Mmm, well I guess for advice on the site, changing the size of the box you are looking at doesn't update the quantities of what you'll receive. There isn't any FAQ or Info page, that tells people what makes you different from your competitors.

I know that you've already addressed it, but your prices are incredibly high, Your shipping costs alone are probably higher than the cost of getting the produce at a grocery store, but thats for you to figure out I suppose. What led you to decide to integrate a blockchain into your service? It seems pretty unnecessary.

Have you started shipping products yet? How do you get around fruits over ripening and flavors mixing by being in contact with one another?

I dont see why not. Its not about whether its a choice or not, its a matter of public risk. You have the right to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't infringe on others. The argument can be made that people that could become carriers for dangerous infectious diseases are a risk to others.

You don't have to be vaccinated, you can just move elsewhere. I can't build a reactor where I'm at, but I could move somewhere where I could potentially obtain a permit to do so.

Whats your take on lepers?

I'm still upset that my right to make nuclear reactors was taken away  

Living in society means that you make some concessions in order to stay a part of a community. Rockland County has said that in order to stay a part of their community, you must be vaccinated, otherwise they don't want you there. That said, if you want to truly make it fair, since its a retroactive change, I'd argue that they should pay for those that want to move because of the change.

Soon we'll wish we had the ole Russian policy of shipping us off to Siberia, because they probably don't care what you do there.

How does blockchain technology bring equality to anyone? Its transparent, which is certainly a good feature for a lot of things, but I don't see how it has any effect on gender whatsoever. If women by percent are less interested in blockchain technology than men, that isn't a problem. You don't need to forcibly educate someone if it doesn't interest them, just so we can make the statics pretty. Its only a problem when there is some sort of exclusion going on that makes it that way. There is genuine systemic gender inequality in certain fields/hobbies, but those typically stem back hundreds of years. Blockchain Technology came about during a time where gender equality is a norm, so there shouldn't be any preconceived notions that women aren't allowed in cryptospace.

I'm absolutely for equal opportunity for all ages/races/genders to get into crypto, but I feel its sort of patronizing to start a crypto awareness campaign aimed towards 48-57 year old inuit women because they are the least prevalent group in the space. Just welcome anyone who wants to join, and things are how they should be. I can't say I've seen any behavior here anyway that would make anyone feel excluded.

I don't think there is anything keeping women out of blockchain technology currently. Some fields have been historically male dominated, and I could see why that would be off putting, but computer science and more specifically blockchain technology doesn't have the same 4,000 year history of exclusion of women as some fields. As long as we don't make an active effort to make the cryptospace toxic towards women, we should be on a fairly level playing field right now.  

Have any women came out and said that they feel excluded from cryptocurrencies? If so, I'd be curious to see what the reason is.

I'll avoid dragging this off topic by just addressing two differences of opinion that we have, and simply stating that because of them, our viewpoints are different. First, I disagree that red trust is intended to be solely for scamming or strongly likely to scam. I am of the opinion that the reason there aren't explicit rules for what you can and can't leave for feedback, is because needs of the users here evolve. For example, plagiarism spam is a fairly new thing, if not for the fact that it directly opposed moderation goals here, it may have been left alone in the same way that account selling is. If plagiarism spam was allowed by the rules, perhaps it would warrant negative feedback. These are decisions that individuals decide to make, and the community can either choose to agree with them or ignore them.

We also have a major difference of opinion regarding what is considered incorrect information, and willful spreading of it. Saying, I intend to buy 10,000 BTC at $10,000 each tomorrow, so buy now! If I have no intention of doing so, is about the extent of what I'd consider intentionally spreading fake information (typically for personal gain). Anything that is processed by the human brain is skewed by previous experiences, personal beliefs, whatever, and needs some sort of special consideration when you say its incorrect or willful lying. I draw these stupid analogies like with the lemons for the sake of trying to bridge as many misunderstandings as possible. Lets say I'm arguing with someone that the sky is blue, and they think its orange. They may have never seen a blue sky before, might be color blind, taught color names incorrectly, or are misunderstanding what I intended the question to mean, perhaps they think I'm talking about the evening sky. People are willing to argue over whether the earth is flat or not, if you get too involved in it, you'll waste way too much time fighting with people who really don't matter in your life.

