Not being sure since a lot doesn't show up on my Gmail account and nothing shows up in my normal Google Groups, it appears that the stupid six are finally seeing what is going to happen to them at the hands of their God, Biden. The same people that want to legalize children sex change operations at the whim of those same children and have forced the change of every public education textbook of the name "Jesus" (that being a common Hispanic name, imagine the effect of that on the Hispanic population?) but it appears that suddenly a fear is coming over them, a fear from the people they are around every day - even their own families.

Remember when I told you that when Fauci lied and said that AIDS was an airborne infection, that the very parents of queers wouldn't let them stay in the same homes with their parents? That they were ejected from their rentals, they were fired from their jobs and that they couldn't even get loans?

That is about to happen to these same stupid six because they have shouted the correctness of the Biden Woke Generation to the rooftops. Now everyone knows their positions and everyone will respond in kind.

November is creeping up on us and the California Elections people are responding by saying they are cleaning the election rolls. How are they doing this? By saying that everyone has to re-register. This is now done by mail but they are only sending forms to tried and true Democrats. Republicans need not apply.

Of course this is true only in the high population enclaves that have always voted reliably left. Out in the conservative boondocks they don't dare do this and so it is used as "proof" that they aren't doing this at all.

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 10:15:11 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>Remember when I told you that when Fauci lied and said that AIDS was an airborne infection...

No, I don't remember and you're 100% wrong (again). Google also
doesn't remember your amazing fact connecting Fauci, AIDS, and
airborne transmission:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=fauci+aids+airborne>
If Google can't find it, it doesn't exist.

What did happen was that Dr Fauci published an article speculating
"the possibility that routine close contact, as within a family
household, can spread the disease [AIDS]." Note that at the time,
there were a very small number of known AIDS cases. Of course, the
alarm bells were immediately rung by everyone with an agenda to sell
and continue to ring to this day:
"Fauci Was Duplicitous on the AIDS Epidemic Too" (February 23, 2021)
<https://www.aier.org/article/fauci-was-duplicitous-on-the-aids-epidemic-too/>

I think this might be a reference the original 39 year old article
where it was noted that Dr Fauci speculated that household contact
transmission may have been involved with AIDS:
"Household contact may transmit AIDS" (May 5, 1983)
<https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/05/05/Household-contact-may-transmit-AIDS/7738420955200/>
"The cause of AIDS remains unknown."
I couldn't find the original article.

Anyway, no mention of airborne AIDS transmission. Try to make your
"amazing facts" a little more believable.

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

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 15:42:04 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 10:15:11 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
><cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Remember when I told you that when Fauci lied and said that AIDS was an airborne infection...
>
>No, I don't remember and you're 100% wrong (again). Google also
>doesn't remember your amazing fact connecting Fauci, AIDS, and
>airborne transmission:
><https://www.google.com/search?q=fauci+aids+airborne>
>If Google can't find it, it doesn't exist.
>
>What did happen was that Dr Fauci published an article speculating
>"the possibility that routine close contact, as within a family
>household, can spread the disease [AIDS]." Note that at the time,
>there were a very small number of known AIDS cases. Of course, the
>alarm bells were immediately rung by everyone with an agenda to sell
>and continue to ring to this day:
>"Fauci Was Duplicitous on the AIDS Epidemic Too" (February 23, 2021)
><https://www.aier.org/article/fauci-was-duplicitous-on-the-aids-epidemic-too/>
>
>I think this might be a reference the original 39 year old article
>where it was noted that Dr Fauci speculated that household contact
>transmission may have been involved with AIDS:
>"Household contact may transmit AIDS" (May 5, 1983)
><https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/05/05/Household-contact-may-transmit-AIDS/7738420955200/>
>"The cause of AIDS remains unknown."
>I couldn't find the original article.
>
>Anyway, no mention of airborne AIDS transmission. Try to make your
>"amazing facts" a little more believable.

Now Jeff... Stop and think for a moment. If the facts were believable
they wouldn't be "amazing".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:12:23 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 15:42:04 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>>Anyway, no mention of airborne AIDS transmission. Try to make your
>>"amazing facts" a little more believable.

>Now Jeff... Stop and think for a moment. If the facts were believable
>they wouldn't be "amazing".

