Who benefits most from $400m in US Milt. Aid to UA rebels in Crimea? Russia.
Russia benefits the least when the country they are invading (Ukraine) receives military support. Ukraine benefits the most. US and allies also benefit. This isn't a new thing, we've been supporting Ukraine for years, when Russia invaded Crimea the aid increased. For Trump to piss off Putin regarding UA/Crimea he needs something BIG in return and so does Putin.
Congress controls the money, not the Executive branch (Trump). At least thats what's in the constitution. The reason Ukraine has support from the west is to encourage democracy and discourage Putin from invading other countries. The funny side is the Ukraine and Russia were always on the same side. Russia wanted Crimea and warm black sea and it was difficult for Ukraine to just let Russia take it. They made a strategy, made US fund for Ukraine to fight against separatist sponsored by Russia. And in the end, Russia keeps crimea, Donbass and Luhanks goes to Ukraine. Ukraine doesn't join NATO. Russia and Ukraine has open border and trade. They are literally at war right now, killing each other and taking prisoners. He is right you are just too blind to see and ignorant of the history of the region. A coup was conducted in Ukraine. Funny how much Ukraine has been in the media lately isn't it? |
|
|
|
I never said it was "the Democrats fault", and Obama never attacked Iran. He did send them pallets of cash though. Iran has been engaging in several acts of violence in the region outside their borders against surrounding nations, ships, as well as US/allied forces in the region. I don't want war with Iran, but it has been part of the plan from the beginning of this engagement in the Middle East. It was published in P.N.A.C. documents before 9/11. This is basically an extension of the same energy wars that started WW1. Competing cartels are fighting for control of the region to build pipelines. This is way bigger than trump or any one country. |
|
|
|
You sure are visibly spiteful today. So far you can read my mind, building trust over 8 years of trading is "trust farming" because you declare it so. I asked before but you never quoted, what retaliatory ratings? The one left for the hacked Koshgel account that flipped out because he didn't like what I had to say in the Politics section and decided that was a good use of the trust system? I remember the original Koshgel, that isn't him.
8 years LOL You didn't even know that you need 10 users to include you until I told you. But please do go ahead and explain how adding Quickseller to your trust list is totally normal in TECSHARE's alternative universe. You know what that reminds me of? That time you pulled that live flamingo out of your ass. You know how I know it happened? I can imagine it therefore it happened. |
|
|
|
Yep, that one rating that is potentially objectionable over a year, THAT is the true crime!
Very fitting with your bullshit from another thread, so perhaps a good time to move it here instead of derailing that one. you never actually substantiated anything.
Just because you think you're smarter than everyone else doesn't mean that your trust farming attempts with the Turks and retaliatory trust ratings are not obvious. And attempts to add scammers to DT2. And here's what happens when someone substantiates those things. It's only one rating. It's only one farmed inclusion. It's only one scammer. You're such a pathetic weasel, it'd be almost funny if people weren't getting fooled by your incessant rage-against-the-machine yapping. You sure are visibly spiteful today. So far you can read my mind, building trust over 8 years of trading is "trust farming" because you declare it so. I asked before but you never quoted, what retaliatory ratings? The one left for the hacked Koshgel account that flipped out because he didn't like what I had to say in the Politics section and decided that was a good use of the trust system? I remember the original Koshgel, that isn't him. Rage-against-the-machine? Ok boomer. |
|
|
|
now the math and the propaganda myths have been busted..
my view of antivaxxers is this
if you wanna been a fool and not vaccinate yourself. do these things
1. independantly research if the vaccine is actually affective and what the % of risk/benefit it has. dont take a 2 cases out of thousands as some reason to go on a hate campaign. actually understand that a case of 2 deaths due to a bad batch is not even 1% of the thousand or so given that year
2. if you still fear the under 1% risk. then try to segregate yourself from the risk by not associating yourself in group activities. not only to avoid yourself from getting infected but also to avoid you infecting others.
