>Correct, your inferior brain uses assumptions.

all brains do, every, single, one.

>Mathematics, logic and philosophy are not people in order for these to accept. Chuckle. Mainstream morons have come to believe in these myths, but intelligent people use their brains.

And that is why you're not an intelligent person

>I have told you before - that you cannot understand English is your problem. I use only the words in the English language, all of which have a given meaning that is clearly understood by a competent speaker of English.

But you assume that understanding, that is an apriori assumption so you fail.

>n <<sound>> mathematics there are no assumptions or beliefs (aka axioms in your bullshit mythmatics)

Given no brain or anything can work without them, this is false :)

You use a basic assumption every day, that what you see is what is.

>Your <<confirmation bias>> is incurable. In fact, it's not even treatable. Chuckle. You're 100% pure ape.

1: Humans are apes, every one so is that meant to be an insult? If so study biology
2: Look at yourself.

>LMAO. The irony just keeps dripping.... You can't even spell ambiguous. Chuckle. You know, for one who talks so much about not understanding language, you really should take a course in spelling and grammar!!!

Åh herre gud! Jag råkade stava ett ord fel och allt jag säger är plötsligt helt fel? Vad händer nu?

>No sane academic uses intuition. Look up that word, you imbecile!!!

Correct, that is why we formalize it so we don't need to rely on it. But intuition has its place when you know the limits.

>Do you really think anyone has the <<ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.>> ??

Humans have a lot of intuitive understanding on many things that goes without much thought, just how we are.

>Are you really that stupid? It's not like I haven't lectured you on this before. Look up the damn word, you incorrigible dimwit.

are you so far removed from people that you do not know that humans have intuitive understanding of things that they just know? It is not entirely reliable or fool proof or anything but humans use it everyday for huge portions of their lives.

>Of course in sound mathematics, there is NO place for intuition or belief (axiom)

As I have stated, humans have an intuitive understanding of things, but that is not a proof or anything. It is however very nice when the formalization can coincide with our intuition. Sometime however, it doesn't :) Infinite sets is a go to example for it.

>Eyes rolling. Look you moron: in order for anyone to understand those symbols, one must know what meaning is attached to each. Did you get this, you Neanderthal savage??? Chuckle.

Correct, humans need to be taught it and that is not an issue.

>What the fuck does 0 mean?

a symbol for some element

>What the fuck does ∈ mean?

some predicate that returns true if boolean is applied.

>What the fuck does |N mean?

Some set.

>What the fuck is an element?

it is what we call objects that is on the left side in x e y

>What the fuck is a set?

the objects that ZFC uses

>What the fuck is |N?

a set.

>LMAO. Yeah, the Christians call their Lord and Master by the name of "Jesus". You moron!!!!

and? We can name things as we please.

>Exactly, it is 100% pure drivel that can only be concocted in a syphilitic brain like yours!

Nope, the lack of saying what it is is acctually a strength here cause it allows many differnet structures.

>Woooo!!! That's some deep shit there Malum!!! The only word I understand is isomorphic (same form). LMAO.

had to look up what it meant, I bet.

>It captures nothing but the attention of automatons like you! What it shows so cogently is your inability to think independently. So what's new...

I can think independently just fine thank you. Agreeing with mainstream does not mean one hasn't thought independently. This is a typical crank response.

>Because no thought was involved, yes? LMAO

A lot of thought went into it cause it was distilled to the fundamental properties of natural numbers we want to encapsulate and think of as defining them. That is how all axiomatizations go. Capture the foundational properties of the structure as simple as possible.

On Tuesday, 27 April 2021 at 01:54:36 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Correct, your inferior brain uses assumptions.
> all brains do, every, single, one.

Only your inferior brain and those imbeciles like you.

> >Mathematics, logic and philosophy are not people in order for these to accept. Chuckle. Mainstream morons have come to believe in these myths, but intelligent people use their brains.
> And that is why you're not an intelligent person

A logical fallacy which I call the "Malum Effect". LMAO.