That was no accident. "Amazing facts" is an oxymoron and paradox:
<https://www.grammarly.com/blog/oxymoron/>
<https://www.grammarly.com/blog/paradox/>
If Tom's ideas were amazing, they would not be facts. If they were
facts, they would not be amazing. I'm not sure but I think Tom is
trying to impress, dazzle or amaze the reader with his contrived facts
and his brilliant logic. Hopefully, it's not working. I selected
"amazing facts" as my tag line for something that requires careful
examination before swallowing whole. Sometimes, the amazing facts
might actually be true, but depending on the source, are usually
contrived. Tom probably knows this, so he prefaces his amazing facts
with something like "It is obvious that", "Everyone knows that",
"Apparently everyone and his brother believe that" or in this case
"Remember when I told you that". These sentence starters are all
intended to make the reader feel stupid for not knowing, remembering,
believing or recalling. Look for these in Tom's writing as they mark
things which are probably not true.

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

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 19:55:36 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:12:23 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 15:42:04 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>wrote:
>>>Anyway, no mention of airborne AIDS transmission. Try to make your
>>>"amazing facts" a little more believable.
>
>>Now Jeff... Stop and think for a moment. If the facts were believable
>>they wouldn't be "amazing".
>
>That was no accident. "Amazing facts" is an oxymoron and paradox:
><https://www.grammarly.com/blog/oxymoron/>
><https://www.grammarly.com/blog/paradox/>
>If Tom's ideas were amazing, they would not be facts. If they were
>facts, they would not be amazing. I'm not sure but I think Tom is
>trying to impress, dazzle or amaze the reader with his contrived facts
>and his brilliant logic. Hopefully, it's not working. I selected
>"amazing facts" as my tag line for something that requires careful
>examination before swallowing whole. Sometimes, the amazing facts
>might actually be true, but depending on the source, are usually
>contrived. Tom probably knows this, so he prefaces his amazing facts
>with something like "It is obvious that", "Everyone knows that",
>"Apparently everyone and his brother believe that" or in this case
>"Remember when I told you that". These sentence starters are all
>intended to make the reader feel stupid for not knowing, remembering,
>believing or recalling. Look for these in Tom's writing as they mark
>things which are probably not true.

I do believe that you are wrong. I would find it rather common to
uncover a fact that amazes one or more readers. Isn't that an amazing
fact?

My dictionary shows
amaze ~ verb - affect with wonder

If I should demonstrate that "Tommy told the truth" it might well be
true, although such a rare occurrence would amaze the readers here.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:15:13 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Not being sure since a lot doesn't show up on my Gmail account and nothing shows up in my normal Google Groups, ...

In other words, Tom wants to continue trolling here, but he's too incompetent to read the discussions.

- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 10:25:37 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 19:55:36 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:12:23 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 15:42:04 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>Anyway, no mention of airborne AIDS transmission. Try to make your
>>>>"amazing facts" a little more believable.
>>
>>>Now Jeff... Stop and think for a moment. If the facts were believable
>>>they wouldn't be "amazing".
>>
>>That was no accident. "Amazing facts" is an oxymoron and paradox:
>><https://www.grammarly.com/blog/oxymoron/>
>><https://www.grammarly.com/blog/paradox/>
>>If Tom's ideas were amazing, they would not be facts. If they were
>>facts, they would not be amazing. I'm not sure but I think Tom is
>>trying to impress, dazzle or amaze the reader with his contrived facts
>>and his brilliant logic. Hopefully, it's not working. I selected
>>"amazing facts" as my tag line for something that requires careful
>>examination before swallowing whole. Sometimes, the amazing facts
>>might actually be true, but depending on the source, are usually
>>contrived. Tom probably knows this, so he prefaces his amazing facts
>>with something like "It is obvious that", "Everyone knows that",
>>"Apparently everyone and his brother believe that" or in this case
>>"Remember when I told you that". These sentence starters are all
>>intended to make the reader feel stupid for not knowing, remembering,
>>believing or recalling. Look for these in Tom's writing as they mark
>>things which are probably not true.