3. if yo dont want to segregate yor self to prevent infection then atleast do not be a complete ass and spread it. if you become sick stay home. dont be an ass who spreads it around like its their moral right o do so
4. if your still an ass then expect consequences
just because you as an adult feel that you have a strong chance of surviving an infection naturally. does not mean the young and elderly around you are just as strong. atleast have some respect for others
stupid fools think that because they are 20-50 and not eligible for a vaccine that they strangely think their kid or grandparents should not have it too.
there is a good reason why the young and elderly are eligible and others are not. understand and respect that reason.
dont let your ignorance guide you to cause harm on others
What does your irrelevant rambling have to do with the fact that bodily autonomy is arguably the most essential of rights. Pharmaceutical companies have been killing people by the millions for profit for years with all kinds of dangerous drugs, but apparently when vaccines are involved all of their motives and results magically are perfect some how. This whole if you don't like compulsory vaccinations you are arguing vaccinations don't work straw man is bullshit. People just want to be able to choose what goes into their bodies. |
|
|
|
You are rambling on about one single 6 year old rating.
https://i.imgur.com/I6M24hd.pngA day before TECSHARE was tagged by account koshgel: https://i.imgur.com/k7xyUUk.pngTecshare probably thought that retaliation feedback is not good, but who gives a fuck anyway when you can apply this strategy: "this Stalinist "show me the man I will find you the crime" bullshit must be stopped at all costs" - TECSHARE "Yes, lets just pretend this isn't about using the trust system as a tool of retribution and selective enforcement. You know what Stalin always said, find me the man I will show you the crime." - TECSHARE I like how you try to repurpose the term "shotgunning" to mean anything other than sheer volume of negative ratings. Last I checked I have an average of 2 negative ratings left per year. Not quote "shotgunning" or "wide net".
I see, so it is ok for you to tag 1 account seller but if someone tag ("shotgun") 50 account sellers then it is not OK. But this sounds like this then: "Oh it is excessive and selective how people are rated?" - TECSHARE "Yes, lets just pretend this isn't about using the trust system as a tool of retribution and selective enforcement." - TECSHARE If that is all for now...
You are the one who started this, not me, look: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213992.0
Now, @TECSHARE, if you don't mind: FAILURE to red tag them means you are corrupt and pushing double standards there can be no denial of this. Point me accounts which are shilling for X10 and I will tag them. You see how this kind of stuff just fuels itself? Oh it is excessive and selective how people are rated? Well then I will just start getting more excessive to make it more equally abusive! Funny the campaign managers share no responsibility here but random users picked out of retribution or arbitrarily tagged, that will change things! I have time to tag some scam shills and cryptohunter said that he will find them and I will tag them. I have some strange feeling that you would like others to close their eyes and not warn people that someone or something is scam
Would you like more or less scams here? Sorry, I mean one rating over the last year. Much more impressive. Funny how these deep dives you are so fond of come along side your accusations of selective enforcement. Classic D.A.R.V.O. tactics. I am curious what wonders your own ratings would hold over the last year. Who has the time to dig through so much spam of the trust system? Yep, that one rating that is potentially objectionable over a year, THAT is the true crime! |
|
|
|
I said the world "trolls" in the rating, that is all you have?
