On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 4:52:03 PM UTC, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 6:51:29 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 12/16/2023 5:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 11:53:03 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> > > <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 1:55:29?PM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > >>> <https://www.irishnewsarchive.com>
> > >>> Looking down the list of newspapapers in the search box, I find:
> > >>> "Irish Examiner. 03/08/1893 - Current - IEX"
> > >>> (Typing IEX into the box will get you there quickly)
> > >>> I chose a date range from 1950 to 2023 and search term of "Andre
> > >>> Jute". It found 524 results. The most recent was July 2, 2005.
> > >>> However, I could not view the scanned newspaper pages without a
> > >>> $29/month or $149/year subscription.
> > >>>
> > >>> Andre's name and photo appeared on most pages:
> > >>> <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/IEX%20-%20Andre%20Jute%20-%20Jan%2020%201994.jpg>
> > >>>
> > >>> When I attempted to jump to the end of the results with the "last"
> > >>> button, I received an error message and a referral to:
> > >>> Site: www.memorablemoments.ie
> > >>> Index Error Reporting
> > >>> Email: er...@irishnewspaperarchives.com
> > >>>
> > >>> Sifting through the pages, the most recent article I could find was in
> > >>> 2005 and the earliest was in 1992. For reasons unknown, the indexed
> > >>> pages are not in chronological order. The "last" button magically
> > >>> started working confirming the earliest entry to be in 1992.
> > >>> Therefore, Andre wrote a column in the Irish Examiner for about 13
> > >>> years.
> > >
> > > That can't be correct. Andre's column appeared to be daily. Because
> > > the articles were out of order, I couldn't be sure if it was a daily
> > > or weekly column. All I have is that the earliest and latest articles
> > > were 13 years apart. If it were a daily, there would need to be:
> > > 13 * 365 = 4,745 articles
> > > If it were weekly:
> > > 13 * 52 = 676 articles
> > > Neither number is close to the 524 articles found. Methinks Andre
> > > might be able to explain it better than my guessing.
> > >
> > >> As I noted, he hasn't figured it out. There are two search engines available on their website. One is specific to the Irish Examiner which returns HTML prepped articles, the other is a meta-search engine of the digitized pages of 145 newspapers published in Ireland from 1700 to the present. The engine you used was the latter:
> > >> https://www.irishnewsarchive.com/publication-list
> > >> (click 'more title' to expand the list)
> > >
> > > I didn't see that index. Thanks. Irish Examiner (1841 to present)
> > > starts here:
> > > <https://www.irishnewsarchive.com/irish-examiner-newspaper-archive>
> > > No thumbnails. The same search results page that I found. No search
> > > by name, so I can't search for which years Andre was on the payroll.
> > > This index is worse than the one I found and used.
> > >
> > >> It isn't clear to me that the search results you got were _all_ from the irish examiner, nor is it clear that a search for 'andre jute' on the irishnewsarchive.com was a boolean AND. It may have a boolean OR, in which case it would have returned results for any article containing 'andre' OR 'jute'.
> > >
> > > True. I'm not even sure the search results I found were every article
> > > written by Andre. What bothered me most was the "impression" that
> > > most of the aricles I first found were at the extremes on the date
> > > range. I found a bunch between 2000 and 2005 and another bunch
> > > between 1992 and 1996, but nothing in between. It's too tedious and
> > > time consuming to inspect every page, I'll assume that I did something
> > > wrong and skipped over the missing years.
> > >
> > >> The search engine specific to the Irish Examiner is boolean OR. Entering just 'andre' gives one set of results, while entering just 'jute' gives another set. The venn diagram of the two yields the one result - the letter of complaint.
> > >
> > >
> > I have not followed this much but over a 14 year period
> > (roughly 676 weeks) a normal columnist's missed weeks
> > (holidays, vacation, other commitments, illness) would make
> > 524 a not ridiculous number.
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> > a...@yellowjersey.org
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> Liebermann is crying to make an impact on the world. Just being himself was never enough, he had to have people looking up to him and only that would satisfy his ego. His abilities were never appreciated because he had none to speak of. No one that worked around him liked his egotistical behavior. So he was forced to work for himself and pretend that doing technician work was taking advantage of his training.
>
> I NEVER expected anyone to value anything I did but upon the merits of that work alone. And that is why I was paid so much. I actually contributed to society rather than society pay me homage for no other reason than existing. I warned everyone about the vaccine because I actually know how to analyze and understand things. The stupid 4 in an effort to appear more intellectually gifted by believing the words of Fauci (whom I also warned about) followed each other like a circle jerk.
>
> This year alone 144,000 excess death have been reported. And these did not occur in the very old and very sick age groups - ALL age groups had almost identical percentages of excess deaths. Prediction is the proof of correctness but the Stupid 4 still deny that I understood any of this. I also said that over time the excess deaths would increase as immune systems were being overcome with the mRNA vaccines and the manner in which they work. And that too is occurring. So are the stupid 4 in the group that was lucky enough to have a rapid immune response to the cells that contained the initial vaccine? By percentages I would say that Liebermann is a dead man walking. Slocomb is also approaching his already late end so it could only be known why he had died if you had access to his post mortem exam. Flunky and Krygowski would probably have survived the vaccine but that is difficult to say because I am worried that MOST people's immune system did not react in the proper way. After all, we ARE seeing a rather rapid advancement in excess deaths. That doesn't bode well.
> '
> Remember when the Environmentalists were crying that there were too many people on this planet and that we should forcibly sterilize a large number of them - like Jews and Blacks and those stupid Mexicans. Even the Spanish of Mexican birth agreed with that. Well those Environmentalists are about to get their wish only it will not be targeted at the unworthy in their estimation.
>
> After a normal pandemic, there is usually a hiatus in which all of those susceptible to the disease have died and there are lower deaths than normal.. This has not occurred. This is very bad news for the vaccinated. So cross your fingers that this will not turn out as badly as it might.
>
For the benefit of RBT's stupid four, what Tom is talking about is excess low mortality. This is how it works: Let's say you were due to die in 2024 according to your life insurance company's mortality tables, also called L tables, which tell us the life expectancy of anyone born in a particular year (in a particular place and into a particular race, normally not explained). But here comes the Chinese COVID or the vaccine against it, and kills you in 2020. Then you aren't available to die in 2024, which depresses the death rate in 2024. So far, so simple. That's low mortality. But here come the headcounters and they discover that the death rate isn't depressed in 2024 -- the expected low mortality -- but noticeably higher,, an unexpected excess over low mortality. That is commonly shorthanded to excess low mortality.
>
There is currently excess low mortality in a whole bunch of places around the world.
>
Andre Jute
NEDDY talks on demand. (Neddy is a particularly dull and obstructive child to whom things must be explained in veeeeery simple terms.)