>I do believe that you are wrong. I would find it rather common to
>uncover a fact that amazes one or more readers. Isn't that an amazing
>fact?
>
>My dictionary shows
>amaze ~ verb - affect with wonder

Well, that poses a problem for me. It is my belief that everyone has
some level of "common sense" available. When they read something odd
or non-compliant with their existing knowledge, they react in various
ways. Think of amazement as being the a warning signal to the reader
that something is problematic. Whenever I'm amazed, I'm also
suspicious. I don't know if everyone else in RBT thinks the same way.
I've used such trickery in advertising art and copy, where something
odd in the photos or text catches the readers eye, causing him to
pause while he tries to determine what's wrong with the photo or
text[1]. The pause might only be an extra few milliseconds, but
that's all that's necessary to create an impression. When Tom writes
something that doesn't quite sound correct, I stop reading and try to
determine what triggered my BS detector. Without it, I would have
easily passed by the error and never noticed. Done in Tom's topic
drifting style, the error easy for me to recognize. When reading
political rants and medical text, such critical thinking is mandatory.
Without it, we would swallow the authors mistakes without question. So
far, I haven't seen anyone in RBT that is not capable of critical
thinking, being suspicious, and recognizing problematic "facts" or
logic. Perhaps "amaze" is not a good choice of word. However, I
can't think of a better replacement.

[1] An example of "not quite right" is men wearing horizontally
striped pants. Such a design is common in women's wear to accentuate
the breasts, but is rarely seen on men because of the association with
early prison uniforms. Notice that most of the clothes are for women:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=horizontal+striped+pants&tbm=isch>
When men see a man in horizontal stripes, the reaction is very mild
form of amazement. They recognize that something is wrong, but
usually can't determine what is wrong with the photo. It doesn't
matter. They have given the advertisement photo that extra few
milliseconds it needs to impress the product or story line onto the
readers brain.

>If I should demonstrate that "Tommy told the truth" it might well be
>true, although such a rare occurrence would amaze the readers here.

Not to worry. He's been creating his own reality for at least a
decade. He has even lied when there was no logical reason for him to
lie. Methinks it highly unlikely Tom will ever tell the truth, except
perhaps by accident.

How's that for topic drift?

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

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 20:53:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:15:13 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Not being sure since a lot doesn't show up on my Gmail account and nothing shows up in my normal Google Groups, ...
>
>In other words, Tom wants to continue trolling here, but he's too incompetent to read the discussions.
>- Frank Krygowski

He's also too stupid or stubborn to follow the instructions I left for
him. The problem is that he's having Google Groups deliver messages
via email. At the same time, he's reading the same messages via the
Google Groups web interface. He needs to disarm the email part.
<https://groups.google.com/my-groups>
See the "Subscription" column and set RBT to "no email".

I'm inclined to believe it's "too stubborn" because he has previously
ignored my advice simply because it came from me.

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

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 5:29:30 AM UTC+1, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 20:53:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:15:13 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Not being sure since a lot doesn't show up on my Gmail account and nothing shows up in my normal Google Groups, ...
> >
> >In other words, Tom wants to continue trolling here, but he's too incompetent to read the discussions.
> >- Frank Krygowski
> He's also too stupid or stubborn to follow the instructions I left for
> him. The problem is that he's having Google Groups deliver messages
> via email. At the same time, he's reading the same messages via the
> Google Groups web interface. He needs to disarm the email part.
> <https://groups.google.com/my-groups>
> See the "Subscription" column and set RBT to "no email".
>
> I'm inclined to believe it's "too stubborn" because he has previously
> ignored my advice simply because it came from me.
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
>
Admittedly I didn't read all the self-referential and -congratulatory posts from the RBT Gang of Pimply Teenage Thugs, but you monkeys are in danger of disappearing up your navels. -- Unsigned out of contempt for a bunch of smug narcissists.

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 2:19:59 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 5:29:30 AM UTC+1, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 20:53:26 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:15:13 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Not being sure since a lot doesn't show up on my Gmail account and nothing shows up in my normal Google Groups, ...
> > >
> > >In other words, Tom wants to continue trolling here, but he's too incompetent to read the discussions.
> > >- Frank Krygowski
> > He's also too stupid or stubborn to follow the instructions I left for
> > him. The problem is that he's having Google Groups deliver messages
> > via email. At the same time, he's reading the same messages via the
> > Google Groups web interface. He needs to disarm the email part.
> > <https://groups.google.com/my-groups>
> > See the "Subscription" column and set RBT to "no email".
> >
> > I'm inclined to believe it's "too stubborn" because he has previously
> > ignored my advice simply because it came from me.
> > --
> > Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> > PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> > Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> > Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
> >
> Admittedly I didn't read all the self-referential and -congratulatory posts from the RBT Gang of Pimply Teenage Thugs, but you monkeys are in danger of disappearing up your navels. -- Unsigned out of contempt for a bunch of smug narcissists.
-As long as I don't open my Gmail account I am blessed with absolute silence. The sickness of the stupid six has no effect if it isn't even known. I can tell that they're hopping up and down and screaming by the posting count.. But too bad. Stupid assholes remain what they are.

