You Want Aluminum Foil? What's your hat size?
-
Valuing your privacy is one thing. Overvaluing your privacy quite another! Your examples are all straw men. Your insurance company is entitled to know where you live as part of the contract you sign with them - failure to disclose material details will result in the voiding of cover. As to anyone else tracking you, just how is it that they are obtaining the records on a phone in your possession again? And what can they learn from a phone that simply siccing a PI on your tail won't teach them? Where all the nutters go wrong is first to vastly overestimate their own importance (of all the billions of people in the world why should you be the target of anyone's special interest?) and secondly to vastly underestimate the ease with which they could be tracked before computers and smartphones were ever invented. Are you on an electoral roll? Do you pay taxes? Are you a member of a library or a club? Do you ever have a pizza delivered? And you still think your privacy is protected by switching off the GPS on a phone? What makes you think your mail isn't already being looked through if you're a person of sufficient interest to warrant someone tracking your location? Have you never been asked for a utility bill as a form of ID? Never lost a bank card (your account is protected by a PIN that has a grand total of 10000 possible combinations, by the way - how long do you reckon it would take someone to crack yours?) Privacy is and always has been a convenient lie we tell ourselves to protect our feelings. There is only one place that you will ever achieve privacy and this is in your coffin (although even that's not guaranteed - a disinterment can still be demanded by order of a judge!) If someone has a real desire to find you then they will do so. Turning off the GPS in your phone will not make that harder, nor will turning it on make it easier. That's a fact that you are entirely at liberty to ignore but, yes, I will always maintain that it is irrational so to do. Oh, and no, I have no objection to you reading my mail providing that you also sort out the stuff that I really have no need to while you're doing it. I don't, you see, it turns out, have anything to hide and long ago accepted that if I did it was almost certainly far too late to do anything about it!
My arguments are Straw Men? Then you've just planted a field. Someone could hire a PI - but they'd have to target you specifically - not just get the impulse to check. Did I ever have pizza delivered, etc.? Pay taxes? and the other list of ridiculous leaks you put forward. None of them keep a tab on what I'm doing on a continuous basis. My insurance company is not entitled to know where I go. I insure my vehicle for driving but I'm not accountable to them as to where I drive. Only how I drive. Electoral rolls? etc. etc. etc. Right down to the ATM pin: only 10K is correct - but perhaps your bank is lax. Mine will disable a card after a few failed attempts in a row. Actually true for just about every online account with financial implications. You really miss the big picture: a private company monitoring everyone continuously and without their permission. Sure - if someone specifically targeted me "they could get me" - but they have to pick me out, specifically. That becomes an expensive proposition that would not be done without some specific motivation. You just cannot seem to distinguish the difference as to what can be done if some entity were specifically motivated to obtain your personal information vs. harvesting everything about everyone with no expenses incurred. You reasoning, blurring what could be done vs. what is being done, as though one justifies the other is just plain bogus. An easy excuse to not bother and hope nothing happens to you. You'd probably have loved living in East Germany before the wall went down. Actually - I am flabbergasted at your disregard for privacy. It must be cultural or something like that. Like labeling those who won't quietly go with the flow as 'nutters'. A quick label and all is right with your world.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Quote:
If some loony targets a child, all they have to do is steal or clone their phone, and instantly gain access to their regular habits -- where they go, and when.
Ah yes, because that's so much simpler than simply knowing what school they attend five days a week - something which, if they are targeting the child, they already have locked in their brains. Are you for real?
Surveillance takes time and effort. Your average monster could steal or clone the phones of a hundred potential victims in less time than it would take to watch just one.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I don't really care if the FBI tracks me by my cell phone. I really don't. When I become an international bad boy, then maaaybe, I might care.
Try to imagine going into a Starbucks that happens to be next door to the Radical Islamist Book Store, and having your cell phone just slightly misinterpret the GPS location. This happens three times, and suddenly you discover (at the airport, when trying to go on vacation) that you're on a No Fly list, with no way to get off. You're still not an international bad boy. Are ou still ok with being tracked? The problem with automated data collection is that the inferences that are automatically extracted from the data don't start with the presumption of innocence.
-
Try to imagine going into a Starbucks that happens to be next door to the Radical Islamist Book Store, and having your cell phone just slightly misinterpret the GPS location. This happens three times, and suddenly you discover (at the airport, when trying to go on vacation) that you're on a No Fly list, with no way to get off. You're still not an international bad boy. Are ou still ok with being tracked? The problem with automated data collection is that the inferences that are automatically extracted from the data don't start with the presumption of innocence.