Related to the topic at hand, these are the reasons that I think all but the most extreme cases of "trolling" don't really matter. If someone's behavior is unreasonably obstructing everyone else, they are politely asked to leave by the moderation staff by means of a ban message. Anyone that falls into any other category should be handled with an ignore button. If a person is on everyone else's ignore list, they probably should, and probably will be asked to leave. Not to make any of this personal, as I don't care about any spats you've had with other members. I perceive the motivation of your topics on the matter as having to do with them, which is why I mention it at all. You or the other parties are not currently obstructing the forum for all other uses, you are just annoying each other. That probably means that neither parties has to be asked to leave for trolling, spreading fake information, or whatever. Just use the ignore function and carry on.

The only reason I respond to topics like this at all, is because you are asking for a change in moderation policy, and I'm arguing that we need as few policies based on uncertain terms as possible. Interpersonal relationships are best not monitored by the forum staff. I'm probably biased here, but I think the rules in place are sufficient, and the tools provided to forum users are almost flexible enough to deal with any situation that doesn't require moderator action. If you are able to even understand my reasoning for the points we disagree on, even if you do disagree, that lends to my point that we'd be asking for new rules based on things that not everyone is in agreement over.



It took me about 6 minutes to write this post, I write fast and any post I spend more than 20 seconds on ends up with multiple paragraphs, check the TLDR if you don't want to read it.

TLDR: We have a difference of opinion on the qualifications for what is required to be "trolling". I disagree with asking for more rules in general for a problem that can be solved with the use of the ignore button and interpersonal skills. We've got a lot of people here, some you won't mesh with. Who cares, use the ignore button. Moderators will get the nuisances.

You can't provide proof that someone is trolling. Its just a really shitty and overly broad term for people you don't like that disagree with you in most cases. Just because someone intentionally does or says something to make another person angry, that doesn't automatically make them a troll. Posting factual information with the intention of annoying someone is still "trolling", it doesn't require any fake information. So lets say I really hate lemons (sorry I've gotta stick with the lemon examples) and any chance you get, you decide to slip a fact about lemons into your posts because you know it'll annoy me, I might call you a troll because of that. You didn't do anything wrong, and no one else will get it, but just because you'd be irritating me, I'd call you a troll.

I personally find the term to be absolutely useless because it typically only means something to one person or a small group of people. Luckily, the bad cases of "trolling" typically include spamming and harassment, ARE fairly easy to define and is against the rules. Anything short of that isn't a serious matter, and can be resolved with the ignore button.

Thats just sending someone feedback. Leave a note in their feedback that says that you trust them if you personally trust them to do business, but don't want them as a representative of you when leaving others feedback.

I didn't really see the intent of this thread as having to do with people being wrongfully added to DT, just that someone added might not be aware that they are on DT. Years ago, I added someone without letting them know, only to get a PM a week later when some drama erupted over nothing, and they wanted no part of it. After that I always asked people's permission, but again two other people asked to be removed shortly after being added, as they began getting dragged into forum drama. It is absolutely something that at the very least a user should know about. An opt out option would be useful as well.

The point that I've been trying to get at, is that innocent is subjective. Some people think account sales make you guilty. Some people don't. If you leave someone negative feedback that says, "I'm leaving this person negative feedback for buying/selling an account" then only the people who think account sales make you guilty would care. Those who don't care don't magically see the negative comment as anything more severe like fraud.

Sure, you can wage war against anyone who gives you an unfair shake, but you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. You don't need to suck up to someone, if you just act like a normal human being under the assumption that a mistake was made, these things solve themselves more often than not. Otherwise you just deal with your difference of opinion and move on. Flying off the handle just makes you look guilty to people you may have looked innocent to otherwise.

Or, you can fly off the handle and just use escrow I suppose, though then people worry about giving their address out to someone who can't act civil.


