tell a woman what
> to do with her body, even if it means murdering a viable child in utero,
> but that nobody else can decide whether they want to be forced to wear a
> mask, or be immunized? Clearly, it's all B.S. politics. Follow the
> science? But WHICH scientists should we follow? They all claim to be
> right. If you buy into a screwed-up value system like that merely
> because it makes you feel good, then you've got no moral or intellectual
> standing to criticize my decisions.
>

Why is it that republicans think that they can tell a woman what to do with
her body even if she’s 13 year old victim of rape but find it an invasion
of personal rights to demand wearing a mask or being vaccinated in order to
prevent transmitting a deadly virus to everyone around them?

On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 4:17:09 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
> William Crowell <retrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why is it that the Democrats say the government can't tell a woman what
> > to do with her body, even if it means murdering a viable child in utero,
> > but that nobody else can decide whether they want to be forced to wear a
> > mask, or be immunized? Clearly, it's all B.S. politics. Follow the
> > science? But WHICH scientists should we follow? They all claim to be
> > right. If you buy into a screwed-up value system like that merely
> > because it makes you feel good, then you've got no moral or intellectual
> > standing to criticize my decisions.
> >
> Why is it that republicans think that they can tell a woman what to do with
> her body even if she’s 13 year old victim of rape but find it an invasion
> of personal rights to demand wearing a mask or being vaccinated in order to
> prevent transmitting a deadly virus to everyone around them?
So, allowing a woman to commit murder is telling her what to do with her body? In what world do you live in which babies may be legally murdered AFTER BIRTH if a woman doesn't want the baby? We have VIDEOS of the California baby abortion mill doing exactly that.

Right, Tom. I don't see why, if a woman has a constitutional right to kill her viable fetus, why doesn't she have a constitutional right to kill her children after they are born, if keeping them alive would arguably impact the way she can use her body?

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:09:11 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> Right, Tom. I don't see why, if a woman has a constitutional right to kill her viable fetus, why doesn't she have a constitutional right to kill her children after they are born, if keeping them alive would arguably impact the way she can use her body?
Yeah, it is pretty difficult to be a slut with a baby crying to be fed in the background.