-
Well - most people don't have the wit to even know there are privacy options, followed by too lazy to make the effort to do anything with them. In apples case, as they demo'd on the TV report, it's about six layers down from the main screen - and remember that each layer has options. It's something like an opt-out vs. opt-in button when people install software - hence the preponderance of malware. In the US, credit cards, banks, etc. have privacy policies that they must disclose annually and give the consumer the option to opt out of some and, at the least, make them aware of the rest. In the state of California, most of this type of stuff is (by law) opt-out default. Not so much for apple/google.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Try to imagine going into a Starbucks that happens to be next door to the Radical Islamist Book Store, and having your cell phone just slightly misinterpret the GPS location. This happens three times, and suddenly you discover (at the airport, when trying to go on vacation) that you're on a No Fly list, with no way to get off. You're still not an international bad boy. Are ou still ok with being tracked? The problem with automated data collection is that the inferences that are automatically extracted from the data don't start with the presumption of innocence.
Cool story bro!
-
Let me play the Devil's advocate of why it is BAD to give the government unfettered access to this information. Lets pretend someone in the agency wants to run for Public Office. But they need Donor money to make this happen. So, they run a simple geofence around rich neighborhoods (really rich). They also geofence all of the hotels (both are already done for them, BTW). Now, they take META data. Phone #, Time/Date, GPS location. They run a simple enough query. Find every phone that normally spends the night in the right neighborhoods, that also spends the nights (or large parts of it), in the Nice hotels on some nights. [People who might be having an affair] Next, find multiple occurrences, and then find the phones that are consistently (more than once), near that phone, those nights in the hotel. [The person, they are probably having an affair with]. Next, cross reference the original phones with their work locations, double check that they are not working for the government, or are judges. Take this list, and "Suggest Kindly" that you know about the affair, and that your Campaign needs a SMALL amount of cash. And suddenly, you are a politician. I have watched SIMILAR transactions occur, against wealthy people that I know. When they refused, they had charges brought against them, in a CLEAR SMEAR campaign, and were forced to literally step down from their companies, and in hindsight said they should have just paid the money, it cost them too much!!! The charges eventually went away... Settled out of court. Information is NEITHER good nor bad. How it is used, CAN be either. There are a lot of positive uses. They can identify the rioters in Baltimore! Bring up DL Photos, and cross reference, and make arrests later on. Now, the interesting part is that they will probably not use this data in this way. If not, all arguments for keeping it seem moot! == The issue is not the data. This issue is not how honest you are. This issue is really about having it used against you in some unforeseeable way, and then having the government (who admits that their agents are REQUIRED to lie under oath about some of its existence and usage, look into the sting ray device usage), use this information to exact some kind of justice. I will give you one more. Right now, the IRS can seize all of your bank assets for depositing too much cash under the $10,000 threshold. They can do this on daily transactions of $3,000 -$5,000. And you have to sue them to get it back. Now, someon
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I have watched SIMILAR transactions occur, against wealthy people that I know.
Don't know where you live but where I live that is blackmail and a criminal offense and if the politician that would have gained by this wasn't even involved but some "well" intentioned other individual did it on their behalf the politician would be dealing with fall out continuously throughout their campaign and it would be seen as a significant negative for that politician in terms of the voters. Of course if they were involved then they would be facing criminal charges and their campaign would be done.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I will give you one more. Right now, the IRS can seize all of your bank assets for depositing too much cash under the $10,000 threshold. They can do this on daily transactions of $3,000 -$5,000. And you have to sue them to get it back. Now, someone does a search for cars that drive through a drug area. They notice you drive through twice a day, and stop for a few minutes on the way home. (you are dropping off the uneaten food from your diner to some very in need people). their search algorithms determines you might be supplying drugs. And WOW, you do lots of cash transactions. What do you think happens next?
Let me clue you in - phones have been collecting this information for years. That is why there are so many apps now that use it. Where are all of these scenarios that you claim should be happening? The info already exists so that isn't the problem.
-
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I have watched SIMILAR transactions occur, against wealthy people that I know.
Don't know where you live but where I live that is blackmail and a criminal offense and if the politician that would have gained by this wasn't even involved but some "well" intentioned other individual did it on their behalf the politician would be dealing with fall out continuously throughout their campaign and it would be seen as a significant negative for that politician in terms of the voters. Of course if they were involved then they would be facing criminal charges and their campaign would be done.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I will give you one more. Right now, the IRS can seize all of your bank assets for depositing too much cash under the $10,000 threshold. They can do this on daily transactions of $3,000 -$5,000. And you have to sue them to get it back. Now, someone does a search for cars that drive through a drug area. They notice you drive through twice a day, and stop for a few minutes on the way home. (you are dropping off the uneaten food from your diner to some very in need people). their search algorithms determines you might be supplying drugs. And WOW, you do lots of cash transactions. What do you think happens next?
Let me clue you in - phones have been collecting this information for years. That is why there are so many apps now that use it. Where are all of these scenarios that you claim should be happening? The info already exists so that isn't the problem.