And I also said "troll" in the rating. Edit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4309586.0 Why are you selectively tagging account sellers?  "Oh it is excessive and selective how people are rated?" - TECSHARE Why have you shotgunned feedback? User has plenty enough negative feedbacks. "wide net shotgunning" - TECSHARE Still nothing about this: I have time to tag some scam shills and cryptohunter said that he will find them and I will tag them. I have some strange feeling that you would like others to close their eyes and not warn people that someone or something is scam
Would you like more or less scams here? You are rambling on about one single 6 year old rating. I like how you try to repurpose the term "shotgunning" to mean anything other than sheer volume of negative ratings. Last I checked I have an average of 2 negative ratings left per year. Not quote "shotgunning" or "wide net". If that is all for now... |
|
|
|
Finally found it. No, that's intentional. - If a person has mostly negatives, then they should clearly have a negative score. - If a person has only positives, then they should clearly have a non-negative score. - If someone who previously had lots of positives gets a negative, this is interpreted by the system as "This person could very well be a con man! I can't be sure, though, since it's just one rating. Better show ??? just in case". - If they then get several more negatives after the first negative, the ??? will turn into a negative score, as it should. - If they get positives after the first negative, then this is interpreted as "Oh, it looks like that negative is probably wrong. I guess I can now mostly ignore it." See the full algorithm here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1066857.0It's entirely legitimate to give someone a new positive rating just to negate a negative rating. (In this case you should explicitly respond to the negative rating you're negating.) It is not legitimate to keep deleting and reposting negative ratings to put the system back into "this guy just turned scammer!" mode. People who do that shouldn't be trusted. |
|
|
|
What does this have to do with the trust system?
You said it is OK to add word "troll" to feedback: https://i.imgur.com/QZRckBH.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/ptaYGjR.pngAnother example of your trolling, you don't read anything, you just see orange color, make assumption and then you form your troll post (I am still deciding how dangerous your trolling is) and wait someone to take a bait. Thread is locked so you can reply here (I probably won't get your reply, because that is what you trolls do, you say something to make some drama and then when people ask you something you either don't respond or you move conversation into different direction, like it happened with you in X number of threads, you even fail to stay on topic in your own thread which you started about me!): FAILURE to red tag them means you are corrupt and pushing double standards there can be no denial of this. Point me accounts which are shilling for X10 and I will tag them. You see how this kind of stuff just fuels itself? Oh it is excessive and selective how people are rated? Well then I will just start getting more excessive to make it more equally abusive! Funny the campaign managers share no responsibility here but random users picked out of retribution or arbitrarily tagged, that will change things! I have time to tag some scam shills and cryptohunter said that he will find them and I will tag them. I have some strange feeling that you would like others to close their eyes and not warn people that someone or something is scam
Would you like more or less scams here? First of all, you had to go back 5-6 YEARS ago to find anything to desperately grasp on to? Very impressive start. Two of the three ratings are clearly just there to warn they are impostor accounts. The third rating, as it clearly states involves BitcoinExpress exploiting projects, making threats to development teams, and involvement in general market manipulation, not for "trolling". I said the world "trolls" in the rating, that is all you have? |
|
|
|
again if techshare done some actual research its not anything like a every house is invaded and everyone is injected propaganda story he protrays it as
It went from around 30% to 90% in what, a matter of days? A week? How much closer to "everyone" do we need to get over 90% for it to qualify? you silly fool people do not get yearly vaccinations every year for measles. it is stats of 75% of babies vaccinated at 2017 vs 34% in 2018 due to the antivaxxers with their false info propaganda so in a population of ~200k =~5k babies born a year. this means ~1.25k were not vaccinated in 2017 and 3.3k in 2018 were not vaccinated that means it was not a door knock of 200k peoples homes but probably 5k getting vaccinated that previously refused last couple years and in many cases the number was lower as it was only those actually atrisk-actually sick so give up your ploy of nazi invasion of every household where people were threatened with vaccines under threat of being shot. give up your ploy of thinking nazi's were drawing red crosses on doors marking homes with 'marks of death' it was in no