On 6/3/2021 9:28 AM, bitrex wrote:
> On 5/31/2021 3:38 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:49:28 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From the source that broke the original story about the outbreak when
>>> it first appeared in China - and got de-listed for doing so:
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/387apav3
>>>
>>> Should we still be dealing with a state that develops bio-weapons?
>>
>> Some super-lefty editorialist recently said "Just because Trump said
>> something doesn't necessarily make it wrong."
>
> Trump said basically everything at one time or another. The spin-doctors
> of the future are going to have a field day quoting him out-of-context,
> you think what they do to Thomas Jefferson is bad. You could make him
> look like a full-bore communist just through selective editing of his
> tens of thousands of 255 character deep-thoughts-of-the-day.

One wonders what his presidential library will be like.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel>

A library that contains everything, contains nothing.

On 6/1/2021 7:38 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 07:52:20 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:49:28 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >From the source that broke the original story about the outbreak when
>>> it first appeared in China - and got de-listed for doing so:
>>>
>>> https://tinyurl.com/387apav3
>>>
>>> Should we still be dealing with a state that develops bio-weapons?
>>
>> This is remarkable, because it's in The Guardian.
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/01/wuhan-coronavirus-lab-leak-covid-virus-origins-china
>
>
> Even the WaPo's gone and retracted as well!
> https://tinyurl.com/36temx45
>
> "CCP apologist Bill Sloman was becoming increasingly isolated last
> night by persisting in clinging to his delusion that China had acted
> honorably throughout...." LOL! :-D
>

What motive is there to create and release new diseases for nefarious
ends when the poor and the ignorant make the regular destructive effects
of ones that already exist a near-certainty?

It's what the drug companies rely on to make a steady income, anyway, as
predictable as a New England hurricane showing up every decade or so to
batter the beachfront property of someone who said "Florida isn't safe"
into the sea.

The concept of "cui bono" is a pretty dubious one at best. The people
who "bono" always be bono, they don't have to work too hard at it thanks
to the former two types. And they don't hardly need to actively
collaborate, either.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:33:02 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

>On 6/3/2021 9:28 AM, bitrex wrote:
>> On 5/31/2021 3:38 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:49:28 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From the source that broke the original story about the outbreak when
>>>> it first appeared in China - and got de-listed for doing so:
>>>>
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/387apav3
>>>>
>>>> Should we still be dealing with a state that develops bio-weapons?
>>>
>>> Some super-lefty editorialist recently said "Just because Trump said
>>> something doesn't necessarily make it wrong."
>>
>> Trump said basically everything at one time or another. The spin-doctors
>> of the future are going to have a field day quoting him out-of-context,
>> you think what they do to Thomas Jefferson is bad. You could make him
>> look like a full-bore communist just through selective editing of his
>> tens of thousands of 255 character deep-thoughts-of-the-day.
>
>One wonders what his presidential library will be like.
>

Carved in stone above the entry portal would be

COMMON SENSE

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On 6/3/2021 10:04 AM, bitrex wrote:
> On 6/1/2021 7:38 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 07:52:20 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:49:28 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >From the source that broke the original story about the outbreak when
>>>> it first appeared in China - and got de-listed for doing so:
>>>>
>>>> https://tinyurl.com/387apav3
>>>>
>>>> Should we still be dealing with a state that develops bio-weapons?
>>>
>>> This is remarkable, because it's in The Guardian.
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/01/wuhan-coronavirus-lab-leak-covid-virus-origins-china
>>>
>>
>>
>> Even the WaPo's gone and retracted as well!
>> https://tinyurl.com/36temx45
>>
>> "CCP apologist Bill Sloman was becoming increasingly isolated last
>> night by persisting in clinging to his delusion that China had acted
>> honorably throughout...." LOL! :-D
>>
>
> What motive is there to create and release new diseases for nefarious
> ends when the poor and the ignorant make the regular destructive effects
> of ones that already exist a near-certainty?
>
> It's what the drug companies rely on to make a steady income, anyway, as
> predictable as a New England hurricane showing up every decade or so to
> batter the beachfront property of someone who said "Florida isn't safe"
> into the sea.

Speaking of which I'm keeping my eyes on the tracks this summer, I think
it's gonna be a hot one and New England has been dodging bullets for
coming up on about ten years, now.