The challenge is that these guys are smarter than you think. Most of them are lawyers. In this case, it was not worded as a threat. It was a request for a donation, with a specific range attached to it. A couple of times. Then out of the blue, he gets information that they are questioning people looking for charges. Another request he turns down. See, different "actors". Then the charges come, his passport is revoked. No way to tie the two together, but research determines the two people are linked. Also, this concept of "If this was happening, we would hear about it!" is a Bogus argument. Did you hear of the Doctor who rallied against HIV as the cause of AIDS, who was WILLINGLY Injecting himself with HIV+ patients blood??? (no, it made the news in other countries, here, it was not covered. Despite him being in Florida. The person I contacted said they could not cover it, their Editor said no). Did you know Larry King was on a 5 second delay, and was warned that these types of comments cannot come up on his LIVE SHOW? If they did, they would cut to commercial, and he would be fined. Did you know that the Air Traffic Controllers, right after 9/11 were forced to sign GAG orders, acknowledging that they would be sued by the government if they spoke EVEN ABOUT the GAG order? The scenarios ARE happening. I am a nobody and I have seen them first and second hand. The key thing I see in all of these cases is that they don't take EVERYTHING, they take enough. And then they leave you vulnerable. If you speak out, you WILL lose everything, and they will make you look like an idiot, so nobody will listen to a word you say. Snowden Leaked information. Look at how they go after him. Even calling him a low-level analyst, which they admit was to piss him off hoping he would make a mistake. The backstory you probably did NOT hear. They approached the business owner of the Encrypted Email tool he used, and they tried to force him to embed a virus, and steal Snowdens Encryption Keys. This guy had 2 choices. Obey and lose self-respect or shut it down, and lose his business. He choose the latter. It is actually public information. Is that NOT an example of the over-reach we are talking about? Is that blackmail? Well, not when it is sanctioned and TOP SECRET. Also, again, the government throws gag orders in there. So you DO NOT KNOW it is happening around you. The lack of clear evidence for everyone to see is NOT PROOF it is not happening. The existence of some proof is a warn
-
The challenge is that these guys are smarter than you think. Most of them are lawyers. In this case, it was not worded as a threat. It was a request for a donation, with a specific range attached to it. A couple of times. Then out of the blue, he gets information that they are questioning people looking for charges. Another request he turns down. See, different "actors". Then the charges come, his passport is revoked. No way to tie the two together, but research determines the two people are linked. Also, this concept of "If this was happening, we would hear about it!" is a Bogus argument. Did you hear of the Doctor who rallied against HIV as the cause of AIDS, who was WILLINGLY Injecting himself with HIV+ patients blood??? (no, it made the news in other countries, here, it was not covered. Despite him being in Florida. The person I contacted said they could not cover it, their Editor said no). Did you know Larry King was on a 5 second delay, and was warned that these types of comments cannot come up on his LIVE SHOW? If they did, they would cut to commercial, and he would be fined. Did you know that the Air Traffic Controllers, right after 9/11 were forced to sign GAG orders, acknowledging that they would be sued by the government if they spoke EVEN ABOUT the GAG order? The scenarios ARE happening. I am a nobody and I have seen them first and second hand. The key thing I see in all of these cases is that they don't take EVERYTHING, they take enough. And then they leave you vulnerable. If you speak out, you WILL lose everything, and they will make you look like an idiot, so nobody will listen to a word you say. Snowden Leaked information. Look at how they go after him. Even calling him a low-level analyst, which they admit was to piss him off hoping he would make a mistake. The backstory you probably did NOT hear. They approached the business owner of the Encrypted Email tool he used, and they tried to force him to embed a virus, and steal Snowdens Encryption Keys. This guy had 2 choices. Obey and lose self-respect or shut it down, and lose his business. He choose the latter. It is actually public information. Is that NOT an example of the over-reach we are talking about? Is that blackmail? Well, not when it is sanctioned and TOP SECRET. Also, again, the government throws gag orders in there. So you DO NOT KNOW it is happening around you. The lack of clear evidence for everyone to see is NOT PROOF it is not happening. The existence of some proof is a warn
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
is a Bogus argument.
First I didn't say that.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Did you hear of the Doctor who rallied against HIV as the cause of AIDS, who was WILLINGLY Injecting himself with HIV
Yes.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Did you know Larry King was on a 5 second delay, and was warned that these types of comments cannot come up on his LIVE SHOW? If they did, they would cut to commercial, and he would be fined
Sounds like conspiracy nonsense.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Did you know that the Air Traffic Controllers, right after 9/11 were forced to sign GAG orders, acknowledging that they would be sued by the government if they spoke EVEN ABOUT the GAG order
Sounds like more conspiracy nonsense. There are some issues that can be covered by such orders however so it depends on what the topic was.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Is that NOT an example of the over-reach we are talking about?
Not sure what you are talking. Sounds like a random bunch of conspiracy nonsense like any of a large number of conspiracy theories. All of the ones I have seen are nonsensical in various ways and almost always because they require that humans have super human powers to achieve, because they ignore the base human behaviors.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The lack of clear evidence for everyone to see is NOT PROOF it is not happening
Yes actually for the vast majority of theories that is exactly what it means.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The existence of some proof is a warning that it could be a LOT more prevalent than you realize.