More to the OP's point, accounts that incorrectly cited things from 2014 aren't getting banned for plagiarism. The whole plagiarism thing didn't come about until fairly recently, so its not dealt with in the same way. Old posts are typically left alone as well, so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by posts from 2014 getting accounts in trouble now. If we had steadfast rules that said plagiarism = ban, moderator discretion on the matter wouldn't exist. That moderator discretion is what allows them to see the difference in intent when it came to copying a news article five years ago, versus someone stealing ideas to disguise their spam posts to up their post counts.

Yeah but uhh... this is a forum. You don't need a court of impartial lawmakers to be sure that people's rights aren't being infringed. Pretty much all that should be guaranteed is that conversation should be allowed to happen, but thats up to Theymos as well. Your reputation can be ruined by any anonymous jerkoff who wants to call you a bad name if you don't have anything to stand on, thats how internet forums work. People in general are smart enough to be able to figure out for themselves whether a claim against you is valid or not. Anything anyone thinks they are entitled to is just precedent set by the good faith thats been done up until now. I'm not saying people don't have the right to complain when something is unfair, but there are a lot of people that need to take a step back and chill.

Trust, merit, etc are all constructs for use by the userbase, again steadfast rules limit the usefulness of tools given to us. By allowing the rules to evolve to suit users needs, the people implementing the systems don't need to be in touch with what it'll be used for. They just develop tools and let the users figure out how they want to use them. I think its safer to say that we all deserve to expect an unfair shake and be pleasantly surprised when things work out, thats kind of the way of limited moderated internet interactions. Someone claims you did something to a goat, you accuse their mother of being that goat, etc.

A lot of these issues would be solved if everyone just played nice with others, but that isn't the case.

*edit* Side note, a lot of the unofficial rules here are created by the Moderators without Theymos' say. At any point Theymos could decide, hey I don't like that, so thats not a rule anymore. Hence why a lot of them are unofficial.

My original point was that thule potentially may have got a raw deal, but at the same time plenty of people see red feedback for account trading and don't care. It didn't ruin their ability to conduct trade here or anything, it ruined their ability to conduct trade with people who think they are untrustworthy for buying an account.

Scamming people is allowed by forum rules as well. I think it was pretty well established that account selling was untrustworthy by 2014ish? if I had to take a random guess. Pretty sure it was listed in the original post of the unofficial forum rules thread. Its not something that was agreed upon recently. Forum rules aren't decided by community morals, but if it makes you feel any better, your negative trust doesn't mean too much to me as I don't find account selling that untrustworthy. You don't seem to have much business history anyway though, I'd value that over your other ratings if you had any.

No comment on the merit stuff, I don't care about any of it in the slightest, so my opinion holds no weight on that.

Thats an argument of semantics. If you are given a minimal controlled infection, and the traces you test positive for are that dead virus, that does not mean you have the disease. Otherwise, anyone that was tested right now that had received the vaccine previously would by your definition have actual measles. I have not read all of the side effects of every vaccine to be able to tell you definitively that inflammation from your body's immune system overreacting to the dead disease is the cause of the allergic reactions that can occur, and are sometimes read as false positives, such as the case of the study we have been discussing, but that is what I'd expect to find with proper research. At the very least, I would not expect to find anything that stated that the measles vaccine gives you a mild case of the measles until you fight it off.

That was the case with flu mist , but thats because for some reason you inhale a weakened rather than dead strain of the virus. It was never offered to those with any risk factors, because it could legitimately give you a weakened version of the flu if your immune system couldn't suppress it before it got a chance to recuperate.  

Is the rash infectious? Will the rash cause pneumonia or death? Indistinguishable means going into a doctor and them saying, hey it looks like you have the measles. Not that you have the measles and will suffer all of the effects.

I've gotten fevers from flu vaccines before, but had it been the flu I would have been hospitalized due to (minor) preexisting conditions. I don't think you can make a sound argument that a 5% chance of a rash or fever (in the measles case) is the same as a rather deadly disease.