On 6/3/2021 10:04 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:33:02 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/3/2021 9:28 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2021 3:38 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:49:28 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From the source that broke the original story about the outbreak when
>>>>> it first appeared in China - and got de-listed for doing so:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/387apav3
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we still be dealing with a state that develops bio-weapons?
>>>>
>>>> Some super-lefty editorialist recently said "Just because Trump said
>>>> something doesn't necessarily make it wrong."
>>>
>>> Trump said basically everything at one time or another. The spin-doctors
>>> of the future are going to have a field day quoting him out-of-context,
>>> you think what they do to Thomas Jefferson is bad. You could make him
>>> look like a full-bore communist just through selective editing of his
>>> tens of thousands of 255 character deep-thoughts-of-the-day.
>>
>> One wonders what his presidential library will be like.
>>
>
>
> Carved in stone above the entry portal would be
>
> COMMON SENSE
>

"Common sense" is wrong all the time, if it weren't it wouldn't be
common anymore. "Gut instinct" is unreliable and is wrong as often as
it's right. People go on "gut instinct" as to who they should date and
marry much more often than not and that's probably a large part of why
marriage has a long-term success rate not much better than flipping a
coin; randomly pairing single people from the phone book would likely be
equally as effective.

A nutter...

--
bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc3.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx46.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
> Subject: Re: OT: Coronavirus "Man Made" in Lab - the evidence mounts...
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> References: <7827bg137pfptq7denf3t5v9c4nahpgvoi@4ax.com> <9ieabg52973koiq73hl193jloqhodeitim@4ax.com> <tO4uI.17294$v01.10711@fx07.iad> <iS4uI.7882$Vh1.1959@fx21.iad> <5aohbglbafu2msu18umepcvpfos5ivb1kh@4ax.com>
> From: bitrex <user@example.net>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.2
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> In-Reply-To: <5aohbglbafu2msu18umepcvpfos5ivb1kh@4ax.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> Content-Language: en-US
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 41
> Message-ID: <5A5uI.486759$J_5.332062@fx46.iad>
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@frugalusenet.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 14:21:53 UTC
> Organization: frugalusenet - www.frugalusenet.com
> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:21:53 -0400
> X-Received-Bytes: 2745
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:633842
>
> On 6/3/2021 10:04 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:33:02 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/3/2021 9:28 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2021 3:38 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:49:28 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From the source that broke the original story about the outbreak when
>>>>>> it first appeared in China - and got de-listed for doing so:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/387apav3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we still be dealing with a state that develops bio-weapons?
>>>>>
>>>>> Some super-lefty editorialist recently said "Just because Trump said
>>>>> something doesn't necessarily make it wrong."
>>>>
>>>> Trump said basically everything at one time or another. The spin-doctors
>>>> of the future are going to have a field day quoting him out-of-context,
>>>> you think what they do to Thomas Jefferson is bad. You could make him
>>>> look like a full-bore communist just through selective editing of his
>>>> tens of thousands of 255 character deep-thoughts-of-the-day.
>>>
>>> One wonders what his presidential library will be like.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Carved in stone above the entry portal would be
>>
>> COMMON SENSE
>>
>
> "Common sense" is wrong all the time, if it weren't it wouldn't be
> common anymore. "Gut instinct" is unreliable and is wrong as often as
> it's right. People go on "gut instinct" as to who they should date and
> marry much more often than not and that's probably a large part of why
> marriage has a long-term success rate not much better than flipping a
> coin; randomly pairing single people from the phone book would likely be
> equally as effective.
>
>
>

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:21:53 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

>On 6/3/2021 10:04 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:33:02 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/3/2021 9:28 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2021 3:38 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:49:28 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From the source that broke the original story about the outbreak when
>>>>>> it first appeared in China - and got de-listed for doing so:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/387apav3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we still be dealing with a state that develops bio-weapons?
>>>>>
>>>>> Some super-lefty editorialist recently said "Just because Trump said
>>>>> something doesn't necessarily make it wrong."
>>>>
>>>> Trump said basically everything at one time or another. The spin-doctors
>>>> of the future are going to have a field day quoting him out-of-context,
>>>> you think what they do to Thomas Jefferson is bad. You could make him
>>>> look like a full-bore communist just through selective editing of his
>>>> tens of thousands of 255 character deep-thoughts-of-the-day.
>>>
>>> One wonders what his presidential library will be like.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Carved in stone above the entry portal would be
>>
>> COMMON SENSE
>>
>
>"Common sense" is wrong all the time, if it weren't it wouldn't be
>common anymore.