Nope. History is full of actual conspiracies. The reason those conspiracies exist in history is because humans are stupid, ignorant, jealous, spiteful, remorseful, fearful, greedy, incompetent, etc, etc, etc. When all of that is added up over time it means even small conspiracies tend to fall apart. Large conspiracies have no chance. And rationalizing anything else requires that one suppose that humans or something that looks like a human is running around with super human powers.
-
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
is a Bogus argument.
First I didn't say that.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Did you hear of the Doctor who rallied against HIV as the cause of AIDS, who was WILLINGLY Injecting himself with HIV
Yes.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Did you know Larry King was on a 5 second delay, and was warned that these types of comments cannot come up on his LIVE SHOW? If they did, they would cut to commercial, and he would be fined
Sounds like conspiracy nonsense.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Did you know that the Air Traffic Controllers, right after 9/11 were forced to sign GAG orders, acknowledging that they would be sued by the government if they spoke EVEN ABOUT the GAG order
Sounds like more conspiracy nonsense. There are some issues that can be covered by such orders however so it depends on what the topic was.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Is that NOT an example of the over-reach we are talking about?
Not sure what you are talking. Sounds like a random bunch of conspiracy nonsense like any of a large number of conspiracy theories. All of the ones I have seen are nonsensical in various ways and almost always because they require that humans have super human powers to achieve, because they ignore the base human behaviors.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The lack of clear evidence for everyone to see is NOT PROOF it is not happening
Yes actually for the vast majority of theories that is exactly what it means.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The existence of some proof is a warning that it could be a LOT more prevalent than you realize.
Nope. History is full of actual conspiracies. The reason those conspiracies exist in history is because humans are stupid, ignorant, jealous, spiteful, remorseful, fearful, greedy, incompetent, etc, etc, etc. When all of that is added up over time it means even small conspiracies tend to fall apart. Large conspiracies have no chance. And rationalizing anything else requires that one suppose that humans or something that looks like a human is running around with super human powers.
Well, I could sit here and quote a small piece of a lot of things you wrote, and keep saying "sounds like sour grapes". I wont. I will focus on ONE THING. Larry King Live show. Because I asked. I found that Tony Robbins had Dr. Duesberg as a speaker. Duesberg points out the HORRIBLE science behind HIV=AIDS theory. Tony is also a good friend of Larry King. Who spoke at the event. (Don't even start with me on the topic, until you have read and understood the science behind his ITAV book) I reached out to Tony, personally, during the event. He is the one who told me that Larry was on the delay, and that he is REMINDED when Tony comes on his show of the list of topics he cannot cover. That is a form of censorship that MOST people in America would NEVER THINK HAPPENS. (The editors argue that any such views they block are "dangerous" for the average viewers to hear!) So. I again point out that NONE of the things I mentioned are theories. I have witnessed them FIRST HAND (or second hand with someone I could trust telling me the situation they were directly involved in, as in this case). == The point I was making still stands. There is a LOT you don't know about because some of it is being blocked from your view. The fact that you have heard NOTHING about it means that it can be prevented from being leaking out. If conspiracies happen all the time, then how come you refer to anything that sounds conspiratorial as "nonsense" throughout your replies? Did Cigarette companies not hide their own research? Did the NSA not ADMIT to violating their own rules for spying? Did the IRS not ADMIT that it violated its rules in targeting and releasing information? This was all about the dangers of the overreach of the government as they have access to an ever increasing amount of details of our lives. Much of it will be used to solve crimes, which is good. Much of it is a violation of our 4th amendment rights! New cars now have black boxes so they can see where the car has been. Soon enough, it will just have a cell phone embedded in it for tracking, with the ability to shut it down remotely and tracking in real-time. And we will probably not have a way to turn it off. Thomas Jefferson would be spinning in his grave!
-
Well, I could sit here and quote a small piece of a lot of things you wrote, and keep saying "sounds like sour grapes". I wont. I will focus on ONE THING. Larry King Live show. Because I asked. I found that Tony Robbins had Dr. Duesberg as a speaker. Duesberg points out the HORRIBLE science behind HIV=AIDS theory. Tony is also a good friend of Larry King. Who spoke at the event. (Don't even start with me on the topic, until you have read and understood the science behind his ITAV book) I reached out to Tony, personally, during the event. He is the one who told me that Larry was on the delay, and that he is REMINDED when Tony comes on his show of the list of topics he cannot cover. That is a form of censorship that MOST people in America would NEVER THINK HAPPENS. (The editors argue that any such views they block are "dangerous" for the average viewers to hear!) So. I again point out that NONE of the things I mentioned are theories. I have witnessed them FIRST HAND (or second hand with someone I could trust telling me the situation they were directly involved in, as in this case). == The point I was making still stands. There is a LOT you don't know about because some of it is being blocked from your view. The fact that you have heard NOTHING about it means that it can be prevented from being leaking out. If conspiracies happen all the time, then how come you refer to anything that sounds conspiratorial as "nonsense" throughout your replies? Did Cigarette companies not hide their own research? Did the NSA not ADMIT to violating their own rules for spying? Did the IRS not ADMIT that it violated its rules in targeting and releasing information? This was all about the dangers of the overreach of the government as they have access to an ever increasing amount of details of our lives. Much of it will be used to solve crimes, which is good. Much of it is a violation of our 4th amendment rights! New cars now have black boxes so they can see where the car has been. Soon enough, it will just have a cell phone embedded in it for tracking, with the ability to shut it down remotely and tracking in real-time. And we will probably not have a way to turn it off. Thomas Jefferson would be spinning in his grave!