You test the genotype of the strain of the measles virus to determine whether its a false positive (IE residual from the measles vaccine) or an actual case of the measles. They are not positively IDing cases of the measles. Of the 194 cases sequenced, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences means that it was a side effect reaction, not the actual measles.

I'll read over your link shortly. I don't mind discussing this in the slightest with you. Again, I'm not under any assumption that I'll change your mind, and I don't care to. I'd like to better understand your point of view and find what I believe to be sources of incorrect information. Lets say that the measles vaccine does cause the measles disease, I'll say sure it might, but thats not a conclusion that can be drawn from the study we've been talking about.

There are a few places where the scare quotes could be meant to show sarcasm or something I suppose. It is not good practice, but I'll give a few of those occurrences the benefit of the doubt as you suggest. I'll focus on specifics then.

From this paragraph for full context,

"In other words, measles outbreaks were occurring among children who were already vaccinated with the measles. If you do the math, nearly 38% of the genetic sequences that were conducted on supposed “measles” cases turned out to identify measles strains that originated in the vaccines themselves. Thus, more than one out of three cases of measles in the United States was actually a reaction from a measles vaccine, not “wild-type” measles."

Measles outbreaks were not occurring among children already vaccinated, the children would get a rash or whatever, and it would sometimes be seen as a false positive. Doctors do not report a case of the measles before its confirmed, anymore than they report flu statistics to people on people that come in with sore throats to get checked for the flu, only to find out its strep. By saying that the cases tested positive for non-wild type measles, they are claiming that cases tested positive for vaccine induced measles. Not that the tests confirmed that the patients did not have the measles, with the traces left behind from the vaccination, not from the disease itself.

"Notably, the lying lamestream media never attributes measles outbreaks to measles vaccines. In every case, without exception, measles outbreaks are blamed exclusively on “anti-vaxxers,” even when more than one-third of measles outbreaks are actually caused by the vaccines themselves, as this breakthrough science now proves."

As before, an outright lie. That is not a conclusion made in the study they are referencing.


"Measles vaccines, truthfully stated, are creating their own demand for more vaccines by causing measles outbreaks in children. Naturally, the entire vaccine establishment and fake news media complex refuses to report the truth about any of this, pretending that measles outbreaks are only occurring among unvaccinated children. This is how outbreaks that are caused by vaccines end up getting blamed on “anti-vaxxers,” resulting in wholesale censorship of vaccine awareness content by Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Pinterest and other tech giants that universally function as the propaganda arm of Big Pharma and the CDC."

Once again, that is pretty straightforward in claiming the vaccine causes measles outbreaks. That was not mentioned a single time in the report that they are citing as proof.


Just because little Johnny got a rash, that doesn't mean they got the measles. What the article is addressing is Johnny getting a rash, going into the doctor, and the doctor saying, Oh! That looks like the measles, lets test you! The study was about how to make the tests more efficient and quick, so Johnny's worrying mother wouldn't have to  sit there for 8 hours in quarantine while they waited for lab results to confirm that it wasn't the measles. What occurred 38% of the time was not that he had the measles from the shot, but it was confirmed that he did not have the measles, and was just having a reaction to the vaccine. I'd imagine the other 62% of the time, they just saw the rash and said, ah yeah, thats a rash from the vaccine, here have some benadryl.

Everyone that has ever received the measles vaccine would test positive for "non-wild" strains of the measles. By the Natural New's perspective, we all have the measles right now.

Read the reference material yourself... None of this is unclear. It says that the side effects from the shots can be similar to a symptom of the measles. That is true and accurate for nearly all vaccines. Their research states that in 5% of cases, fevers and rashes which could be mistaken for the measles occur. Because that is the case, their new testing method is useful for identifying the cases of false positives, and ruling out that it is a disease quickly, so that people aren't quarantined.

It says nothing about the measles vaccine giving people the measles, it says that you can get a rash or fever as a side effect. It doesn't say that any cases of the measles have ever been attributed to the vaccine. Thats not even the topic of the study.

