Ted Talks:
gretas facebook: Feb 11th
book income .. oh and hmm striking from school.. wait.. she said sh got permission from school
oh and her summer 2018 strike.. yep school holidays.meaning no school anyway

.. and as my point illustrated she also in her facebook post said climate change is black and white. emissions reductions is the black and white solution

.. sorry but its more complex than that

your the one spouting it in many topics. im correcting your rhetoric.

lets pretend that you finally woke up to the freeman cult and instead diverted to constitutional law and common law(the real stuff)

constitutional law and civil law and common law of countries applies to its citizens. meaning by you trying to say you follow the constitution and want all your constitutional rights. means you are the same slave to the constitution

its the difference between
knowing you bodies physical capability to walk.
vs
demanding your 'right to travel'
by you demanding your right under law puts you in the same box you call slavery

if you really wanted to go against the laws and be independant from civilisation well your only way would be to go to a country without laws.
being an idiot and pretending laws dont apply to you because you declare your a new undocumented pronoun does not mean you have no responibilities or consequences in a country with laws.
you are just in olden times considered an outlaw or modern times a criminal for breaking the rules of law.
and no pretending your a pink dress wearing fairy that rides a mechanical bull will get you out of the consequences of braking the law.

so if you want to be a free man. find a deserted lawless island

have a nice day
or understand the real law. and use it to your benefit by learning what is allowed and not allowed and staying out of trouble

funny how you cant counter my points so just become a grammar nazi, typical response

your ignorant
spend your wasted time doing research, no need to keep replying with defending your ignorance
have a good day

seriously your just fooling yourself

the real satoshi was part of the cypherpunks group before inventing bitcoin. he referenced wei dai and others because he used their ideas and patchworked them together into an impressive thing.

he contacted them and attributed their efforts. he did not steal he did not pre invent and then research others that came close
he simply used different idea's in a new combined way

satoshi disapeared because he became aware that he was becoming a central figure which was going against the whole decentralised idea bitcoin was meant to be. he didnt want the power or the control.

many people mis-took his messages about not wanting to review every persons individual codebases as a stupid wording to mean there should only be one codebase everyone follows. instead he was trying to not be the main go-to guy(central point)
yet here we are with one codebase and flocks of blind followers just trusting one brand. and treating any other de team as an enemy.. when infact having just one decision making brand should be treated as the enemy to decentralisation

your example is perfect.
a few minds say smoking is bad but large public consensus thought smoking was good by enlisting alot of doctors who attributed their names to limited science and so public opinion..
because more were swayed to the limited science reports than the few minds that have been saying its bad

and thats how cigarettes became ok in governments eyes
it wasnt until decades later people started to wis up
we are still stuck in the 'more doctors smoke camel' era metaphorically

carbon dioxide is a concern for human health but water is a concern for climate.
its like when people talk about climate change then go on a tangeant about microbeads poisoning fish.
carbon is the microbead in that analogy

its far easier to handle the water cycle to cause more of a climate impact than carbon
and then separately handle carbon for the human health impact.

but yea. the argument will go on about 'things need to change' but years later after report and report are made all thats changed is the number of reports and debates.
untill the UN can actually start to come up with hard rules of tree's per populus area and water usage per farm and % of land permitted to be used. things wont change

some countries are already trying to make their couple decade old national strategies for other things appear as 'climate change' strategies to then pretend they are promoting climate change

some have said the whole 'farming quota' of the EU which sole purpose was to not have a food over supply (cheap food) are now making it a 'climate change' purpose. just to tick a fake box that they done something. although nothing really changed

because the whole finger pointing is just 'show you done "something" in a report' not actually 'do X'

take london. instead of actually cutting down on car manufacturing they just closed off traffic in certain area's whereby the closed off area becomes carbon reduced. but the result is more carbon on the other roads that have become more jammed up due to diversions which is not a combined net reduction. just a move it away from certain sensors to fake positive results

fluoride is dangerous.
it messes with your thyroid and other things. its why they say dont swallow mouth wash and toothpaste

yes one rare mouthwash swallow may not cause much harm. but that is then used to say suddenly its fine to swallow often because a single swallow is not harmful

