Franky is right.
Compulsory just means they might get fined or banned from public places (especially children in school) if they don't get vaccinated. ( I don't know know how exactly they are handling it in Samoa, but they obviously aren't going door to door holding down anyone who tries to refuse, I think most likely they are just saying 'NEW RULE, EVERYBODY HAS TO GET VACCINATED, THERE'S A MEASELS OUTBREAK!). In most US states, by law if you want to send your child to public school you gotta prove they've had all the required vaccinations. That's compulsory vaccination. (there are medical exemptions obviously)
Google 'compulsory vaccinations' instead of just 'compulsory'
What makes the article interesting isn't that that Samoa is making the measles vaccine compulsory during a major measles outbreak, that's just common sense and happens all over the world. It's the fact that they are taking action against people spreading anti vax propaganda and discouraging people from getting vaccinated. Yes, you didn't bother reading the subject of the topic at all, but people that confirm your bias are right of course. You admittedly know nothing of the subject matter, but of course you are right. You didn't even bother reading the thread where I explained they are GOING DOOR TO DOOR GIVING FORCED VACCINATIONS. That is what compulsory means in this context. If the Nazis were alive today there would be a line of them around the block for the first class on your knees servicing you would be giving them. You are a repulsive human being. A large portion of the measles outbreaks are resulting directly from vaccinations and then spreading. This is confirmed by genotype sequencing as the version used for vacinations is no longer in the wild. "Rapid Identification of Measles Virus Vaccine Genotype by Real-Time PCR" https://jcm.asm.org/content/jcm/55/3/735.full.pdf |
|
|
|
I think it is long past time where anyone believes you give a fuck about Theymos's input. Good try though.
Oh, so young and gullible. You fall for my posting traps too easily. I actually asked theymos to give input on this, but he may or may not.  Yes, it was all part of your eVIL plan to look like a hypocritical tyrant. You sure got me! |
|
|
|
Missing dot.
That shouldn't have ended in there. Replaced a fourth time to correct this mistake. Thanks for the heads up. Maybe you should replace it once an hour? Perhaps that would keep you from harassing slightly fewer people if you are busy doing that. |
|
|
|
Your reference should in fact be pointing to a case of them scamming or trying to scam an individual.
For something to be a scam there does not have to be any direct financial damage (It could be indirect, collateral, or even non-existent). A.
Unlike copyright law violations, plagiarism is truly the theft of ideas. It is singularly the most reprehensible wrong that can be committed within the realm of the intellect; and it is inherently fraudulent, an intellectual scam by definition.
The logical argument deriving from the reasoning by OP is very sound without any subjective nonsense. Maybe theymos will give his input on this. I think it is long past time where anyone believes you give a fuck about Theymos's input. Good try though. |
|
|
|
"people can individually refuse vaccinations. what is being said is that organisations that try to stop other people are told to stop."
Learn to read "The specific order, therefore, to vaccinate is compulsory and is to be complied with..." Do you know what the word "compulsory" means? It means no refusal allowed. |
|
|
|
Please do cite specific examples.
LOL Please do create your own thread about your amnesia issues. By no means ever try to provide specific examples of shit you're accusing others of because where's the fun in that, you sleazy hypocrite. I don't just throw accusations around, I use specific references and keep public records of all of this abuse as you can see above. You however practice the Vod school of accusation. You project crimes on to people, then when asked to substantiate them you never seem to have an answer and just pretend it is obvious and slide the topic until everyone forgets you never actually substantiated anything. |
|
|
|
Well shit, just stamp "DEBUNKED" on it, and the debate is over right? Man that sure was easy. I noticed you didn't actually bother arguing any of the implications detailed in the link, you just denied it. Lets look at your well known partisan hack "fact checkers". Nopes: "Because Pelosi Jr. did not work for NRGlab during the time in which the company is alleged to have done business in Ukraine, and because the product allegedly produced by NRGlab in Ukraine does not exist, we rank the claim that “Nancy Pelosi’s son is an executive at a gas company that did business in Ukraine” as “False.”" You will notice the careful wording here where they claim he didn't work for them specifically during the time they were alleged to have done business in Ukraine as if this some how is exclusive of him being involved before or after. They also make the ridiculous claim that because they deem it unlikely such a device ever existed, he couldn't have possibly been involved as if he couldn't have been involved in a vaporware project. Politifukt: "Pelosi’s son, Paul, briefly served on the board of an American energy company (Viscoil) before it dissolved in 2010, but there’s no evidence the company had dealings with Ukraine while he held that seat. " Again, you see the weasel wording crafted in such a way as to claim that because he was not on the board at a specific time he was some how excluded form being involved. This is why Snopes and sites like it are trash, because they just do some semantic gymnastics and claim "DEBUNKED!" giving its readers all the confirmation bias they went there for. If Trump claimed he had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch, they would claim it is false because what he really ate was jam, therefore "DEBUNKED!" |
|
|
|
Remember that in America, your body is your property. That is, it is proper to you. If you don't like forced vaccination or anything else, file a claim against the man or woman who is subjecting your body to their authority without your authorization.