Absurd. Common sense keeps us alive: don't stick your hand in a
running lawn mower, don't run red lights on a motorcycle, don't shoot
drugs bought from strangers.

>"Gut instinct" is unreliable and is wrong as often as
>it's right.

Obviously yours is usually wrong, or you wouldn't say that. Mine is
most often right, qualitative and quantitative, which saves me doing a
lot of math or designing a lot of failures.

>People go on "gut instinct" as to who they should date and
>marry much more often than not and that's probably a large part of why
>marriage has a long-term success rate not much better than flipping a
>coin; randomly pairing single people from the phone book would likely be
>equally as effective.

Mating is all instinct. And randomly chosen people would,
statistically, not be attracted and cetainly wouldn't stay together
past one dinner. I'd rate your statement entirely wrong; it defies
observation and common sense. Grab a phone book and see what happens.

One problem with politics and with the soft sciences is that
individual common sense - thinking - is over-riddden by the power of
social concensus. You get an unstable group dynamics that tends to
drift into absurdity.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> Absurd. Common sense keeps us alive: don't stick your hand in a
> running lawn mower, don't run red lights on a motorcycle

Ooo, my motorcycle days, scary fast. On a beautiful new Suzuki 750 I got up
VERY CLOSE to a semi-tractor trailer to experience its slipstream. Sucked me
right in there. Laid them down a few times, never seriously hurt. Always wore
a helmet.

But be forewarned... Before you enjoy the benefit of the slipstream, you will
be buffeted around a bit. That part is unpleasant.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 14:47:27 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
<always.look@message.header> wrote:

>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>> Absurd. Common sense keeps us alive: don't stick your hand in a
>> running lawn mower, don't run red lights on a motorcycle
>
>Ooo, my motorcycle days, scary fast. On a beautiful new Suzuki 750 I got up
>VERY CLOSE to a semi-tractor trailer to experience its slipstream. Sucked me
>right in there. Laid them down a few times, never seriously hurt. Always wore
>a helmet.

My first wife t-boned a truck on her Kawasaki 500, a real killer
machine. Broke some bones and lost her spleen.

I wouldn't mind a dirt bike for plunking in the woods, but street
biking is way too dangerous these days. Maybe an electric bicycle
would be better for the woods. Quieter.

I've had 13 crashes on the street, never seriously hurt, but I don't
roll or bounce as well as I used to.

On 6/3/2021 10:38 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:21:53 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/3/2021 10:04 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:33:02 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/3/2021 9:28 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>>>> On 5/31/2021 3:38 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:49:28 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From the source that broke the original story about the outbreak when
>>>>>>> it first appeared in China - and got de-listed for doing so:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/387apav3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should we still be dealing with a state that develops bio-weapons?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some super-lefty editorialist recently said "Just because Trump said
>>>>>> something doesn't necessarily make it wrong."
>>>>>
>>>>> Trump said basically everything at one time or another. The spin-doctors
>>>>> of the future are going to have a field day quoting him out-of-context,
>>>>> you think what they do to Thomas Jefferson is bad. You could make him
>>>>> look like a full-bore communist just through selective editing of his
>>>>> tens of thousands of 255 character deep-thoughts-of-the-day.
>>>>
>>>> One wonders what his presidential library will be like.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Carved in stone above the entry portal would be
>>>
>>> COMMON SENSE
>>>
>>
>> "Common sense" is wrong all the time, if it weren't it wouldn't be
>> common anymore.
>
> Absurd. Common sense keeps us alive: don't stick your hand in a
> running lawn mower, don't run red lights on a motorcycle, don't shoot
> drugs bought from strangers.

That it's wrong all the time doesn't simultaneously imply it's _never_
correct.

>> "Gut instinct" is unreliable and is wrong as often as
>> it's right.
>
> Obviously yours is usually wrong, or you wouldn't say that. Mine is
> most often right

Naturally.

>> People go on "gut instinct" as to who they should date and
>> marry much more often than not and that's probably a large part of why
>> marriage has a long-term success rate not much better than flipping a
>> coin; randomly pairing single people from the phone book would likely be
>> equally as effective.
>
> Mating is all instinct. And randomly chosen people would,
> statistically, not be attracted and cetainly wouldn't stay together
> past one dinner.