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Duesberg points out the HORRIBLE science behind HIV=AIDS theory. ...behind his ITAV book)
Nonsense.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
He is the one who told me that Larry was on the delay,..the list of topics he cannot cover.
I once was personally confronted by a angry young man that looked more than capable of beating up any one he wanted who was quite certain he was going to convince me that I personally was being taken advantage of by some large conspiracy at the very event we both were attending. It was of course nonsense.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
So. I again point out that NONE of the things I mentioned are theories.
They are "theories" in the same way that there are alien bases on the dark side of the moon and that big foot is in fact a clandestine alien invasion. All are nonsensical both in the context of specific evidence and more generally because the very broad basis that even allows for the possibility defies reality.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The point I was making still stands. There is a LOT you don't know about because some of it is being blocked from your view. The fact that you have heard NOTHING about it means that it can be prevented from being leaking out.
Nonsense. First is presumes that I am not in fact part of those conspirators that are keeping you from learning the truth.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
If conspiracies happen all the time, then how come you refer to anything that sounds conspiratorial as "nonsense" throughout your replies?
Because conspiracies, exactly like the ones you cite, are in fact revealed over time.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Did the NSA not ADMIT to violating their own rules for spying? Did the IRS not ADMIT that it violated its rules in targeting and releasing information?
Doubt that. Such admissions, as you stated, would probably be admissible in criminal court. More likely your are referring to claims by others that such occurred.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Much of it is a violation of our 4th amendment rights!
First that is yet to be decided in many cases. Second most of our "rights" that seem to fall i
-
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Duesberg points out the HORRIBLE science behind HIV=AIDS theory. ...behind his ITAV book)
Nonsense.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
He is the one who told me that Larry was on the delay,..the list of topics he cannot cover.
I once was personally confronted by a angry young man that looked more than capable of beating up any one he wanted who was quite certain he was going to convince me that I personally was being taken advantage of by some large conspiracy at the very event we both were attending. It was of course nonsense.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
So. I again point out that NONE of the things I mentioned are theories.
They are "theories" in the same way that there are alien bases on the dark side of the moon and that big foot is in fact a clandestine alien invasion. All are nonsensical both in the context of specific evidence and more generally because the very broad basis that even allows for the possibility defies reality.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The point I was making still stands. There is a LOT you don't know about because some of it is being blocked from your view. The fact that you have heard NOTHING about it means that it can be prevented from being leaking out.
Nonsense. First is presumes that I am not in fact part of those conspirators that are keeping you from learning the truth.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
If conspiracies happen all the time, then how come you refer to anything that sounds conspiratorial as "nonsense" throughout your replies?
Because conspiracies, exactly like the ones you cite, are in fact revealed over time.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Did the NSA not ADMIT to violating their own rules for spying? Did the IRS not ADMIT that it violated its rules in targeting and releasing information?
Doubt that. Such admissions, as you stated, would probably be admissible in criminal court. More likely your are referring to claims by others that such occurred.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Much of it is a violation of our 4th amendment rights!
First that is yet to be decided in many cases. Second most of our "rights" that seem to fall i
Okay, You said nonsense a lot. I will pick ONE item to prove me wrong about. As you should know, when a new scientific fact is discovered, it must be foot noted in all of the papers that reference it for the first few years. I hereby challenge. Please find the peer-reviewed and cited study that PROVED that HIV causes AIDS. Simple enough. You know you believe it is true. Should just be a search away. So, I call your "nonsense" statement. PROVE your statement, or come back and admit you were wrong!
-
Okay, You said nonsense a lot. I will pick ONE item to prove me wrong about. As you should know, when a new scientific fact is discovered, it must be foot noted in all of the papers that reference it for the first few years. I hereby challenge. Please find the peer-reviewed and cited study that PROVED that HIV causes AIDS. Simple enough. You know you believe it is true. Should just be a search away. So, I call your "nonsense" statement. PROVE your statement, or come back and admit you were wrong!
-
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
You know you believe it is true. Should just be a search away.
I am rather certain that attempting to prove this to you would be similar to attempting to convert the Pope to Islam.
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that attempting to prove this to you would be similar to attempting to convert the Pope to Islam.