way like that. but do try harder next time to do some research and put some math to the numbers. it might surprise you that whats really the big nasty is media's portrayal of issues. you know like the racist media shouting 'bomb them bomb them bomb them' to actually cultivate hatred for other countries you know how russia is actually capitalist and buying iphones, kfc and actually servicing the international space station. but media portray the outdated vision of communist russia that just get drunk from vodka and use AK-47's try to read between the lines of what media spoon feed you. have a nice day What do three year old immunization stats have to do with current stats? "Almost 90 per cent of eligible Samoans have now been vaccinated with a two-day curfew lifted on Saturday." "Data presented by health officials early this week during a cabinet meeting shows a 99.7 per cent vaccination rate for mumps, measles and rubella in the territory, officials said." https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/hawaii-team-returns-from-measles-vaccination-trip-in-samoa/news-story/b41342781a4115abfc0a29eb3b57797b"Vaccine rates in Samoa were just about 31% when measles took hold, the World Health Organization (WHO) says, a far lower proportion than in neighbours, such as Fiji and Tonga, where the disease has been more contained. " https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-measles-samoa-idUSKBN1Y9033It amazes me with all of the history of pharmaceutical companies making toxic and harmful drugs and being sued for it later, some how if they are injected they suddenly have a stunning track record in your minds. There is profit motive here, and it is extensive and not necessarily in the interest of your health because vaccinations are a thing. I don't know what else to tell you if you don't think state mandated compulsory injections aren't a dangerous precedent or even legal for that matter. |
|
|
|
Polls are not worthless, they are just one step above worthless. An indicator at best.
BTW twitchy if you are going to quote me in your sig please at least link the source.
An indicator is exactly what they are. I wish I would've just said that pages ago. I'll add the link, and I'll remove the whole thing if it bothers you. I just think it's funny. It being bright is an indicator it may be daylight. However it might be a bus about to run you over. Oh it doesn't bother me I just want people to see that you endorse forced injections on remote minority populations after they are done looking at my inflammatory remarks. |
|
|
|
Just now googled "Door To Door Forced Vaccinations Now Taking Place in Samoa"
The government told most public and private workers to stay home for two days and shut down roads to nonessential vehicles as teams began going door-to-door to administer vaccines.
Families in the Pacific island nation were asked to hang red flags from their houses if they needed to be vaccinated.
if you dig a little deeper you also find that doctors are not circling every street knocking down doors and forcing vaccinations on everyone. what is actually happening is that when people are sick they call the doctor who tells them to stay home and someone will come to them to make sure its measles and then vaccinate them if needed the real point of the reg flag/red sock on door knob is actually so that the neighbours and relatives stay away from that house for a few days to avoid themselves getting infected. seems techshare has taken a limited scope comment and exaggerated it into being some militia style nazi campaign its also worth noting that its mainly the kids and elderly that get priority home visits by doctors as they are the more at risk demograph. again if techshare done some actual research its not anything like a every house is invaded and everyone is injected propaganda story he protrays it asIt went from around 30% to 90% in what, a matter of days? A week? How much closer to "everyone" do we need to get over 90% for it to qualify? |
|
|
|
I think they're just trying to stop a measles outbreak from getting any worse. What do you think they're trying to do? If you were there and unvaccinated, or you had young children who hadn't received the shot, would you not put the red flag out and thank whoever brought you the free medication? No you're not, you are avoiding addressing the issue by deflecting to my personal opinion which is totally irrelevant.
I think you're opinion on what they should've done is very relevant to your opinion that they shouldn't have done what they did. My opinion is vaccinations should not be compulsory. This is compulsory vaccination no matter how much you want to imagine the bad thoughts away. People should have a right to choose what goes into their bodies. Bodily autonomy is about as critical of a right as anyone has. The rest of the debate is irrelevant to this fact. |
|
|
|
WTF is this thread about exactly?
ree to tecshare's thread, he said "more trust abuse by me" and then he start trolling yahoo and then he said that yahoo abused trust so I am not sure what to respond there, and then I got what I posted above. Probably everything mixed together.
TIL I have the ability to make marlboroza shit himself and can force nutilduhhh to post. YLSNED.