That's the usual outcome of any date where two generally comely people
who on paper should be a "perfect match" for each other, also. Clearly
you haven't been in the dating game in a while.

"Instinct" and physical attraction is a terrible indicator of whether
two people can stand to listen to each other talk over dinner for any
length of time. They can't, more often than not. Or at least figure that
whatever "deal" this is, there's a better one out there.

> I'd rate your statement entirely wrong; it defies
> observation and common sense. Grab a phone book and see what happens.

I hope there's a stipend on offer.

> One problem with politics and with the soft sciences is that
> individual common sense - thinking - is over-riddden by the power of
> social concensus. You get an unstable group dynamics that tends to
> drift into absurdity.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:00:30 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

>On 6/3/2021 10:38 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:21:53 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/3/2021 10:04 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:33:02 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/3/2021 9:28 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/31/2021 3:38 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:49:28 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From the source that broke the original story about the outbreak when
>>>>>>>> it first appeared in China - and got de-listed for doing so:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/387apav3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Should we still be dealing with a state that develops bio-weapons?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some super-lefty editorialist recently said "Just because Trump said
>>>>>>> something doesn't necessarily make it wrong."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trump said basically everything at one time or another. The spin-doctors
>>>>>> of the future are going to have a field day quoting him out-of-context,
>>>>>> you think what they do to Thomas Jefferson is bad. You could make him
>>>>>> look like a full-bore communist just through selective editing of his
>>>>>> tens of thousands of 255 character deep-thoughts-of-the-day.
>>>>>
>>>>> One wonders what his presidential library will be like.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Carved in stone above the entry portal would be
>>>>
>>>> COMMON SENSE
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Common sense" is wrong all the time, if it weren't it wouldn't be
>>> common anymore.
>>
>> Absurd. Common sense keeps us alive: don't stick your hand in a
>> running lawn mower, don't run red lights on a motorcycle, don't shoot
>> drugs bought from strangers.
>
>That it's wrong all the time doesn't simultaneously imply it's _never_
>correct.

Now that makes no sense. None.

>
>>> "Gut instinct" is unreliable and is wrong as often as
>>> it's right.
>>
>> Obviously yours is usually wrong, or you wouldn't say that. Mine is
>> most often right
>
>Naturally.

No, it takes practise.

>
>>> People go on "gut instinct" as to who they should date and
>>> marry much more often than not and that's probably a large part of why
>>> marriage has a long-term success rate not much better than flipping a
>>> coin; randomly pairing single people from the phone book would likely be
>>> equally as effective.
>>
>> Mating is all instinct. And randomly chosen people would,
>> statistically, not be attracted and cetainly wouldn't stay together
>> past one dinner.
>
>That's the usual outcome of any date where two generally comely people
>who on paper should be a "perfect match" for each other, also. Clearly
>you haven't been in the dating game in a while.
>
>"Instinct" and physical attraction is a terrible indicator of whether
>two people can stand to listen to each other talk over dinner for any
>length of time. They can't, more often than not. Or at least figure that
>whatever "deal" this is, there's a better one out there.

I'd seen my wife for 5 minutes (in a gay bar) and knew I wanted her.
It's worked out pretty well.

On 6/3/2021 12:14 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:00:30 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/3/2021 10:38 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:21:53 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/3/2021 10:04 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:33:02 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/3/2021 9:28 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/31/2021 3:38 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:49:28 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From the source that broke the original story about the outbreak when
>>>>>>>>> it first appeared in China - and got de-listed for doing so:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/387apav3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Should we still be dealing with a state that develops bio-weapons?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some super-lefty editorialist recently said "Just because Trump said
>>>>>>>> something doesn't necessarily make it wrong."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trump said basically everything at one time or another. The spin-doctors
>>>>>>> of the future are going to have a field day quoting him out-of-context,
>>>>>>> you think what they do to Thomas Jefferson is bad. You could make him
>>>>>>> look like a full-bore communist just through selective editing of his
>>>>>>> tens of thousands of 255 character deep-thoughts-of-the-day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One wonders what his presidential library will be like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Carved in stone above the entry portal would be
>>>>>
>>>>> COMMON SENSE
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Common sense" is wrong all the time, if it weren't it wouldn't be
>>>> common anymore.
>>>
>>> Absurd. Common sense keeps us alive: don't stick your hand in a
>>> running lawn mower, don't run red lights on a motorcycle, don't shoot
>>> drugs bought from strangers.
>>
>> That it's wrong all the time doesn't simultaneously imply it's _never_
>> correct.
>
> Now that makes no sense. None.
>
>>
>>>> "Gut instinct" is unreliable and is wrong as often as
>>>> it's right.
>>>
>>> Obviously yours is usually wrong, or you wouldn't say that. Mine is
>>> most often right
>>
>> Naturally.
>
> No, it takes practise.