On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 11:20:08 AM UTC-5, shitstain wrote:
> On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 12:40:07 PM UTC, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 5:25:53 PM UTC-5, shit stain wrote:
> >
> > You still haven't proven me wrong. You still haven't provided any proof the the Irish Examiner has retained any of your work. Yes, shit stain, you're going to claim we should take you at your word. Fuck that.
> >
> Why should I want to prove you wrong? You think I care shit what you think? I'm just prodding you to so you can react and make an ever bigger fool of yourself.

Yet your the one who claims not to care what I think, claims to not have time to bicker with me, then keeps starting new discussion dedicated to me - talk about a flailing fool.....

> >
> For instance, you're so mindless, it hasn't occurred to you that it is impossible to "purge" anyone from a printed archive, because other keepers of archives will have the same archive.

As was noted when I pointed out to you that the Irish News Archive was a scan repository of printed material. It took Jeff to point out they're the ones that had your articles, not the Irish Exmainer - you couldn't tell the difference between the two until I pointed it out to you, shortass.

> You're a moron out of your depth, FlunkyFailure.

Says the tired useless old hag that can't figure out a basic search engine.

> >
> My memory was right, the Examiner trashed their hard-copy archive over forty years ago.

I'm not taking your worthless word on anything.

> What you're calling their archive is no such thing but a commercial or academic project by a third party to digitize and index another hard copy archive of all the papers, perhaps from a university library's stacks.
Let's try this once again, try reading it slowly so that it can sink in:
There are two search engines - one is the proprietary Examiner search tool in the upper right corner. The other is a link to the Irish News Service. The latter is the external service where jeff found a number of your articles. The former is the the Examiner archive which contains articles going back over 50 years. This is why when you search for the article that gets no hits, you get a message that states "No search results found from 01.01.1970 to 18.12.2023"

That's 53 years, you fucking dolt.