> >I have told you before - that you cannot understand English is your problem. I use only the words in the English language, all of which have a given meaning that is clearly understood by a competent speaker of English.

> But you assume that understanding, that is an apriori assumption so you fail.

I don't assume anything. There is a book which we call a <<dictionary>>. I go by the definitions in the dictionary. For example, I don't make assumptions about what "intuition" means. I know precisely what it means. You never have.

> >n <<sound>> mathematics there are no assumptions or beliefs (aka axioms in your bullshit mythmatics)
> Given no brain or anything can work without them, this is false :)

Of course one needs a brain, but you have been told that a brain is required. Chuckle. What a moron! If you have no brain, then you can't think.

Greek mathematics has no axioms. This is not even debatable any longer since I published my famous article:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-mOEooW03iLRjVxZERCa2R5Tlk

>
> You use a basic assumption every day, that what you see is what is.

Rubbish. What we see is the reflection of light and there are no assumptions there - even the physics is well known.

> >Your <<confirmation bias>> is incurable. In fact, it's not even treatable. Chuckle. You're 100% pure ape.

> 1: Humans are apes, every one so is that meant to be an insult? If so study biology

No. See, even here you fail to grasp <<details>>. Humans are primates, but they are most certainly NOT apes. Well, you are probably the exception. Chuckle.

> 2: Look at yourself.

> >LMAO. The irony just keeps dripping.... You can't even spell ambiguous. Chuckle. You know, for one who talks so much about not understanding language, you really should take a course in spelling and grammar!!!
> Åh herre gud! Jag råkade stava ett ord fel och allt jag säger är plötsligt helt fel? Vad händer nu?

You misspell words so many times, I've lost count. You use words inappropriately in every one of your delusional comments. You demonstrate a complete lack of understanding and even a basic mastery of the English language. No one cares that you speak your language. I speak many languages that most other people don't know, but in order to communicate I use the language that most will understand?

Καταλαβαίνεις ρε μαλακα ή όχι;

> >No sane academic uses intuition. Look up that word, you imbecile!!!
> Correct, that is why we formalize it so we don't need to rely on it.

No. You could not "formalise" anything even if your life depended on it. For starters, the foundations of mathematics which are the Elements are a sound formalisation. You are too ignorant and too stupid to even understand the Elements.

> But intuition has its place when you know the limits.

LMAO. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works?!

> >Do you really think anyone has the <<ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.>> ??
> Humans have a lot of intuitive understanding on many things that goes without much thought, just how we are.

No and NO again. You cannot understand anything for certain using only your subconscious mind. My mind which is far superior to yours in every respect cannot be certain intuitively. Not now, not ever.

> >Are you really that stupid? It's not like I haven't lectured you on this before. Look up the damn word, you incorrigible dimwit.

> are you so far removed from people that you do not know that humans have intuitive understanding of things that they just know?

There is NO such thing as "intuitive understanding". It is 100% bullshit like every one of your dysfunctional thoughts. Chuckle.

<some shit removed>

> >Eyes rolling. Look you moron: in order for anyone to understand those symbols, one must know what meaning is attached to each. Did you get this, you Neanderthal savage??? Chuckle.
> Correct, humans need to be taught it and that is not an issue.

No human can learn on assumptions. If one says "A" is the letter A, there is nothing assumptive about this. NOTHING.

> >What the fuck does 0 mean?
> a symbol for some element

What the fuck is an element? Malum, you are truly an incorrigible moron.

> >What the fuck does ∈ mean?

> some predicate that returns true if boolean is applied.

Gee, I need to make a lot of assumptions to understand the above drivel. LMAO.

> >What the fuck does |N mean?
> Some set.
> >What the fuck is an element?
> it is what we call objects that is on the left side in x e y
> >What the fuck is a set?
> the objects that ZFC uses

<<Object>> ??? Chuckle. But you don't have an object until ZFC confirms it to be an object. However, you need to have the object for each of the 9 steps. Somehow, you can't know whether the object is truly a set until you complete all 9 beliefs. Circularity galore.

> >What the fuck is |N?
> a set.