Nonsense! I said show me the peer-review, published and referenced study that shows HIV Causes AIDS. There is no "conversion" on my part. It is not about what I believe to be true. It is about the science that I have read, and the facts that have and have not been proven. Do you have the REQUIRED FACT to backup your statement or not? A fact that should be in the public domain, and easy enough to find. I know a ton of interesting facts on this topic. Like, in Africa, the same exact blood can be positive or negative for HIV, based on how the questionnaire is filled out! Or in America, people have gotten both HIV+ and HIV- results from the test. Or how a blood sample in the US might be negative, but in another country the same blood could test positive! Books have been written about this stuff. Unread by you. Or simply considered "nonsense" by you. Don't do it to convince me. Do it for yourself. Find out if it was ever published. You will find that "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS" is not attributed to ANY peer-review study on causation. In fact, the quote is not usually attributed to anything or anyone (occasionally to Dr. Robert Gallow, but never to any published work). You can either find it, or you cannot. I will assume you did a quick look, and realized you could not find it. Instead of admitting that, you simply slam me with an insult. The only reply I care to get from you at this point is: Yes I found it: (To which I will confirm and bestow on you congratulations) or I could not find it, I retract that single "nonsense" statement I made.. (for which I will thank you for your integrity and honesty, and offer to see if you would be interested in curious facts as it regards HIV/AIDS research and reality. You may not, and that is fine). Thanks!
-
jschell wrote:
I am rather certain that attempting to prove this to you would be similar to attempting to convert the Pope to Islam.
Nonsense! I said show me the peer-review, published and referenced study that shows HIV Causes AIDS. There is no "conversion" on my part. It is not about what I believe to be true. It is about the science that I have read, and the facts that have and have not been proven. Do you have the REQUIRED FACT to backup your statement or not? A fact that should be in the public domain, and easy enough to find. I know a ton of interesting facts on this topic. Like, in Africa, the same exact blood can be positive or negative for HIV, based on how the questionnaire is filled out! Or in America, people have gotten both HIV+ and HIV- results from the test. Or how a blood sample in the US might be negative, but in another country the same blood could test positive! Books have been written about this stuff. Unread by you. Or simply considered "nonsense" by you. Don't do it to convince me. Do it for yourself. Find out if it was ever published. You will find that "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS" is not attributed to ANY peer-review study on causation. In fact, the quote is not usually attributed to anything or anyone (occasionally to Dr. Robert Gallow, but never to any published work). You can either find it, or you cannot. I will assume you did a quick look, and realized you could not find it. Instead of admitting that, you simply slam me with an insult. The only reply I care to get from you at this point is: Yes I found it: (To which I will confirm and bestow on you congratulations) or I could not find it, I retract that single "nonsense" statement I made.. (for which I will thank you for your integrity and honesty, and offer to see if you would be interested in curious facts as it regards HIV/AIDS research and reality. You may not, and that is fine). Thanks!
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I know a ton of interesting facts on this topic.
I know that there are articles in "scientific" journals that show that drinking cow urine cures all types of cancer along with other ills. And that astrology works. I do however doubt the both the articles and journals themselves.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The only reply I care to get from you at this point is:
Fortunately freedom of speech doesn't work like that.
-
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I know a ton of interesting facts on this topic.
I know that there are articles in "scientific" journals that show that drinking cow urine cures all types of cancer along with other ills. And that astrology works. I do however doubt the both the articles and journals themselves.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
The only reply I care to get from you at this point is:
Fortunately freedom of speech doesn't work like that.
jschell wrote:
I know that there are articles in "scientific" journals that show that drinking cow urine cures all types of cancer along with other ills. And that astrology works.
Not in any Peer Reviewed journals that I have ever heard of. So, that should have made it EASIER for you to find. But the point being made, which you were calling nonsense... Is that the opposing points of view on MANY of these arguments have been effectively silenced. Careers lost, not because of evidence or proof, but because they refused to recant sound research. (Duesberg being one of them). A professor at MSU while I was there was forced to recant his position and his own published book, because they pressured him, and all of his research grants. ("Maybe you are not the right person to continue this research.") Some people (Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I believe), have tried to say that SPEAKING against Climate Change should be a felony... OMG. Global Warming is here. It started when the Glaciers that made the Great Lakes receded... And there were NO PEOPLE or CARS causing this. Does anyone know how long that cycle is? Do they account for it in their "Climate Change" projections. I laugh because we cannot predict a single WINTER season accurately, but we are supposed to believe they have models to predict the next 40 years that are correct? So, I don't believe in man-made Global Warming. Shutting down free speech is the real issue. I had given examples that I had witnessed, either first or second hand. I took issue with you claiming they were all nonsense. As if I were making them up. So I challenged you to prove your assertion (or at least that my assertion was wrong).
jschell wrote:
Fortunately freedom of speech doesn't work like that.
But one should use the freedom wisely. If you challenge someones statements, I think that bringing some facts to the table is the way to go. Then you become a better communicator, I learn something, and the other people who might be following this learns something.
-
jschell wrote:
I know that there are articles in "scientific" journals that show that drinking cow urine cures all types of cancer along with other ills. And that astrology works.