EG one portion contains X. company then makes a same gram tinned item become 2 portions that way each portion has X still but now they have twice as much X in the same gram tin as before just changing the 'portion' size

its like chocolate having refined sugar. instead of reducing sugar per bar. they reduce the chocolates bar size.
and then ofcourse people then just end up buying multipacks because bitesize just aint enough anymore

have you ever seen anyone just eat one stamp size cube of chocolate and say 'thats enough thats my daily allowance' and truly mean it and be happy about it, fully satisfied

but the perception of CCTV is that the image data is purely used by police to monitor potential crimes. not to then be used to sell to amazon on peoples shopping habits.

having a geolocation app that communicates just to your home router and just activates the heating when in proximity has its uses. but then selling the geolocation data to show which petrol stations you fuel your car at or what shops you visited and finding out if you like the temperature real hot to advertise hot chilli meals and hot drinks or if you prefer the temperature cooler to advertise iced tea and and cold meals is just taking things too far into peoples privacy

such point does not limit:
men can stay single
   it said 'it is better' not 'it is required'..   so men can be single or be gay or other

men can have more than one wife
   it said 'his own wife' not 'only one wife' .. so men can have a wife and a husband.. or multiple wives
   if it was worded 'should have only on wife' then a man cant then have a house or a car or children as all he is allowed is a wife

also. the real 'holy bible' was not even written in modern english. so overall the 'holy bible' said none of that

firstly your not asking questions. your trying to make points. using references that have nothing to do with the points as many have informed you

secondly freeman rhetoric is not law or real. it is th same as where a cult mis-understands religion/science to form a group of people that believe in something that others dont. and yes cults are not the ones in the right.

your defense of the freeman stuff shows your still not seeing the flaws of it. you are still trying to find excuses to carry on thinking that you can lawfully drive on a public road without a driving licence or pretend your a corporation brand instead of a human to get out of court fines

just expand your eyes beyond the copy and paste crap of freeman and start to see the whole picture and maybe you will see the HOLE in the freeman picture

it is rather amusing to see cultists defend their stance to the death.
you talk about rights but avoid understanding the responsibilities and consequences that come with it

you title 'legal facts'  are not facts
many have told you this. so its time to wake yourself up

freeman stuff is not the plain meaning law nor is it the common law of common knowledge/common sense. freeman stuff is the mis-interpretation and trying to convince people that something means something else

sorry but your name is not a corporation
your name is an identifier of you. no matter if you identify yourself as a corporation a helicopter or a shemale. your name is still you. so you can play all the games you like. its still you

the whole freeman "person" stuff is about you can pretend your business is liable but your not by trying to detach yourself, you can pretend you go by different pronouns to escape the law

but you the human being known as whatever thing you present yourself as are still liable
so just stop pretending that your a corporation as thats not what the plain meaning/common law is.

i stiil laugh that one of your points was thinking there are no judges in courts.

your the freman.
your the one using the words and rhetoric

you even lack researching what you copy and paste

try spending more time researching your crap and less time trying to convince others that freeman rhetoric is real
and then when you do wake up dont then start trying to say that others are freeman to hide your the freeman

because its like your trying to convince people that your a helicopter not a human.. when you realise your not a helicopter then trying to convince people that they are the helicopter and you are the only human...

your just spinning yourself into circles

dont waste your time on the freeman stuff. research tresspass and contracts and find your escape of where freeman rhetoric goes wrong

my point is this

*scientific consensus was that smoking was healthy for people.
yep even science isnt clear
yep show a group of scientists a limited info report and they will see a correlation of info A =B but them reports have excluded
for many decades science was saying smoking was ok

heres an anlogy
numbers show high correlation that stained teeth/decay vs lung cancer.. summarising: bad dental care = lung cancer
where as its not showing that its smoking that causes the dental issues which causes the lung cancer
so the report concentrates on tellng people to go to a dentist regularly. not mentioning stop smoking

history shown many times that toothdecay=heart disease (facepalm to them pre-historic narrowminded scientists)