Ah, an undefined object waiting to be verified by the 9 purification rituals. LMAO.

> >LMAO. Yeah, the Christians call their Lord and Master by the name of "Jesus". You moron!!!!
> and? We can name things as we please.
> >Exactly, it is 100% pure drivel that can only be concocted in a syphilitic brain like yours!
> Nope, the lack of saying what it is is acctually a strength here cause it allows many differnet structures.

To a genius mind like mine, many "different structures" is not understanding but stupidity on a galactic scale.

> >Woooo!!! That's some deep shit there Malum!!! The only word I understand is isomorphic (same form). LMAO.
> had to look up what it meant, I bet.

You would have lost! Isomorphic is a common Greek word - Ισομορφική. I knew the word as a toddler. Chuckle. Gosh, you are dull.

> >It captures nothing but the attention of automatons like you! What it shows so cogently is your inability to think independently. So what's new...
> I can't think independently, thank you.

And it shows! I've been down this road with you before. An intellectually disabled person like you cannot be reasoned with.

<too bored to continue responding to further drivel>

>Only your inferior brain and those imbeciles like you

Yours do to :) Again, you assume your brain is recieving inputs from your eyes and that they accurately portray reality. As far as you know, you could be a brain in a jar.

>I don't assume anything. There is a book which we call a <<dictionary>>. I go by the definitions in the dictionary. For example, I don't make assumptions about what "intuition" means. I know precisely what it means. You never have.

And the dictionary assumes you understand the wrod it uses to DESCRIBE common usage of words. (Dictionary are descriptive, not prescriptive). So again, assumptions.

>Rubbish. What we see is the reflection of light and there are no assumptions there - even the physics is well known.

But you assume it is happening, again, you might be a brain in a jar experiencing just a simulation. You would never know.

>No. You could not "formalise" anything even if your life depended on it. For starters, the foundations of mathematics which are the Elements are a sound formalisation. You are too ignorant and too stupid to even understand the Elements.

I've read it and it was a decent first attempt at formalising. It is however not the foundations anymore but a historical book.

On Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 00:56:56 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Only your inferior brain and those imbeciles like you
> Yours do to :) Again, you assume your brain is recieving inputs from your eyes and that they accurately portray reality. As far as you know, you could be a brain in a jar.

Wow. Deep logic there Malum! LMAO. If indeed my brain were in a jar, where would my eyes be???

Gosh, what a moron you are!

> >I don't assume anything. There is a book which we call a <<dictionary>>. I go by the definitions in the dictionary. For example, I don't make assumptions about what "intuition" means. I know precisely what it means. You never have.
> And the dictionary assumes you understand the wrod it uses to DESCRIBE common usage of words. (Dictionary are descriptive, not prescriptive). So again, assumptions.

The dictionary is not a person so that it can assume anything. Also, the dictionary describes the MEANING of the word. Common usage DOES NOT define the word, but it often happens that stupid and incompetent people like you who are poor at mastery of the language, introduce additional meanings that may not even be anything like the original meaning stated in the dictionary.

You can't get away from the dictionary. It is the FIRST source any intelligent human consults.

> >Rubbish. What we see is the reflection of light and there are no assumptions there - even the physics is well known.
> But you assume it is happening, again, you might be a brain in a jar experiencing just a simulation. You would never know.

Moron! You would never know because you don't know shit about anything.

> >No. You could not "formalise" anything even if your life depended on it. For starters, the foundations of mathematics which are the Elements are a sound formalisation. You are too ignorant and too stupid to even understand the Elements.

> I've read it and it was a decent first attempt at formalising.

Chuckle. You can't "read the Elements", you need serious study thereof. The crappy geometry you were taught in high school does no justice to the contents in the Elements. It is drivel by your ignorant, incompetent and stupid teachers who themselves have never understood its contents.

> It is however not the foundations anymore but a historical book.

It is very much the ONLY foundation of mathematics. There is NO other. Chuckle.

Of course numerous fakes such as ZFC, etc have surfaced, but in reality NONE of these are sound in any respect.