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 12:24:28 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, that poses a problem for me. It is my belief that everyone has
> some level of "common sense" available. When they read something odd
> or non-compliant with their existing knowledge, they react in various
> ways.
> How's that for topic drift?
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Just to drift a bit more, but I think it's relevant.
I think there are two distinctly different types of common sense.

One is the ability to look at a problem and apply some logic to solve it, with some kind of criteria in mind - low cost, efficiency, ease of application, etc. This includes looking at someone else's solution and noticing something odd, or not.

The other seems similar but I think it is not; in fact the two types will often get contradictory results. This type is to look at a problem and recognize how most people would solve it. It requires some intuitive knowledge of human behavior and what will seem odd to most people. Highly rational people will often denigrate this type of problem solving, but then they can be exactly the type that have very little access to this method.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 08:22:30 -0700 (PDT), Tim R
<timothy42bach@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 12:24:28 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Well, that poses a problem for me. It is my belief that everyone has
>> some level of "common sense" available. When they read something odd
>> or non-compliant with their existing knowledge, they react in various
>> ways.
>> How's that for topic drift?

>Just to drift a bit more, but I think it's relevant.
>I think there are two distinctly different types of common sense.
>
>One is the ability to look at a problem and apply some logic to solve it, with some kind of criteria in mind - low cost, efficiency, ease of application, etc. This includes looking at someone else's solution and noticing something odd, or not.
>
>The other seems similar but I think it is not; in fact the two types will often get contradictory results. This type is to look at a problem and recognize how most people would solve it. It requires some intuitive knowledge of human behavior and what will seem odd to most people. Highly rational people will often denigrate this type of problem solving, but then they can be exactly the type that have very little access to this method.

I agree with all your points.

I've been involved with various forms of "repair" most of my life.
That includes my engineering career, some of which was performing
damage control on someone else's design. Currently, I fix computers,
generators, small engines, calculators, etc. When someone describes a
failure of some sort to me over the phone, about half the time, I can
guess what the problem might be, sometimes before they're describing
the failure. It's usually the first thing that I visualize while the
problem is being described. I make no conscious attempt to solve the
problem. All I do is try to capture the fleeting first impression. My
batting average is about 50%, which I consider to be quite good for an
initial guess. Unfortunately, I have no idea how this works, how I do
it, or why it works. It also works better if I have previously worked
on the device and have a good understanding of how it works.

Another method I use is to reverse engineer the problem. Instead of
trying to contrive a procedure that would eventually fix the problem,
I try to contrive what someone might do to cause the problem.
Inductive versus deductive reasoning. For example, I look at a
schematic and ask myself "what would need to fail in order to produce
the observed symptoms"? Occam's Razor comes into play here as
complicated explanations are rarely correct.

There's no single word or phrase that describes this. It's not quite
intuition or common sense. I prefer to combine all such
non-conventional thinking into "common sense", which is also not very
common or conventional. It's much like detecting malware or fake
email. If something doesn't seem quite right with an email message,
chances are very good that it's fake or a phishing attempt. When a
news story doesn't seem quite right, chances are also good that
there's a problem. The reader probably doesn't immediately recognize
the source of the problem, but after a little investigation, the
problem usually appears.

You mentioned "low cost, efficiency, ease of application, etc" which
are design requirements. Balancing these against available resources
is the basis of optimization and a typical problem for design
engineers. I have often run into problems where I could not find any
reasonable solution. So, I take a step backwards and try to contrive
the most ridiculous solution possible. I've done this in RBT a few
times. The effect is to start over by erasing all previous
assumptions and self imposed restrictions. That's been very
successful for me in a few designs. I like to use concept designs for
inspiration.
<https://www.yankodesign.com/search/?q=bicycle#gsc.tab=1&gsc.q=bicycle>
<https://www.google.com/search?q=bicycle+concept+design&tbm=isch>
Common sense will tell you that all these radical designs have
something wrong with them. I try to visualize myself riding such
bicycles, and fail. They will all trigger my "not quite right" alarm.
However, all of them have useful ideas that can be borrowed.

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