*climate change is real but the message is just 'do something'. yet not really saying what the "something" is
EG asking to stop dismissing something is just words and and thoughts.
i can say for someone to research x,y,z but even if they end up researching it. it just becomes knowledge in their head and words coming out their mouth. still the actual "something" has not changed the environment it just changed thoughts and words
her demands lack substance. and just finger pointing
if she said plant X tree's per populace number
open X renewable power plants then thats substance

but saying 'do something' 'do agree to change it' where the agreement just is numbers and not plans/actions' is empty

anyone can say they agree to reduce something by X% but without being forced into HOW and without forced into a penalty for failure makes the agreement meaningless and makes the demanding of an agreement empty and all just words
its like the old addige 'better to ask for forgiveness after than ask permission first'

to actually get climate change to occur there needs agreements of actual action of tree's planted. renewable power generation investment in actual solutions and not just a empty agreement to do 'something'

i have read through the paris agreement and even if every country agreed to it. i can see many many 'get out' clauses that actually means countries can be following the agreement but actually not do any work apart from filing reports and doing minimal actions. there is no actual hard requirements.
yep countries can declare they cannot change due to national debt or other excuses and still be treated as following the paris agreement by just reporting their limitations at the 5year 'stocktake'

so again asking countries to do something when the 'do something' is just agreeing to agree. is empty of substance

"person"
(facepalm) your still freemaning it i see

just wake up. again your a decade too late.
stop referencing guys with freeman rhetoric.

oh by the way
try bothering to even read
1 U.S.C. sec 1 and Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425

it will tell you about plain meaning..

the trick freeman try to do is by knowing common law is due to well known customs. such as common sense where a certain thing is commonly known.
freeman are trying to rewrite what is common' by trying to get people to think that a person is anything but a person. EG prtending a person is a pink dress wearing cow that can fly a helicopter.

and if they can convince enough peolpe that the common knowledge/common sense meaning of person is suddenly something else. they can then try to fight laws that use the word person

but the problem is
1 U.S.C. sec 1 and Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425
states that in law the plain meaning is just that. and people have the common sense and have customarilly used the word person in reference to a human whether they are just an individual human or a human doing a political job or a corporate job
person does not man it excludes a individual from the term it means it expands it to cover all foolish entities a human tries to pretend to be
such as freemen trying to say their name is a corporation


so person=human being
and freeman are not gonna win that fight.
its becoming just as bad as flat earthers trying to convince the earth aint round to try making some lame point

anyway try to actually do some research and stop copying and pasting freeman rhetoric

all YOUR stuff has been freeman rhetoric .. and your soo inept/narrow minded, that you either dont realise it or are just soo arrogant in your ignorance that you are suddenly trying to back track and pretend your not freeman but suddenly the rest of the world is..

sorry dude but YOU ARE THE ONE quoting freeman stuff.. no one else JUST YOU

now here is a tip for your escape route out of your beliefs of the limited freeman stuff
research tresspass and contracts
these are part of common and constitutional law. and you should start to see the flaws of your previous freeman rhetoric once you open yourself up to stuff outside your freeman box

happy researching.
and no need to reply with any more random defensive waffle. just do the research

water vapour is not just about the cloud layer. its also the ground level evaporation that takes heat with it