>No. See, even here you fail to grasp <<details>>. Humans are primates, but they are most certainly NOT apes. Well, you are probably the exception. Chuckle

https://www.britannica.com/animal/ape

Ape, (superfamily Hominoidea), any tailless primate of the families Hylobatidae (gibbons) and Hominidae (chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas, and human beings)

Oh look, human beings too :)

>Wow. Deep logic there Malum! LMAO. If indeed my brain were in a jar, where would my eyes be???

You wouldn't have any :) But you'd never know you didn't, so again, how do you know?

You are just assuming what you experience is real and not a simulation.

>Also, the dictionary describes the MEANING of the word.

It describes the meaning of the usage of it, it doesn't define the meaning.

>Common usage DOES NOT define the word, but it often happens that stupid and incompetent people like you who are poor at mastery of the language, introduce additional meanings that may not even be anything like the original meaning stated in the dictionary.

Actually, it does. If everyone started to call what we think of as "pizza" for "chair", then guess what? that delicious lunch is now a chair. :)

Words have meaning based on usage. If they are used to refer to some object, concept, action, etc, that is what we perceive as the meaning.

>Moron! You would never know because you don't know shit about anything.

answer the question, how do you know you're not a brain in a jar in my basement in a simulation?

>Chuckle. You can't "read the Elements", you need serious study thereof. The crappy geometry you were taught in high school does no justice to the contents in the Elements. It is drivel by your ignorant, incompetent and stupid teachers who themselves have never understood its contents.

I have read it and read the proofs, I like it. I can definitely see why it stuck around for so long.

>It is very much the ONLY foundation of mathematics. There is NO other. Chuckle

Nope, it is not. There are many alternatives today, even ZFC is not the only one. This is a common problem you have. You are so focused on what you like that you fail to see that there could ever be anything else. Is this part of your narcissism?

>Of course numerous fakes such as ZFC, etc have surfaced, but in reality NONE of these are sound in any respect

They are all valid foundations and ZFC is considerably more powerful than Euclides was. It can for example encompass virtually everything that isn't class sized. Functions, abstract structures, topology, analysis, discrete, everything of those fits into ZFC.

Most of it does not work within Euclides so it is weaker.

On Thursday, 29 April 2021 at 03:38:56 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >No. See, even here you fail to grasp <<details>>. Humans are primates, but they are most certainly NOT apes. Well, you are probably the exception. Chuckle
> https://www.britannica.com/animal/ape
>
> Ape, (superfamily Hominoidea), any tailless primate of the families Hylobatidae (gibbons) and Hominidae (chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas, and human beings)
>
> Oh look, human beings too :)

See, what did I tell you? You have very poor reading comprehension skills. The entry is referring to the super-family (Hominidae) to which both humans and apes belong.

Let's make it simple for your low IQ: Hominidae={ape, human}

If ape = human, then Hominidae is not properly defined because a set is NOT the same as one of its elements.

Oh look, you missed the fine details again! :))) LMAO.

> >Common usage DOES NOT define the word, but it often happens that stupid and incompetent people like you who are poor at mastery of the language, introduce additional meanings that may not even be anything like the original meaning stated in the dictionary.

> Actually, it does. If everyone started to call what we think of as "pizza" for "chair", then guess what? that delicious lunch is now a chair. :)

Doesn't even follow...

Wow, your thickness is truly unfathomable. Of course a dictionary describes the meaning of the word. Why else would there be two words "pizza" and "chair", you fucking moron?!

>
> Words have meaning based on usage. If they are used to refer to some object, concept, action, etc, that is what we perceive as the meaning.

Dictionaries have PURPOSE. If they do not define the meaning of words, they are worthless.

> >Moron! You would never know because you don't know shit about anything.
> answer the question, how do you know you're not a brain in a jar in my basement in a simulation?

How do you know you are an idiot?

> >Chuckle. You can't "read the Elements", you need serious study thereof. The crappy geometry you were taught in high school does no justice to the contents in the Elements. It is drivel by your ignorant, incompetent and stupid teachers who themselves have never understood its contents.
> I have read it and read the proofs, I like it. I can definitely see why it stuck around for so long.