If you have to practice your variety of "common sense" for decades to
get good at it then it's not "common" anymore now is it!!!!!!

>>
>>>> People go on "gut instinct" as to who they should date and
>>>> marry much more often than not and that's probably a large part of why
>>>> marriage has a long-term success rate not much better than flipping a
>>>> coin; randomly pairing single people from the phone book would likely be
>>>> equally as effective.
>>>
>>> Mating is all instinct. And randomly chosen people would,
>>> statistically, not be attracted and cetainly wouldn't stay together
>>> past one dinner.
>>
>> That's the usual outcome of any date where two generally comely people
>> who on paper should be a "perfect match" for each other, also. Clearly
>> you haven't been in the dating game in a while.
>>
>> "Instinct" and physical attraction is a terrible indicator of whether
>> two people can stand to listen to each other talk over dinner for any
>> length of time. They can't, more often than not. Or at least figure that
>> whatever "deal" this is, there's a better one out there.
>
> I'd seen my wife for 5 minutes (in a gay bar) and knew I wanted her.
> It's worked out pretty well.
>

Looking for a wife in a gay bar doesn't seem like "common sense" to me,
well, at least not a traditional one anyway. But maybe that's where all
the "good women" is at. Does Tucker Carlson know?

On 6/3/2021 12:14 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:00:30 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/3/2021 10:38 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:21:53 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/3/2021 10:04 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:33:02 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/3/2021 9:28 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/31/2021 3:38 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:49:28 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From the source that broke the original story about the outbreak when
>>>>>>>>> it first appeared in China - and got de-listed for doing so:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/387apav3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Should we still be dealing with a state that develops bio-weapons?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some super-lefty editorialist recently said "Just because Trump said
>>>>>>>> something doesn't necessarily make it wrong."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trump said basically everything at one time or another. The spin-doctors
>>>>>>> of the future are going to have a field day quoting him out-of-context,
>>>>>>> you think what they do to Thomas Jefferson is bad. You could make him
>>>>>>> look like a full-bore communist just through selective editing of his
>>>>>>> tens of thousands of 255 character deep-thoughts-of-the-day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One wonders what his presidential library will be like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Carved in stone above the entry portal would be
>>>>>
>>>>> COMMON SENSE
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Common sense" is wrong all the time, if it weren't it wouldn't be
>>>> common anymore.
>>>
>>> Absurd. Common sense keeps us alive: don't stick your hand in a
>>> running lawn mower, don't run red lights on a motorcycle, don't shoot
>>> drugs bought from strangers.
>>
>> That it's wrong all the time doesn't simultaneously imply it's _never_
>> correct.
>
> Now that makes no sense. None.
>
>>
>>>> "Gut instinct" is unreliable and is wrong as often as
>>>> it's right.
>>>
>>> Obviously yours is usually wrong, or you wouldn't say that. Mine is
>>> most often right
>>
>> Naturally.
>
> No, it takes practise.
>
>>
>>>> People go on "gut instinct" as to who they should date and
>>>> marry much more often than not and that's probably a large part of why
>>>> marriage has a long-term success rate not much better than flipping a
>>>> coin; randomly pairing single people from the phone book would likely be
>>>> equally as effective.
>>>
>>> Mating is all instinct. And randomly chosen people would,
>>> statistically, not be attracted and cetainly wouldn't stay together
>>> past one dinner.
>>
>> That's the usual outcome of any date where two generally comely people
>> who on paper should be a "perfect match" for each other, also. Clearly
>> you haven't been in the dating game in a while.
>>
>> "Instinct" and physical attraction is a terrible indicator of whether
>> two people can stand to listen to each other talk over dinner for any
>> length of time. They can't, more often than not. Or at least figure that
>> whatever "deal" this is, there's a better one out there.
>
> I'd seen my wife for 5 minutes (in a gay bar) and knew I wanted her.
> It's worked out pretty well.
>

If I wanted to meet a woman for romance I tell you this is what I would
do. First, I'd find a place where a lot of single women was at. And then
I would find a way to be there a lot and talk to those women.