Study Karl Lentz, Gus Breton, Craig Lynch on Youtube, Bill Thornton, and others who promote common law court of record. You don't have to wait for the bad guys to actually touch you. When they become a threat to you personally, take them to court.
WARNING! The Vaccines Are A Trojan Horse - Zach VorhiesGoogle Whistleblower Zach Vorhies - Explains what is being done in Samoa right now and will be coming to America An Emergency public service announcement by the people for the people Secret Vaccine Damage Funds, Millions Paid Out, Anti Vaxxers being arrested and silenced…the Nazi's came with bullets Big Pharma comes with needles And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death WARNING! The Vaccines Are A Trojan Horse - Zach Vorhies =
MP4 Video (Watch and/or Download) While your solution isn't necessarily incorrect, it won't help you much if you are held at gunpoint at your doorstep and forced to be vaccinated. |
|
|
|
Tell me, exactly how you delineate the difference between opinions that are inexcusable, and opinions that are simply in opposition? I expounded on this. Was it TL;DR for you? By contrast, what I hereby consider is an opinion that directly, unavoidably, substantively demonstrates the untrustworthiness of he who expresses it. Is it untrustworthy behaviour to demand that scammy, dishonest people should not be shamed? I say, yes!
I get the very distinct impression that this is a sock puppet for another well known little girl here... Stop trying to prove that Lauda is Craig Wright. It is defamatory. What is stopping you from just claiming an opinion is "directly, unavoidably, substantially" untrustworthy frivolously? These are all extremely subjective things by its very nature. The ambiguity in punishing opinions and speech of any kind is inevitably a back door for abuse. All one has to do is claim that the speech/opinion is XYZ and therefore it is justifiable to use the trust system against it. All this will result in is the perpetual conflict the trust system has seen in the past as people frivolously accuse others of being liars or supporting scams by offering defense of people they believe to be scammers. Regarding your comment about Lauda being Craig Wright, I have never once made such an accusation, so I am not sure what you are jibbering about. |
|
|
|
You came back for cryptohunter? I get the very distinct impression that this is a sock puppet for another well known little girl here... Tell me, exactly how you delineate the difference between opinions that are inexcusable, and opinions that are simply in opposition? Is not the very act of making such a declaration excusing the use of the trust system to punish opinions you do not agree with? How exactly do you prevent this from degrading into full on abuse in a system that allows for such massive ambiguity? What stops people from simply declaring opinions they don't agree with as being unacceptable thereby supposedly justifying the use of the trust system to silence them? |
|
|
|
"All state of emergency orders ... are legally binding on the community. The specific order, therefore, to vaccinate is compulsory and is to be complied with," the statement read. "Any person that actively discourages or prevents in any way members of the community from receiving their vaccination injection is hereby warned to cease immediately, and is similarly warned not to take any further action of that kind.” https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/samoa-introduces-mass-compulsory-vaccination-drive/The escalation of tactics has been growing now for a while. I have heard backpedaling from the "vaccinate at all costs" crowd for some time. At first they said it was completely safe and effective, and that was proven wrong. Then they said it would never be compulsory, and that was proven wrong. Then it was selectively compulsory and being required to go to school or go to government buildings, and they still cried it would never go further. Now they are literally going door to door with police injecting people against their will. This is the kind of thing that was done in Nazi Germany and the entire reason medical consent laws were created to begin with so that never again would a tyrannical state force medical treatment and experimentation upon its population without full informed consent. People have been warning about this escalation for a long time and you all dismiss them as the tactics steadily escalate incrementally into treating the population as herd animals with no rights to bodily autonomy. Do they need to start executing people who resist now in the streets before you will wake the fuck up and see the pattern here or will you just be silent then too out of fear? This pattern has played out before. Don't let it happen again. Grow a fucking spine and stand up to this absolute tyrannical and genocidal behavior. It is no coincidence this escalation is being tested as a dry run in a smaller US territory filled with ethnic minorities. This is to work out the bugs before they roll it out across the USA and the rest of the world. What side of history will you be on? |
|
|
|
I'd give it about a 9/10 IMO and think it should stay with minimal changes if any..