Man, you don't know shit about it.

> >It is very much the ONLY foundation of mathematics. There is NO other. Chuckle
> Nope, it is not. There are many alternatives today, even ZFC is not the only one. This is a common problem you have. You are so focused on what you like that you fail to see that there could ever be anything else. Is this part of your narcissism?

"Like" or "Dislike" as I have often told you in times past has nothing to do with mathematics and sound reasoning. As for the narcissism slight, that is what fools like you resort to when you can't step up to my level.

> >Of course numerous fakes such as ZFC, etc have surfaced, but in reality NONE of these are sound in any respect

> They are all valid foundations and ZFC is considerably more powerful than Euclides was.

In English, there is no "Euclides", only Euclid. ZFC is garbage and no intelligent person would even compare it with the Elements because it's not even in the same class. LMAO.

> It can for example encompass virtually everything that isn't class sized.. Functions, abstract structures, topology, analysis, discrete, everything of those fits into ZFC.
>
> Most of it does not work within Euclides so it is weaker.

Garbage and ill-formed concepts of course have no place in sound mathematics. I can see why you are so desperate to defend the rot you have been brainwashed to believe is true - how can you deny your very existence?! Chuckle.. Your education is worthless and you are nothing but an idiot who will never produce anything in your life because you simply aren't capable.

>Let's make it simple for your low IQ: Hominidae={ape, human}

Re-read it, it says the super family is called apes and INCLUDES humans.

>Wow, your thickness is truly unfathomable. Of course a dictionary describes the meaning of the word. Why else would there be two words "pizza" and "chair", you fucking moron?!

Hence descriptive, not prescriptive.

>Dictionaries have PURPOSE. If they do not define the meaning of words, they are worthless.

They don't define words, they describe how people use words so unknown words can be understood in their common usage.

>Man, you don't know shit about it.

I know quite a bit :)

>As for the narcissism slight, that is what fools like you resort to when you can't step up to my level.

No, it is about how you behave, you behave just like a fucking narcissist.

>no intelligent person would even compare it with the Elements because it's not even in the same class. LMAO.

They would because ZFC is much stronger than Elements. It can do considerably more than anything you do but you are too blinded to see that.

>Garbage and ill-formed concepts of course have no place in sound mathematics.

None of those I mentioned are "ill-formed" in the real world. It is just things you do not understand, which is what you mean with "ill-formed"

>I can see why you are so desperate to defend the rot you have been brainwashed to believe is true - how can you deny your very existence?!

No brainwashing has been done. I have read it all and studied and thought on it and concluded it works.

>Chuckle. Your education is worthless and you are nothing but an idiot who will never produce anything in your life because you simply aren't capable.

I'll produce my things, but unlike your trash, it will be at least something valuable and not something that people mock and laugh at :)

onsdag 28 april 2021 kl. 18:04:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 00:56:56 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >Only your inferior brain and those imbeciles like you
> > Yours do to :) Again, you assume your brain is recieving inputs from your eyes and that they accurately portray reality. As far as you know, you could be a brain in a jar.
> Wow. Deep logic there Malum! LMAO. If indeed my brain were in a jar, where would my eyes be???
>
> Gosh, what a moron you are!
> > >I don't assume anything. There is a book which we call a <<dictionary>>. I go by the definitions in the dictionary. For example, I don't make assumptions about what "intuition" means. I know precisely what it means. You never have.
> > And the dictionary assumes you understand the wrod it uses to DESCRIBE common usage of words. (Dictionary are descriptive, not prescriptive). So again, assumptions.
> The dictionary is not a person so that it can assume anything. Also, the dictionary describes the MEANING of the word. Common usage DOES NOT define the word, but it often happens that stupid and incompetent people like you who are poor at mastery of the language, introduce additional meanings that may not even be anything like the original meaning stated in the dictionary.
>
> You can't get away from the dictionary. It is the FIRST source any intelligent human consults.
> > >Rubbish. What we see is the reflection of light and there are no assumptions there - even the physics is well known.
> > But you assume it is happening, again, you might be a brain in a jar experiencing just a simulation. You would never know.
> Moron! You would never know because you don't know shit about anything.
> > >No. You could not "formalise" anything even if your life depended on it. For starters, the foundations of mathematics which are the Elements are a sound formalisation. You are too ignorant and too stupid to even understand the Elements.
>
> > I've read it and it was a decent first attempt at formalising.
> Chuckle. You can't "read the Elements", you need serious study thereof. The crappy geometry you were taught in high school does no justice to the contents in the Elements. It is drivel by your ignorant, incompetent and stupid teachers who themselves have never understood its contents.
> > It is however not the foundations anymore but a historical book.
> It is very much the ONLY foundation of mathematics. There is NO other. Chuckle.
>
> Of course numerous fakes such as ZFC, etc have surfaced, but in reality NONE of these are sound in any respect.
A dictionary is not math. It's a lexicon over common day uses and common day meaning of a word. It's not necessary the best technical lexicon there is..