Maybe you aren't understanding this, but real medical research by definition cannot be deceptive. Conclusions drawn from them can be, but reports are just observations and what those preliminary observations are understood to mean. Natural News made a malicious incorrect statement, as in knowingly reporting false information. Again, read the research for yourself before defending them.

I completely understand the desire to read information for yourself and draw your own conclusions rather than accepting media regurgitation, but when you listen to these jerks, you are doing just that, but worse somehow...

That doesn't matter. These are two separate points. They took a study about one thing, then misquoted and manipulated it to intentionally mislead people. The second you do that, you have lost all credibility. No one is debating whether there are side effects to vaccines, but it is beyond irresponsible to tell people that the measles vaccine causes measles while citing information that isn't relevant. If you make the claim, thats fine, but you can't falsify information to support it. Its unforgivable to do what was done. Real medical researchers lose their jobs, and criminal charges can be brought up over things like that. I've been involved in trials over research journal entries that came about partially because it was hard to tell if someone had written a 4 or a 9. This is not a minor thing.


Its not about medicine, its about integrity. As a person in a role of research, you have moral and legal obligations to accurately represent your findings. If natural news is affiliated with real doctors, and they gave the information to write the article, they should lose their license to practice medicine. There is a difference between making a claim that is incorrect, and maliciously lying about a claim as what was done here.

The mainstream media is also garbage at medical studies, I refuse to acknowledge any of them, because they don't follow the proper guidelines either. What they like to do to skirt responsibility for their claims, is to accurately tell the details that they do report on, but leave out anything that they don't have time to report on. They don't tell you that their sample sizes are 10 people, or any other data bias.

The source they are quoting says absolutely nothing about the measles vaccine causes measles. First, the purpose of the study was a new way to differentiate between the measles and common side effects, there are no statements about the measles vaccine in of itself. This is the main statement to look at,

" An important component of the public health response to a measles outbreak is vaccination of unimmunized contacts (. Since approximately 5%
of recipients of measles virus-containing vaccine experience rash and fever which may be indistinguishable from measles (9), it is very important to identify vaccine reactions
to avoid unnecessary isolation of the patient"

The rest is the method they used to identify false positives, and how it was more effective than whatever they used before. It isn't the result of a misunderstanding, the naturalnews article was maliciously misquoting things to take a study and mislead people.

I now know that I will find all naturalnews sources invalid. I don't blame people for misinterpreting, but knowingly misleading people is inexcusable.

Read the article that they are citing as evidence... It directly contradicts the website's claims https://jcm.asm.org/content/jcm/55/3/735.full.pdf

You can't draw a single conclusion about anything to do with vaccines from the abstract alone. It doesn't even clearly outline what the focus of the study was. It seems to be talking about vaccinations made specifically for the purpose of birth control, like birth control pills or insertable semi permanent contraceptives not the side effects of regular vaccinations.



I disagree with just letting diseases run their course. We completely got rid of polio but now its back. Why would we allow it to stick around when we currently have the ability to get rid of it.

I do agree with the sick population, but I don't think its for the same reasons you think. I do not disacknowledged autism and ADHD, but I think they are both WAY over diagnosed, especially in children. I remember being a little bastard as a kid, and taking bets with a friend over whether he could get himself diagnosed with autism (he did). Those aren't the only issues with medicating children, kids with a bit of energy aren't played with, they are diagnosed with something and given pills to shift responsibility from parents. I could go on about that for a while, but instead I'll move onto adults now. I don't know for certain, but if I had to take a stab at it, I'd say that the majority of adults with prescription medications are for diseases of affluence. High cholesterol, blood pressure, etc medications are over prescribed rather than a prescription for exercise and a better diet. With the exception of people who are genetically predisposed to issues, I'd say that lifestyle choices are responsible for a good portion of over medication in adults. If you exclude the population that are obese and on those types of medications, I have a feeling your view of how sick the population is would change dramatically.

I haven't looked at the statistics either, but maybe its worth comparing developed countries with lower rates of obesity to the U.S, and seeing if  we can't find any connections about health and medication to be drawn from that. That'd be an interesting topic for a new thread.