> Unsigned out of contempt for a total moron who doesn't know when he's soundly beaten.

You haven't beaten anything except your own dick in the last 50 years.

> >
> PS "You still haven't provided any proof the the Irish Examiner has retained any of your work"
> Just this sentences proves that you're totally out of your depth, and pitifully ignorant with it. A newspaper is in the business of publishing NEWS; it keeps an archive mainly for the benefit of scholars and the respectability of being the newspaper of record. That is why in economy drives, the first item to be cut is the archive. But you're too inexperienced and unsophisticated to work that out for yourself, Cowardly FlunkyFailure. Stop digging your hole deeper, you poor little man.

Sure, that's why they state they search back to Jan 1 1970. Who's out of their depth, and continues to dig deeper? Not me, you useless pathetic stain of shit. Go back to your bedpan, you toothless useless old git. You're bothering the thinking folk here.

On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 12:04:50 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 8:20:08 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 12:40:07 PM UTC, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 5:25:53 PM UTC-5, shit stain wrote:
> > >
> > > You still haven't proven me wrong. You still haven't provided any proof the the Irish Examiner has retained any of your work. Yes, shit stain, you're going to claim we should take you at your word. Fuck that.
> > >
> > Why should I want to prove you wrong? You think I care shit what you think? I'm just prodding you to so you can react and make an ever bigger fool of yourself.
> > >
> > For instance, you're so mindless, it hasn't occurred to you that it is impossible to "purge" anyone from a printed archive, because other keepers of archives will have the same archive. You're a moron out of your depth, FlunkyFailure.
> > >
> > My memory was right, the Examiner trashed their hard-copy archive over forty years ago. What you're calling their archive is no such thing but a commercial or academic project by a third party to digitise and index another hardcopy archive of all the papers, perhaps from a university library's stacks.
> > >
> > Unsigned out of contempt for a total moron who doesn't know when he's soundly beaten.
> > >
> > PS "You still haven't provided any proof the the Irish Examiner has retained any of your work"
> > Just this sentences proves that you're totally out of your depth, and pitifully ignorant with it. A newspaper is in the business of publishing NEWS; it keeps an archive mainly for the benefit of scholars and the respectability of being the newspaper of record. That is why in economy drives, the first item to be cut is the archive. But you're too inexperienced and unsophisticated to work that out for yourself, Cowardly FlunkyFailure. Stop digging your hole deeper, you poor little man.
> If Flunky talked to me in person even once as he does as the provincial ass that he is, I would put my thumb on top of his head and push him down into the dirt where he belongs.

If you met me face to face you'd piss you pants and drop to your knees begging for mercy.

> The trouble with social media is that it gives voice to people who know nothing.

Yes, and here you and the shit stain are, proving that point quite aptly.

> At one time the media was content to filter out the morons like the Stupid 4 but that ended when the Slime Stream Media figured there were so many idiots in the world that they could make more money catering to their nattering than publishing news.

Right, that was when platforms like Twitter and Facebook kept fucking morons like you at bay. It wasn't my content they were censuring, jackass, it was you and the rest of your magatards.

On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 12:09:34 PM UTC-5, shitstain wrote:
> On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 4:07:21 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 12/17/2023 10:58 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >
> > > Hell, yes. In any event, I turned in a column only when I had something to say.
> > Ah, if only that applied to bicycle technical group discussions! :-)
> >
> > --
> > - Frank Krygowski
> >
> Absolutely, Franki-boy, couldn't agree more. Since the Cowardly FlunkyMonkey is your bumbuddy, maybe you can pull sharply on his leash to stop his yapping, and it won't be necessary for me to say a word except about bicycles and politics and the primary necessity of free speech.

You have the perverted notion that free speech is limited to your exercise of it - typical fascist rhetoric

> >
> Glad you've come around to my way of thinking, Franki-boy, even if it did take you 13 years to see the light.

lol....If the world thought like you, we'd be in so much deeper shit than we are now.

> >
> Andre Jute
> Off to cut a crooked Aliexpress seller off at the scrotum.

hah...sure. Someone sell you a counterfeit watch? Good luck getting Ali express to refund that! Interesting to note you and tommy have the same penchant for buying cheap chinese shit.

> >