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 12:04:50 PM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel (JG), Troll Boy) wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 00:56:56 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >I don't assume anything. There is a book which we call a <<dictionary>>. I go by the definitions in the dictionary. For example, I don't make assumptions about what "intuition" means. I know precisely what it means. You never have.
> > And the dictionary assumes you understand the wrod it uses to DESCRIBE common usage of words. (Dictionary are descriptive, not prescriptive). So again, assumptions.

> The dictionary is not a person so that it can assume anything.

Jeez, yer dumb, Troll Boy!

> Also, the dictionary describes the MEANING of the word.

Your "definitions" of things like numbers, functions and derivatives of functions are notoriously misleading and utterly useless in applications. Using them, you cannot derive even the most elementary results of basic, elementary-school arithmetic, e.g. that 2+2=4.

JG here claims to have a discovered a shortcut to mastering calculus without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his goofy little system quite useless. What a moron!

Forget calculus. JG has also banned all axioms because he cannot even derive the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4. Such results require the use of axioms, so he must figure he's now off the hook. Again, what a moron!

Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021

"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019

No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.

Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog a http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Dan Christensen wrote:

>> The dictionary is not a person so that it can assume anything.
>
> Jeez, yer dumb, Troll Boy!
>
>> Also, the dictionary describes the MEANING of the word.
>
> Your "definitions" of things like numbers, functions and derivatives of
> functions are notoriously misleading and utterly useless in
> applications.
> Using them, you cannot derive even the most elementary results of
> basic, elementary-school arithmetic, e.g. that 2+2=4.

SHOCKER: Red Cross is warning all Covid-vaccinated are INELIGIBLE for
donating Blood

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 10:26:32 AM UTC-4, NaCl wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> >> The dictionary is not a person so that it can assume anything.
> >
> > Jeez, yer dumb, Troll Boy!
> >
> >> Also, the dictionary describes the MEANING of the word.
> >
> > Your "definitions" of things like numbers, functions and derivatives of
> > functions are notoriously misleading and utterly useless in
> > applications.
> > Using them, you cannot derive even the most elementary results of
> > basic, elementary-school arithmetic, e.g. that 2+2=4.

> SHOCKER: Red Cross is warning all Covid-vaccinated are INELIGIBLE for
> donating Blood

Maybe in your home country, comrade, but from the American Red Cross:

COVID-19 Vaccine and Blood Donor Eligibility Information

The Red Cross is following FDA blood donation eligibility guidance for those who receive a COVID-19 vaccination, and deferral times may vary depending on the type of vaccine an individual receives. If you’ve received a COVID-19 vaccine, you’ll need to provide the manufacturer name when you come to donate. Upon vaccination, you should receive a card or printout indicating what COVID-19 vaccine was received, and we encourage you to bring that card with you to your next donation. In most cases, there is no deferral time for individuals who received a COVID-19 vaccine as long as they are symptom free and feeling well at the time of donation. The following eligibility guidelines apply to each COVID-19 vaccine received, including boosters:

There is no deferral time for eligible blood donors who are vaccinated with an inactivated or RNA based COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by AstraZeneca, Janssen/J&J, Moderna, Novavax, or Pfizer.
Eligible blood donors who received a live attenuated COVID-19 vaccine or do not know what type of COVID-19 vaccine they received must wait two weeks before giving blood.
If you have an appointment scheduled and need to change your donation date based on the above guidance, click here.
If you have further eligibility questions, please call 1-800-RED CROSS (1-800-733-2767).