Which is actually a pretty resounding endorsement, given your experiences with it, heh. Many of the people who think it needs to be changed were citing that example. I believe what eddie13 is saying here is the system is fine, but the way the people use it still needs work. |
|
|
|
|
Again, I want to encourage LoyceV here to keep working on ideas to improve the system around here as they do in fact have a very unique perspective on the systems in place, but this solution reeks to me as a strategy that has failed miserably in the past. That strategy is one of band-aid like patches on the system which just add another layer of complication, another layer of opacity, and an even more complicated system with more parts to break. This was the direction Theymos was going in for a while but I think he finally came to the realization that these kinds of patches are counterproductive. The more elements you add to a system, the more ways it has to break. As it stands right now as some one who has been around for all iterations of the trust system, I think the one we have now is the best so far (short of no trust system at all). I think we need to give it some more time to let the dust settle and let the disputes work their way through the system. The last changes to the system were pretty big and it took some adjustment from everyone. I think really we should be focusing less on the system itself and more on the mentality and culture we use to approach it. At the end of the day that is the real problem, not the system itself.
|
|
|
|
What a vivid imagination. Fits well with your trust farming and retaliatory bullshit that you want to be left alone at. After 8 years of being active here, my "trust farming" strategy is certainly taking the slow approach isn't it? Almost like what you describe as "trust farming" is indistinguishable from being an active and trusted member here for many years. What retaliatory bullshit? Please do cite specific examples. You are a dope who buys the whipped up horse shit of the DT mob clowns and excluded me when I didn't do anything wrong. Of course that is why I excluded you, because you either have no common sense or you are on your knees in front of them. Either way I don't want you on my list. I excluded you for one reason and one reason only; I don't like the philosophy you use to build your trust list. I don't think that adding everyone with whom you've had a successful trade is a good strategy. Regardless of our personal differences, if you applied a trust-list philosophy that more closely aligned with mine, you would be on my inclusion list, not exclusions. I leave my personal differences out of the decision. However, recently I've perceived something else that I find damaging; I think you've been trying to manipulate the system. You've been including people with the hope that they include you. You've been adding folks from specific local boards who have running disagreements with other DT1 members, again in the hope that they add you. Of course there's no way to prove this, but it's my belief that you are operating this way. This reciprocal/retaliatory approach to the trust system is damaging, and goes against everything you claim to be fighting for. Being a plagiarizing sockpuppeting weasel is still not a good reason to get red trust, let alone sending A FUCKING MERIT. IMO. By no means was I trying to conflate the two, or suggest that the OP's behavior justified the negative review left by Lauda. I completely disagree with this and a few other reviews recently left by Lauda, so I did what I feel is right; I exclude Lauda from my trust settings shortly after I read the OP of this thread. As I suspected, you are a naive dope sucking down stories from people with a grudge feeding you fairy tales. I absolutely do not add everyone I have had a successful trade with to my trust list. If I did that my trust list would include several HUNDREDS of people. This accusation is just pure horse shit. Lets for the sake of argument assume you leave personal differences out of the decision, you aren't very good at gauging that in others and simply take the words of those with long standing vendettas at face value. The accusation you are referring to here is first of all made by Nutilduhh who has a very long standing gripe stemming from their interactions with me not only involving the trust system but from discussions in Politics & Society. This of course all happened the same time this thread occurred where I successfully mediated a dispute between some members of the Turkish section and Timelord2067. At this point some of them included me on their trust list putting me back on default trust triggering a string of accusations and attacks from the same group of people I have been calling out for their behavior for some time. I am trying to help build a culture of restorative not punitive justice here and the goobers following me around like little harpies for calling them out about their own punitive behavior get dopes like you to join in their chorus and do their bidding because you don't know any better. You are being used as a tool. Are you arguing that I shouldn't be trying to help resolve disputes because some one MIGHT include me after? GOD FORBID people start doing things to reduce disputes and build trust because of it right? I mean that would be horrible! Can