Not in any Peer Reviewed journals that I have ever heard of. So, that should have made it EASIER for you to find. But the point being made, which you were calling nonsense... Is that the opposing points of view on MANY of these arguments have been effectively silenced. Careers lost, not because of evidence or proof, but because they refused to recant sound research. (Duesberg being one of them). A professor at MSU while I was there was forced to recant his position and his own published book, because they pressured him, and all of his research grants. ("Maybe you are not the right person to continue this research.") Some people (Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I believe), have tried to say that SPEAKING against Climate Change should be a felony... OMG. Global Warming is here. It started when the Glaciers that made the Great Lakes receded... And there were NO PEOPLE or CARS causing this. Does anyone know how long that cycle is? Do they account for it in their "Climate Change" projections. I laugh because we cannot predict a single WINTER season accurately, but we are supposed to believe they have models to predict the next 40 years that are correct? So, I don't believe in man-made Global Warming. Shutting down free speech is the real issue. I had given examples that I had witnessed, either first or second hand. I took issue with you claiming they were all nonsense. As if I were making them up. So I challenged you to prove your assertion (or at least that my assertion was wrong).
jschell wrote:
Fortunately freedom of speech doesn't work like that.
But one should use the freedom wisely. If you challenge someones statements, I think that bringing some facts to the table is the way to go. Then you become a better communicator, I learn something, and the other people who might be following this learns something.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
(Duesberg being one of them).
And there we go. His claims were opinions despite having never done any actual research on HIV. And that isn't how science works. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/aids_denialism_vs._science/[^]
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
while I was there was forced to recant his position and his own published book,
And the criminal that first claimed that vaccines caused autism faced criminal indictment and the journal, peer reviewed by the way, that published his study retracted it, only one of a handful of retractions in something like 100 years that the journal has done. Now your professor might have been in a different position but it is also quite possible that his work was in fact flawed. Badly flawed. It happens.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Shutting down free speech is the real issue
Nope. Science is a process - it isn't free speech. If you want to cure your AIDS by heating your blood up it is likely that you can do it. If you are doing it to other people and charging for it then it no longer has anything to do with free speech.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
So I challenged you to prove your assertion
See the link above. I wait with the certain expectation that you deny what it says.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I think that bringing some facts to the table is the way to go.
Facts don't make an argument. And convincing a denier, versus discussing something with a skeptic, is two entirely entirely different things.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I learn something
We will see.
-
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
(Duesberg being one of them).
And there we go. His claims were opinions despite having never done any actual research on HIV. And that isn't how science works. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/aids_denialism_vs._science/[^]
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
while I was there was forced to recant his position and his own published book,
And the criminal that first claimed that vaccines caused autism faced criminal indictment and the journal, peer reviewed by the way, that published his study retracted it, only one of a handful of retractions in something like 100 years that the journal has done. Now your professor might have been in a different position but it is also quite possible that his work was in fact flawed. Badly flawed. It happens.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Shutting down free speech is the real issue
Nope. Science is a process - it isn't free speech. If you want to cure your AIDS by heating your blood up it is likely that you can do it. If you are doing it to other people and charging for it then it no longer has anything to do with free speech.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
So I challenged you to prove your assertion
See the link above. I wait with the certain expectation that you deny what it says.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I think that bringing some facts to the table is the way to go.
Facts don't make an argument. And convincing a denier, versus discussing something with a skeptic, is two entirely entirely different things.
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
I learn something
We will see.
Jschell, The 2006 reference is newer than the last time I was actively reading anything on the topic (Simon et al. 2006) from the article. In this article, I will concede that they don't exactly prove HAV causes AIDS, per se, but they indicate the potential for HIV to overwhelm and destroy the immune system to a degree that leaves it susceptible to other diseases. But in this case, it is more researched than previous assertions. Also, they finally extended the first incidence to the 1940s... Which also proves that it is not that "new" of a virus. So, I will accept that as "proof". As for Duesberg, he was introduced (at the time) as the foremost retrovirologist of the time, by Gallow himself. So he did have some experience in the field. This, however, does not negate the fact that the conversation was stifled. But 2006 was a long time after the arguments of 1990s... The process of science is usually that those who believe in the wrong facts DIE OFF, and those remaining shift to the other view as it becomes obvious (see flat earth). Good Job. Thank you!