Internet Troll
A person who posts remarks or comments onto internet forums or message boards in an attempt to get someone to comment negatively to it and to redirect attention onto himself. Usually, these remarks are controversial, stupid, off-topic, inflaming, illogical, or childish. Sometimes, the comments are enough to enrage the people in the forum to want to respond back with their own negative remarks which starts a flame war and changes the topic and attention of the discussion. Since, internet trolls are attention whores, this is exactly what they want since they probably don't get enough attention in real life and needs someone else to acknowledge their self-worth and existence. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Internet Troll In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_trollBy all definitions, this is perfect example of your trolling. What does this have to do with the trust system? Good attempt at creating false equivalence through sheer volume of bullshit though, I think this whole NO-U strategy is wearing thin. |
|
|
|
....
You don't need to be an expert in statistics to understand that at the very least polls are not just worthless.
The most simple way ....
I've worked in survey and poll design so your arguments don't impress me except in one very important respect. You seem to illustrate an example of the bending of survey and opinion results to suit your personal desired narrative. May I suggest, instead of just protesting, think about that a bit. It's likely not just you but perhaps most people in such work. Just like most reporters think they are unbiased, but to us outside of their field that's laughable. Polls are not worthless, they are just one step above worthless. An indicator at best. BTW twitchy if you are going to quote me in your sig please at least link the source. |
|
|
|
|
TIL I have the ability to make marlboroza shit himself and can force nutilduhhh to post. YLSNED.
|
|
|
|
Right, so long as you admit that you're wrong, I'm good. For clarity, this is what you said in your OP: Hearing lots of rumblings from military personnel that an attack is now imminent within the next few weeks.
So, you were wrong only a few weeks after after you posted this thread. You were wrong then, you've been wrong 8 years since then, you're wrong today, and you'll be wrong tomorrow. This is something that has been in the works for decades and you simply are incapable of thinking that far ahead OK, so you've been wrong for decades apparently. My bad. Do me a favor? Take your selectively edited quotes and vomit eating to a private corner? It won't help you from making yourself look like an ass. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Polls are well known to be among the weakest form of empirical data and highly vulnerable to manipulation or even unintentional bias. There are so many variables that can be manipulated to get a desired result. At the end of the day most polling companies will produce whatever data you pay them to produce.
I don't think opinion polling is considered empirical data, outliers happen and there is always a margin of error. There's plenty of historical data that shows that polling companies have been pretty accurate over the past few decades. To figure out how accurate political opinion polls are, all we have to do is look at the historical data since we know the results of the actual election. This chart takes weighted average of all reputable polling companies, there's also data on each individual company and other data that could be considered, but, in general, the polls are able to get within a few %.  There's a ton of interesting stuff out there about how polling works, I understand the skepticism but make sure you take a good look at how they work and how accurate their results are over a large sample size. I did a couple of these free courses a while ago, they're quick and easy and might change your opinion on polling in general. https://academy.maristpoll.marist.edu/collections?category=coursesPolls are reliable, just look at these other statistics processed just like these polls to prove the polls are statistically polling correctly, statistically speaking. Who gets to decide which polling companies are reputable? That is not even to mention how polls are reported on. Unless you are an expert in statistics and polling like 90% of people are not, there are way too many variables to know if data is manipulated in all of these types of data aggregation. If you are sick, you can hyper focus in on one blood cell and that is the fact of the matter for that cell there, but it is not telling you much about the rest of the body. This inversion of context and subject or hyper focus on one or the other is easily used to obfuscate the big picture, and polls as well as statistics are known to be easily massaged to get a desired result. |
|
|
|
FAILURE to red tag them means you are corrupt and pushing double standards there can be no denial of this.
Point me accounts which are shilling for X10 and I will tag them. You see how this kind of stuff just fuels itself? Oh it is excessive and selective how people are rated? Well then I will just start getting more excessive to make it more equally abusive! Funny the campaign managers share no responsibility here but random users picked out of retribution or arbitrarily tagged, that will change things! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