EG
put a puddle of oil on the ground  and beside it a puddle of water.  the water takes the heat away from the ground much faster

rain forests are called such because the ecological effects have more of a water impact than a carbon impact


climate change is about water cycle and carbon sulphur and other toxins is the lung/life health of animals and plants
its why in a smoggy city vs a country field even though carbon has alot higher result in the city, the temperature is not to the same degree higher. however people can breathe easier in the country than the city

anyways
until greta and major population actually get to a point and come up with solutions people like greta are just finger pointing while getting rich on sponsored tours and paid guest speakers. which isnt actually going to solve the issue

its not a user with that much funds.. its an exchange changing its cold wallet holdings

not newsworthy as it happen regularly. just usually done in 10k btc batches spread out

its not a exchange public market affector.. but more so of just background exchange admin

do not eliminate sugary fruits and starchy carbs
lactose(dairy sugars)
fructose(fruit sugars)
glucose(animal fats)
^ they are natural sugars found naturally and unprocessed in food
your body needs carbs. just dont over do it


sucrose(honey and granulated sugar)
^ are processed so reduce how much you consume

aspartame, saccharine (fake non sugars, just sweetener)
^ stay away from(yes eliminate these)

its far healthier to have a cup of orange juice/milk than granulated sugar water(tea/coffee)
its far far healthier to have a cup of orange juice/milk than sweetener sweetened water(tea/coffee)

as for things like flavoured milk(kids milkshake). well thats as bad as sugared/sweetened water as it has extra added sugars

by saying dont overdo carbs. i mean a glass/cup of orange juice/milk. not a whole litre of it a day

your over thinking it to try making it seem like carbon is the problem and water has no impact.. and hinting sulphur is a solution
missing the whole point entirely

again
if high carbon high sulphur emissions are the cause of a 2dgre increase... then venus with a high carbon high sulphur are not causing a 9500x impact like math suggest should be happening


the reason is that over 150 years when they done ice core and tree ring studies they were only looking at carbon. yep when the chemically analysed ice core they actually deducted h2o out of the equation like it had no impact

to dumb it down
its like saying that studying teeth health revealed stained teeth cause lung cancer because many smokers have stained teeth so so the correlation is visible and it must be the stained teeth thats the cause, because they excluded the smoking from the equation or simply didnt study it or include it in reports

other things is that most studies are actually based on ground level atmosphere from the last 150 years. because its carbon at ground level that gets frozen into ice an sucked into tree's meaning the studies are not really indicating the upper atmosphere numbers

upper atmosphere numbers only began becoming measured less than 50 years ago
so trying to say upper atmosphere must have ben 0.03% 150 years ago but now 0.04% is also a false number

because they had no number for upper atmosphere composition 150 years ago

trying to dumb thigs down to your level, hoping something actually getss into your head and makes you realise stuff

i have a penis. .. but i also have a vagina between my legs far more often then you(via having a spouse). so for all intense and purposes i could say that.

also lesbians are attracted to women, that must make me lesbian because i like women

point is anyone can identify themselves as anything they like. but it doesnt change reality.
you cannot get away with a crime by fighting that you are really a helicopter or a shemale or a lesbian or just some invisible monkeyboy

you have no clue

for all intense and purposes i could identify myself as a shemale that uses the pronouns: helicopter chopper and swirly whirly bird
but i am not on of those crazy people that demand to be identified as a particular thing because in the end when you actually bother to get into the details it does not matter if you call yourself a helicopter a person or a human or a pink dress wearer.

 in court someone just needs to point in your direction no matter what you identify yourself as

and the accuser does not nd to be the victim. the accuser can be a forensics expert, a witness, a police officer a security camera operator a legal advocate a family member.. anyone
so even you trying to fight over WHO is accusing you is empty. your not fighting the evidence itself

your waffle is just as bad as them odd people saying 'im not a number im a human being' and an employer just stares at you and says just get back to work. you wont get out of doing work by arguing that you want to be identified as something. at most you will just get sacked. (but foolishly in your eyes you'll consider that a win)

playing the 'you cant identify me so i am invisible and not here and dont have to answer to my actions' game is not real common law practice

your freeman stuff about birth certificates and governments is your mis-understood pink dress. you are only seeing like 5% of it because you only believe the freeman stuff which is 95% fluff with the random spray of common law stuff spread in to make it kind of sound meaningful.

emphasis you believe the 95% fluff but dont understand the real 5% they la la la over. and that has been proven in other topics
you ignore and mis-understand the la la la