Like maybe not high-end strategy but I think it's a good starting point.

On 6/3/2021 10:32 AM, John Doe wrote:
> A nutter...
>

Hey WWG1WGA, you still waiting on the chosen one's glorious return? Keep
me posted on the timeframe buddy, I have to make sure it doesn't
conflict with my laundry-day.

On 6/3/2021 10:35 AM, John Doe wrote:
> The motives are obvious... Everybody knows the incumbent president suffers
> when the economy tanks. The virus was released at the right time for that.
> Everybody knows the Chinese Communist Party hates Donald Trump. The
> motives are obvious, any sixth grader can see them, so give this troll a
> few more years...
>

Obvious to a sixth grader maybe, but not nearly as obvious to anyone
more educated than that.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:29:08 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

>On 6/3/2021 12:14 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:00:30 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/3/2021 10:38 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:21:53 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/3/2021 10:04 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:33:02 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/3/2021 9:28 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2021 3:38 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:49:28 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From the source that broke the original story about the outbreak when
>>>>>>>>>> it first appeared in China - and got de-listed for doing so:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/387apav3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Should we still be dealing with a state that develops bio-weapons?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some super-lefty editorialist recently said "Just because Trump said
>>>>>>>>> something doesn't necessarily make it wrong."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trump said basically everything at one time or another. The spin-doctors
>>>>>>>> of the future are going to have a field day quoting him out-of-context,
>>>>>>>> you think what they do to Thomas Jefferson is bad. You could make him
>>>>>>>> look like a full-bore communist just through selective editing of his
>>>>>>>> tens of thousands of 255 character deep-thoughts-of-the-day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One wonders what his presidential library will be like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carved in stone above the entry portal would be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> COMMON SENSE
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Common sense" is wrong all the time, if it weren't it wouldn't be
>>>>> common anymore.
>>>>
>>>> Absurd. Common sense keeps us alive: don't stick your hand in a
>>>> running lawn mower, don't run red lights on a motorcycle, don't shoot
>>>> drugs bought from strangers.
>>>
>>> That it's wrong all the time doesn't simultaneously imply it's _never_
>>> correct.
>>
>> Now that makes no sense. None.
>>
>>>
>>>>> "Gut instinct" is unreliable and is wrong as often as
>>>>> it's right.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously yours is usually wrong, or you wouldn't say that. Mine is
>>>> most often right
>>>
>>> Naturally.
>>
>> No, it takes practise.
>>
>>>
>>>>> People go on "gut instinct" as to who they should date and
>>>>> marry much more often than not and that's probably a large part of why
>>>>> marriage has a long-term success rate not much better than flipping a
>>>>> coin; randomly pairing single people from the phone book would likely be
>>>>> equally as effective.
>>>>
>>>> Mating is all instinct. And randomly chosen people would,
>>>> statistically, not be attracted and cetainly wouldn't stay together
>>>> past one dinner.
>>>
>>> That's the usual outcome of any date where two generally comely people
>>> who on paper should be a "perfect match" for each other, also. Clearly
>>> you haven't been in the dating game in a while.
>>>
>>> "Instinct" and physical attraction is a terrible indicator of whether
>>> two people can stand to listen to each other talk over dinner for any
>>> length of time. They can't, more often than not. Or at least figure that
>>> whatever "deal" this is, there's a better one out there.
>>
>> I'd seen my wife for 5 minutes (in a gay bar) and knew I wanted her.
>> It's worked out pretty well.
>>
>
>If I wanted to meet a woman for romance I tell you this is what I would
>do. First, I'd find a place where a lot of single women was at. And then
>I would find a way to be there a lot and talk to those women.

A strip club or an erotic massage parlor is just the thing for you.

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 7:04:57 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:33:02 -0400, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

[ about Donald J Trump]

> >One wonders what his presidential library will be like.
> >
> Carved in stone above the entry portal would be
>
> COMMON SENSE

'Common' speaks to unity. Trump is a flagrant divisive influence.

