"Currants Bw..."

[GP]

I prefer the term circle jerk

I prefer a flan.

[Letters]

One response to you and just one. The thing I find unspeakably offensive about you, besides the endless lies.

You are supposed to be a Christian.

So? You do this quite a lot, say something without actually saying anything.
Give me an example of a lie I’ve told.
As distinct from something I’ve said which isn’t true - I may have been mistaken about things but that isn’t the same thing.
Your problem is you infer malicious intent everywhere you look.
I suspect most of the time it doesn’t exist.
And sure, I’ve sometimes responded to you in a somewhat snarky way, but more recently I’ve tried to be more measured. Because I’m not interested in making enemies. I think you’re wrong about a lot of stuff but I’ll continue to explain why and back up my thoughts with sources and data.
You could do the same but you refuse to.
I see you’ve repeated the “99.85%” thing in the Covid thread.
I have asked you multiple times to provide a source and you have refused to.
Which is your prerogative of course but people aren’t going to take anyone seriously if they just post endless assertions without backing them up with some evidence.

[Niall_Quinn]

These people and their "sources". What does it mean. Please provide me with the opinion of an authority approved better who tells me what to think and is in it for the money? Sources? Here's what I think -> provide a link. Everything he said, that's what I think. Sad, isn't it.

Of course I have provided an endless amount of "sources" so people who can't think for themselves don't have to wander out of their comfort zone. But these efforts are, of course, bundled up into the category "nutter on the Internet" and so don't count. Therefore, I have provided no sources. And that's how the game is played. I provided a video from another "source" just tonight. And because it is plainly not "some nutter on the Internet" it is studiously ignored. Another rule in the game. So still no "sources". You'd think I could come up with at least ONE, right?

Provided they keep on saying it, it must be true.

A lot of people (way too may) seem to have forgotten that a source is the start of the thought process, not the unthinking conclusion. Where's your source, provide a source, that source is debunked, blah. Never a thought, just a copy/ paste. We have people here who copy/ paste scientific data, reach a conclusion and then berate those who disagree - when they don't themselves understand a single aspect of the argument. And that's where we are. Where's your government approved source? Because if you don't have that, if you dare to present an unauthorised source or, worse, delve into thought, logic and reason, well don't be surprised when you get called out for it.

It's also fun to watch people claim nothing is being said, because there's nothing they can instantly Google which would serve as "fact check" fodder. That's the danger of thought. It makes search queries very difficult, if done right.

[GP]

Lousy Smarch weather.

[Letters]

Lousy Smarch weather.

Went for a walk around earlier. Disappointing level of snow. Enough to be slippery and treacherous, not enough to build snowmen.
'Tis bloody freezing out there. Biting wind

[Letters]

These people and their "sources". What does it mean. Please provide me with the opinion of an authority approved better who tells me what to think and is in it for the money? Sources? Here's what I think -> provide a link. Everything he said, that's what I think. Sad, isn't it.

Yes, that is sad. But it's also a straw man.
I am not an expert on climate science. Or virology. I have no ability to gather my own data on the pandemic.
So if I'm going to claim that climate change is caused by man or that in developed countries the Covid mortality rate is 1% then it's useful for other people to understand the source of that information. If you're going to say that climate change is because of the sun or that the Covid mortality rate is 99.85% then I expect you to provide a source. You're not an expert on these things any more than I am. You're not doing hands on research yourself. So you must be reading or watching something which has led you to those conclusions. Is it so unreasonable to ask what?

And sure, you have provided some sources. But when you've done so it's not taken long for me and others to find other sources which contradict them.
Now, to be fair, anyone can do that these days. The internet is a strange place. But this is a part of the problem. How do we know which sources are true?
I admit my sources tend to be more mainstream - the 1% mortality rate comes from Imperial College. Personally I regard them as more credible than "some bloke on YouTube". (I'm not saying that's where you got the 99.85% rate, I've no idea where it came from as you have refused to provide a source). Your mistake (IMO) is to believe that anything mainstream is false, or propaganda because it's mainstream. I don't believe that.

I don't believe that "they" are trying to constantly deceive or or mislead us. You do believe that. But that is somewhat undermined by the fact that you seem to call anything which doesn't confirm to your beliefs "fake news" or "fake science" or "propaganda". I posted a video of a YouTuber I follow a bit talking about the PCR tests and because it didn't say what you believe you just called it "propaganda". The bloke is just a science teacher turned YouTuber. He doesn't represent any large organisation or Government. Who do you think it was propaganda for and what's his motive? You can't just call something propaganda because you disagree with it.

I provided a video from another "source" just tonight. And because it is plainly not "some nutter on the Internet" it is studiously ignored.

The one about Biden's executive orders? I watched it. I've never been a big champion for Biden, I just didn't want 4 more years of Trump.
I don't think that bloke is "some nutter on the Internet" actually, but he clearly has biases (like we all do, tbf) which have led him to false conclusions about the Texas lawsuit and the Amazon/Parler one previously.
Your biases have led you to false conclusions too - you were predicting curfews, checkpoints, the army on the street. None of those things have happened. I'm not pointing that out to make you look silly, I'm doing so because I'm hoping you might consider why you got those things wrong. My take is it's because you're paranoid. You think think "they" are out to get you and using this situation to control people. They aren't. Which doesn't mean they're bending over backwards to help you either of course, those aren't the only two possibilities. Your paranoia extends to thinking that people like me who see the world differently than you have malicious intent. You talk about my "constant lies". What lies? Even if I've posted things which aren't true, I haven't done so knowingly. When I posted some graphs last year about Italy and the UK and their respective handling of Covid I didn't account for population. You picked me up on that - quite rightly - and I admitted the mistake and adjusted accordingly (which actually ended up making my point not really valid). You probably think that was you catching me in the lie, actually it was just pointing out I made a mistake which I quickly corrected. How strange it must be to live in a world where you think people like me are trying to deceive you for some reason simply because I see things differently.

I don't understand what "you're supposed to be a Christian" is meant to mean. I always feel that's a bit below the belt when people use that one. Valid maybe if you'd just found out I was doing <insert some unspeakable crime here>, but what am I doing which you think is "unchristian"?

Where's your government approved source? Because if you don't have that, if you dare to present an unauthorised source or, worse, delve into thought, logic and reason, well don't be surprised when you get called out for it.

I'll judge any source on its merits. If you provide a source and he comes across as a nutter and has no disenable qualifications in the thing he's pontificating about then I don't think calling that out is unreasonable.
Anyone can make any claim. You don't have to have any particular credentials to make a claim these days. Nutters who used to shout on street corners can now shout across the internet and with a fair wind get a big following.
Just because they're "independent", that doesn't make them right.

TL;DR - I don't think "they" are out to get you in the way you imagine. I'm definitely not. You'd have better discussions on here if you stopped thinking that you know better than everyone, stop to consider you might be mistaken about some things and stop thinking people like me are "the enemy" or have malicious intent simply because we don't see the world the same way as you.

[Mac76]

Went for a walk around earlier. Disappointing level of snow. Enough to be slippery and treacherous, not enough to build snowmen.
'Tis bloody freezing out there. Biting wind

we'll go out this savvy for a walk, like you say it's a middling amount around the house but will be interesting to see what it's like on the nearby green spaces

[Letters]

The Royal vagina

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55999359

Gawd bless ‘er

[Letters]

Hmm. Someone signed up with the email address

nameredacted@blowjobvideo.info

Looks legit

[WMUG]

Somebody looking to promote their onlyfans?