Please note: The Red Cross, as an organization, is not a healthcare provider and is not administering COVID-19 vaccinations in the U.S. However, Red Cross volunteers who are medical professionals may work with local authorities to help give vaccinations if their state licenses permit them to do so. In addition, Red Cross teams are currently helping to vaccinate U.S. service members on bases around the world.

https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/dlp/coronavirus--covid-19--and-blood-donation.html

Dan Christensen wrote:

>> SHOCKER: Red Cross is warning all Covid-vaccinated are INELIGIBLE for
>> donating Blood
>
> Maybe in your home country, comrade, but from the American Red Cross:
> COVID-19 Vaccine and Blood Donor Eligibility Information
> The Red Cross is following FDA blood donation eligibility guidance for
> those who receive a COVID-19 vaccination, and deferral times may vary
> depending on the type of vaccine an individual receives.

Lol, you can't even fucking read. But it looks like they don't want you
around anymore. So it's just a logical outcome. Are we big
mathematicians, huh?

Dr. Ardis - Murdering Fauci Exposed - Genocidal MANIAC
https://www.bitchute.com/video/bBVVwobBHOuv/

and not less

Ernst Wolff - Uncovering the Corona Narrative - Aug 2021
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/fk73rcAhbjxO/

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 11:17:39 AM UTC-4, Ernst wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> >> SHOCKER: Red Cross is warning all Covid-vaccinated are INELIGIBLE for
> >> donating Blood
> >
> > Maybe in your home country, comrade, but from the American Red Cross:
> > COVID-19 Vaccine and Blood Donor Eligibility Information
> > The Red Cross is following FDA blood donation eligibility guidance for
> > those who receive a COVID-19 vaccination, and deferral times may vary
> > depending on the type of vaccine an individual receives.
> Lol, you can't even fucking read. But it looks like they don't want you
> around anymore. So it's just a logical outcome. Are we big
> mathematicians, huh?
>

HA, HA!! You have been caught in lie, so you don't admit your mistake. You do what your bosses Putin and Trump would do--you double down on your lies.

История не простит вам, товарищ.

Dan Christensen wrote:

>> > and deferral times may vary depending on the type of vaccine an
>> > individual receives.
>> Lol, you can't even fucking read. But it looks like they don't want you
>> around anymore. So it's just a logical outcome. Are we big
>> mathematicians, huh?
>
> HA, HA!! You have been caught in lie, so you don't admit your mistake.
> You do what your bosses Putin and Trump would do--you double down on
> your lies. История не простит вам, товарищ.

this guy truly can't understand own phrase:

"and deferral times may vary depending on the type of vaccine an
individual receives."

If you got the spike protein, cell hijack producer, spitting constantly
prion poison into your blood, they definitely can't use it to something
beneficial.

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 5:37:18 PM UTC-4, Kylian Minogue wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> >> > and deferral times may vary depending on the type of vaccine an
> >> > individual receives.
> >> Lol, you can't even fucking read. But it looks like they don't want you
> >> around anymore. So it's just a logical outcome. Are we big
> >> mathematicians, huh?
> >
> > HA, HA!! You have been caught in lie, so you don't admit your mistake.
> > You do what your bosses Putin and Trump would do--you double down on
> > your lies. История не простит вам, товарищ.
> this guy truly can't understand own phrase:
> "and deferral times may vary depending on the type of vaccine an
> individual receives."

Yeah, you MAY have to wait 2 weeks before donating blood depending the type of vaccine. Nothing about "Red Cross is warning all Covid-vaccinated are INELIGIBLE for donating Blood."

Пока, береги себя. Ха-ха-ха !!!