That engraving belongs over the exit portal. Same doorway, interior side.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:34:06 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 7:04:57 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:33:02 -0400, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
>
>[ about Donald J Trump]
>
>> >One wonders what his presidential library will be like.
>> >
>> Carved in stone above the entry portal would be
>>
>> COMMON SENSE
>
>'Common' speaks to unity. Trump is a flagrant divisive influence.
>

I don't think, at this point, the citizens of the US would elect
anything else.

Maybe in a few years we may have a moderation revolution.

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 12:39:38 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:34:06 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> >'Common' speaks to unity. Trump is a flagrant divisive influence.
> >
> I don't think, at this point, the citizens of the US would elect
> anything else.

Don't you mean 'anyone else' ? Not true, in either case, because
I'm a citizen - and not in favor of confusion and contention when
consideration and contemplation are available.

More to the point, the citizens of the US certainly DID elect someone else.
That's a test of your hypothesis, that was done publicly and recently,
and well-reported. Can't John Larkin absorb the information in
such test results?

On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 11:36:32 AM UTC-7, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 31/05/21 18:00, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 May 2021 04:15:09 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
> > <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 7:28:44 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 19:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
> >>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Why should I? There's nothing shameful about pointing out that obvious twits like you are falling for propaganda travesties, and trying to make a virtue of their fatuous gullibity.
> >>>
> >>> Like I said: NO SHAME.
> >>
> >> You do go in for pathetic posturing. I doubt if you realise how risibly comic it is.
> >
> > Says our self-appointed apologist for a despotic, Communist regime
> > hell-bent on world domination through *any* means.
> *You* are the communist sympathiser.
>
> You think Russia Today is the only reliable source of news, viz:
>
>
> On 31/08/17 22:59, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:22:14 -0700, lonmkusch wrote:
> >
> >> While you're deciding, I think I'm going to stroll over to RT for some
> >> good unbiased news.
> >
> > If you can't see that RT is a zillion times more reputable as a news
> > source than CNN/NBC/BBC et al, you must be totally blind. Sure they
> > aren't 100% impartial; no news organisation is. But they are my most
> > trusted news source even if not yours - until such time as I ever
> > discover otherwise, of course.
>
>
> Or have you now been enlightened?

LOL! If they are your "most trusted" news source I presume that you are totally ignorant concerning the lies that Fauci has made UNDER OATH.

On 6/3/2021 3:27 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:29:08 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/3/2021 12:14 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:00:30 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/3/2021 10:38 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:21:53 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/3/2021 10:04 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:33:02 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2021 9:28 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2021 3:38 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 13:49:28 +0100, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From the source that broke the original story about the outbreak when
>>>>>>>>>>> it first appeared in China - and got de-listed for doing so:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/387apav3
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Should we still be dealing with a state that develops bio-weapons?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some super-lefty editorialist recently said "Just because Trump said
>>>>>>>>>> something doesn't necessarily make it wrong."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Trump said basically everything at one time or another. The spin-doctors
>>>>>>>>> of the future are going to have a field day quoting him out-of-context,
>>>>>>>>> you think what they do to Thomas Jefferson is bad. You could make him
>>>>>>>>> look like a full-bore communist just through selective editing of his
>>>>>>>>> tens of thousands of 255 character deep-thoughts-of-the-day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One wonders what his presidential library will be like.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carved in stone above the entry portal would be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> COMMON SENSE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Common sense" is wrong all the time, if it weren't it wouldn't be
>>>>>> common anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> Absurd. Common sense keeps us alive: don't stick your hand in a
>>>>> running lawn mower, don't run red lights on a motorcycle, don't shoot
>>>>> drugs bought from strangers.
>>>>
>>>> That it's wrong all the time doesn't simultaneously imply it's _never_
>>>> correct.
>>>
>>> Now that makes no sense. None.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> "Gut instinct" is unreliable and is wrong as often as
>>>>>> it's right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously yours is usually wrong, or you wouldn't say that. Mine is
>>>>> most often right
>>>>
>>>> Naturally.
>>>
>>> No, it takes practise.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> People go on "gut instinct" as to who they should date and
>>>>>> marry much more often than not and that's probably a large part of why
>>>>>> marriage has a long-term success rate not much better than flipping a
>>>>>> coin; randomly pairing single people from the phone book would likely be
>>>>>> equally as effective.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mating is all instinct. And randomly chosen people would,
>>>>> statistically, not be attracted and cetainly wouldn't stay together
>>>>> past one dinner.
>>>>
>>>> That's the usual outcome of any date where two generally comely people
>>>> who on paper should be a "perfect match" for each other, also. Clearly
>>>> you haven't been in the dating game in a while.
>>>>
>>>> "Instinct" and physical attraction is a terrible indicator of whether
>>>> two people can stand to listen to each other talk over dinner for any
>>>> length of time. They can't, more often than not. Or at least figure that
>>>> whatever "deal" this is, there's a better one out there.
>>>
>>> I'd seen my wife for 5 minutes (in a gay bar) and knew I wanted her.
>>> It's worked out pretty well.
>>>
>>
>> If I wanted to meet a woman for romance I tell you this is what I would
>> do. First, I'd find a place where a lot of single women was at. And then
>> I would find a way to be there a lot and talk to those women.
>
> A strip club or an erotic massage parlor is just the thing for you.
>