-
The challenge is that these guys are smarter than you think. Most of them are lawyers. In this case, it was not worded as a threat. It was a request for a donation, with a specific range attached to it. A couple of times. Then out of the blue, he gets information that they are questioning people looking for charges. Another request he turns down. See, different "actors". Then the charges come, his passport is revoked. No way to tie the two together, but research determines the two people are linked. Also, this concept of "If this was happening, we would hear about it!" is a Bogus argument. Did you hear of the Doctor who rallied against HIV as the cause of AIDS, who was WILLINGLY Injecting himself with HIV+ patients blood??? (no, it made the news in other countries, here, it was not covered. Despite him being in Florida. The person I contacted said they could not cover it, their Editor said no). Did you know Larry King was on a 5 second delay, and was warned that these types of comments cannot come up on his LIVE SHOW? If they did, they would cut to commercial, and he would be fined. Did you know that the Air Traffic Controllers, right after 9/11 were forced to sign GAG orders, acknowledging that they would be sued by the government if they spoke EVEN ABOUT the GAG order? The scenarios ARE happening. I am a nobody and I have seen them first and second hand. The key thing I see in all of these cases is that they don't take EVERYTHING, they take enough. And then they leave you vulnerable. If you speak out, you WILL lose everything, and they will make you look like an idiot, so nobody will listen to a word you say. Snowden Leaked information. Look at how they go after him. Even calling him a low-level analyst, which they admit was to piss him off hoping he would make a mistake. The backstory you probably did NOT hear. They approached the business owner of the Encrypted Email tool he used, and they tried to force him to embed a virus, and steal Snowdens Encryption Keys. This guy had 2 choices. Obey and lose self-respect or shut it down, and lose his business. He choose the latter. It is actually public information. Is that NOT an example of the over-reach we are talking about? Is that blackmail? Well, not when it is sanctioned and TOP SECRET. Also, again, the government throws gag orders in there. So you DO NOT KNOW it is happening around you. The lack of clear evidence for everyone to see is NOT PROOF it is not happening. The existence of some proof is a warn
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Did you know that the Air Traffic Controllers, right after 9/11 were forced to sign GAG orders, acknowledging that they would be sued by the government if they spoke EVEN ABOUT the GAG order?
Since you were actually reasonable on the last one...want to go for another? The above comes about based solely and completely on conspiracy claims that 9/11 had other causes than the official ones and probably this specific claim is related to the "theory" that the planes running into the buildings could not cause the buildings to collapse. Which is hokum. But the conspiracy nuts make the claim that someone is being silenced. Two fundamental problems with that. 1. There is no reason to silence anyone unless the planes didn't the buildings to fail. 2. It requires a vast conspiracy. Notice that for 1 one need not even address the nut theories that the CIA or other nefarious forces were actually the ones on the plane. Just what caused the buildings to fall. The second suffers from the same limitation as all such theories - the more people that exist in conspiracy then the more likely it is that something will cause it to be revealed. One need only look at real life attempt terror attacks which involved even just a few people and yet which are revealed by random twists of fate.
-
Kirk 10389821 wrote:
Did you know that the Air Traffic Controllers, right after 9/11 were forced to sign GAG orders, acknowledging that they would be sued by the government if they spoke EVEN ABOUT the GAG order?
Since you were actually reasonable on the last one...want to go for another? The above comes about based solely and completely on conspiracy claims that 9/11 had other causes than the official ones and probably this specific claim is related to the "theory" that the planes running into the buildings could not cause the buildings to collapse. Which is hokum. But the conspiracy nuts make the claim that someone is being silenced. Two fundamental problems with that. 1. There is no reason to silence anyone unless the planes didn't the buildings to fail. 2. It requires a vast conspiracy. Notice that for 1 one need not even address the nut theories that the CIA or other nefarious forces were actually the ones on the plane. Just what caused the buildings to fall. The second suffers from the same limitation as all such theories - the more people that exist in conspiracy then the more likely it is that something will cause it to be revealed. One need only look at real life attempt terror attacks which involved even just a few people and yet which are revealed by random twists of fate.
This might be interesting. Lets talk about the building falling after being hit by airplanes. I don't know what happened, as I was not there. I found a few things "eyebrowse" raising. Building 7 Fell. No airplane hit it. Yet it fell in a similar fashion to the other buildings. I believe that was a 47 story building? Explain? Because there was no major fire engulfing the building. No Jet fuel. http://rememberbuilding7.org/7-facts-about-building-7/ Notice 1,700 engineers want an investigation because it does NOT add up. Watch that video. Please explain this. Explain that one. Never before have buildings fallen like this. Even after being hit by planes. The other thing I found interesting, because I watched the coverage live (it stopped me from going to work that morning). The numerous times I heard people on the news use the word Explosion. Yet, that word is missing in the 9/11 commission report. Also, remember the never ending smoldering during the process of removing stuff. What was smoldering? This makes sense if Thermite were present. Rain and time would have a hard time extinguishing it. But suggesting that the Jet fuel was still burning like that for days. So, explaining that constant smoldering/burning. The plane hitting the pentagon. What happened to the 2 engines of Six Tons each? No broken windows where the wings should have hit the building. And that plane pushed through reinforced concrete? Superimpose the plane over he building, where it hit. This is the most amazing flying EVER of a jet that big. Finally, I find it perposterous that the passports of the people flying the planes were found, but the black boxes were not. When I travel, I have my passport on me. At worse, in my carry on. The plane the was smashed into the mountains was devastated. But the black box survived. They could not even find this thing? Either of them? Oh, and the first time Bin Laden tried to blow up the buildings, via the basement. A nearby university detected an Earthquake. This time, the detected one as well. Around the time the plane hit the building. One witness said he felt the explosion below, the windows blew out, and then the plane hit the building above. The real question is. What would have caused an EARTHQUAKE to register before the building ever fell? I am curious about your take. It was building 7 and the pentagon that caused me pause. And they REMOVED all the evidence and scrapped it. Saved NONE of it to be examined. Interesting. One would think