you tell me exactly how I can continue to do this and avoid these accusations of manipulation in the future? I would love to hear your solution. First of all lets address your "beliefs". You are claiming now you know what goes on inside my head and should be judged based on what you IMAGINE my goals are? How could that possibly be damaging to apply this methodology to the community right? I mean why base ratings and exclusions on observable instances of theft, violation of contractual agreements, or violation of applicable laws when you can just IMAGINE some one did something wrong? Just so it is clearly and openly stated, this has never been my goal, and the aspersions cast in the original thread accusing of this are yet again a long string of speculations that could literally be applied to ANY user here who is active using the trust system. In the case of the Turkish members, I got involved because they are a group OUTSIDE of the current one controlling the default trust, which is I suspect why they were being targeted because they would dilute control the current group at the time had on it. This is also exactly why I was targeted for helping them understand and better approach the situation instead of just getting themselves all excluded and making them irrelevant. My goal was never inclusion, but to break the iron grip the current default trust group has on the system, making it more difficult for them to act with impunity. Of course around here, no good deed goes unpunished. Call in the clowns. Don't forget your red nose DireWolfM14. |
|
|
|
It is not a good reason to hamper someones ability to trade smoothly here, this is an open forum, discussed many times before and why is it that difficult for this type of users to use trust ratings to indicate scammer only? The rating I am talking about are on the people who have not scammed any funds, with no real victims. You know, it's even hard for some people around to accept apologise !
Hold your horses. Trust ratings can and should be used for a lot of stuff that isn't outright scamming, stop trying to define it how it suits you. If you want to go that route, just exclude Lauda and proceed on your merry way - you got your own trust system in your custom trust list. But if you're talking about "ability to trade smoothly" then you're probably talking about DT and I doubt that even with scam-friendly weasels like TECSHARE in it we'll stoop down to the "do any shady shit just don't steal money" standard. Just because I don't think your wide net shotgunning strategy in a futile attempt to catch minor scammers justifies the means doesn't make me "scam friendly". As I stated before, with a little common sense and some due diligence the vast majority of the people you claim to be protecting us from can be avoided. Power tripping control freak dictators can not be escaped and everyone suffers from them. I know you enjoy injecting yourself into peoples business as much as possible, but I as well as many others here enjoy an atmosphere of being left the fuck alone unless otherwise victimizing others. Your internet cop strategy is just simply antithetical to that goal. If you want to wipe bum bums, child proof everything, and kiss ouchies have some kids. |
|
|
|
Can y elaborate on this statement: "A Special Die was Created featuring the FAMOUS TWIN TOWERSONLY 2,001 of these 2001 PENNIES were Struck with this COMMEMORATIVE MEMORIAL DIE."?
That sure does not look like the trade center was struck with a die but that it was crudely stamped on post mint by a 3rd party. Can you point me to where this coin appears in the US Mint catalogue? i could be wrong but the only place I can find it is pininterest.
I believe you are right. I bought this coin long time ago. I forgot who i bought it from but I can remember I bought this coin directly from the party who initiated this project. I believe they sent me some paper with it but I do not have that. I think they made these coins to raise money and to remember the victims. I do not have any further information, I do see references on the internet about this coin. It is the same thing I posted here about this coin. This coin is about 19 years old. only 2001 created. I doubt this is an official fund raiser considering it is illegal to deface US coinage. Without paperwork or at least some kind of reference this is worth pretty much face value unfortunately. |
|
|
|
....
High crime and misdemeanors is the text that's used in the constitution but that doesn't necessarily exclude impeachment for something that isn't a crime. ...
I kind of think that "High crimes" referred to crimes, don't you? Trump tore the tag off of his couch mattress once. Some one call Nancy Pelosi so she can file a new article of impeachment! |
|
|
|
Yep I removed your positive over a 20$ trade. You can now cry for all of 2020 over it. I righted a wrong with that 1 IMO, you deserve a neutral but i'm too stubborn to put it back, just like you're too stubborn to stop being a baby.
Just ignore me n move on now You think this is about the rating? I don't need your positive trust. This is about you abusing the trust system because you can't control your emotions. If you don't like being called out don't throw stones from glass houses. Maybe you should take your own advice eh? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