Common sense would tell you that those places aren't where you'll find
single women, only "single" women.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 13:17:46 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 12:39:38 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:34:06 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >'Common' speaks to unity. Trump is a flagrant divisive influence.
>> >
>> I don't think, at this point, the citizens of the US would elect
>> anything else.
>
>Don't you mean 'anyone else' ?

I didn't say that.

>Not true, in either case, because
>I'm a citizen - and not in favor of confusion and contention when
>consideration and contemplation are available.

If true, that makes you a minority.

>
>More to the point, the citizens of the US certainly DID elect someone else.

Yes, a team of extreme lefists.

>That's a test of your hypothesis, that was done publicly and recently,
>and well-reported. Can't John Larkin absorb the information in
>such test results?

You are aping Sloman now with fatheaded 3rd party insults. Hardly a
sensible role model.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:25:50 -0700 (PDT), Flyguy
<soar2morrow@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 11:36:32 AM UTC-7, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 31/05/21 18:00, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> > On Mon, 31 May 2021 04:15:09 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
>> > <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 7:28:44 PM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 19:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
>> >>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Why should I? There's nothing shameful about pointing out that obvious twits like you are falling for propaganda travesties, and trying to make a virtue of their fatuous gullibity.
>> >>>
>> >>> Like I said: NO SHAME.
>> >>
>> >> You do go in for pathetic posturing. I doubt if you realise how risibly comic it is.
>> >
>> > Says our self-appointed apologist for a despotic, Communist regime
>> > hell-bent on world domination through *any* means.
>> *You* are the communist sympathiser.
>>
>> You think Russia Today is the only reliable source of news, viz:
>>
>>
>> On 31/08/17 22:59, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:22:14 -0700, lonmkusch wrote:
>> >
>> >> While you're deciding, I think I'm going to stroll over to RT for some
>> >> good unbiased news.
>> >
>> > If you can't see that RT is a zillion times more reputable as a news
>> > source than CNN/NBC/BBC et al, you must be totally blind. Sure they
>> > aren't 100% impartial; no news organisation is. But they are my most
>> > trusted news source even if not yours - until such time as I ever
>> > discover otherwise, of course.
>>
>>
>> Or have you now been enlightened?
>
>LOL! If they are your "most trusted" news source I presume that you are totally ignorant concerning the lies that Fauci has made UNDER OATH.

Fauci has explained his flipflops and perjury: "Science evolves."

On 6/3/2021 3:39 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 12:34:06 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 7:04:57 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:33:02 -0400, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
>>
>> [ about Donald J Trump]
>>
>>>> One wonders what his presidential library will be like.
>>>>
>>> Carved in stone above the entry portal would be
>>>
>>> COMMON SENSE
>>
>> 'Common' speaks to unity. Trump is a flagrant divisive influence.
>>
>
> I don't think, at this point, the citizens of the US would elect
> anything else.
>
> Maybe in a few years we may have a moderation revolution.
>

For 20 years the media et all has analyzed every word the President has
said. What's most remarkable about Joe Biden is nobody seems to
particularly care - he doesn't much seem to like talking, and few seem
interested, anyway.

Might be surprised how accustomed people get to the idea of politicians
not talking.