TrueTomHarley

At last, to my mind, you have scored a definitive hit, not a dubious one.
I’ll be carrying on about how I love big brother next.

Underhanded or at least backhanded.

Someone has overplayed their hand then, is what you are saying?

So much for my own clandestine smear operations! I will have to better train my own secretive forces—the CTTHIA.
Okay okay, so I have not yet read Volume I either.
I’ve read that the TV series is instantly soul-draining, that watching it destroys all vestige of humanity. I can’t imagine how you can watch some things and then just go about your daily life mentally unharmed. 
Or am I being old-fartish? I read one shocking review of the show from a source not known for being fuddy-daddy, but after that, nothing but admiration for how well Netflix is doing with its hit series..
“We know what is best for you” and therefore it is democracy? The fact that proclamation of the good news usually goes down in the crossfire of these guys makes this sort of “democracy” unpopular with many, though if it brings material prosperity, it may well be the bees knees in an irreligious world. It’s challenging enough when the Christian organization presents itself as a little too smothering for my preference, let alone a government that does consider itself master of your faith and does not confine itself to exhortation.
As Massimo Introvigne put it, China is democratic. All you need do is change the definition of democracy to see it that way.
https://bitterwinter.org/democracy-according-to-xi-jinping/

You would think so. That makes perfect sense. But there are so many cases in which academics has been purchased so as support whatever is the preferred view. For every case of academics forming the preferred view, there is another in which the preferred view forms academics. See the response I gave you re Pharma and the Brazilian study that has superseded the doctor-patient relationship. Many maintain that the evolution of college and school curricula is another example in which the preferred view molds academics.
To adapt the words of Yakov Smirnoff and satisfy JWI, is this a great [world] or what that can turn soundness of mind on its head? Nor can we look to “academics” for support on the origin of life. Certainly not with regard to any flood. Nor on the utility of blood transfusion. Apparently not with secular dating chronology. And not in what is called social “science,” even gender “science.” Is the foregoing all examples of Jehovah turning the wisdom of the wise into foolishness?
The earthly organization is not blind to academics but it certainly doesn’t allow itself to be shoved around by it, nor even its hand-in-glove “critical thinking” that is all the rage today, which so manifestly can be hijacked by other interests as to be anything but a reliable guide—something to factor in, but no more.
From Day 1 the organization has run experiences to illustrate whatever point they make that will infuriate academic devotees of “critical thinking” and, truth be told, sometimes even some of us. “Consider Danny,” it will say. “He and his wife decided to put God to the test by doing such and such” and it goes on to relate the successful outcome. It’s a single example. What about Sammy and his wife who also did such and such and it turned out horrendously for them? But in fact, as long as you do not claim it as more “proof” than it is, as long as you do not claim it is guaranteed outcome everyone will experience,, I guess you can reason this way. I mean, everyone else does when trying to motivate you into doing something. College recruiters certainly do. So it’s okay. Very few things can be reduced to simple enough terms so that “academics” or “science” or “critical thinking” can be of overriding use.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2021/11/a-scientist-pours-one-liquid-after-another-upon-a-duck-placed-on-the-table-his-companion-carefully-calibrates-the-results-on.html

To the extent that the majority of the scientific community is under the influence of big money, they have lost much credibility.
There is a former pharma executive online who states that for every dollar Pharma spends on educating you through drug ads and otherwise, they spend six times that amount “educating” the medical field. There is another Pharma VP who says: “Look, nobody has any money. Government doesn’t. Researchers don’t. Universities don’t. But Pharma has lots of money.” 
“Conduct a study for us,” Pharma says, “here’s tons of money to fund it.” If the results come back favorable to Pharma, they can expect more funding for other studies. If the results come back unfavorable, they will never hear from Pharma again. “No money has changed hands,” the VP says. “No agreements have been entered into. But everyone knows what they must do,’ as he goes on to claim this practice is universal.
The above is said of new drugs. The regulatory hurdles for vaccines, even in normal times, are lower. In abnormal times, such as now, they are lower still. The existing vaccines were ushered in at “warp speed” under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). This US emergency provision can only be done legally if there truly is a emergency—that is, if there is no existing alternative treatment for Covid-19. Thus, it becomes very important to certain parties to demonstrate that existing alternative treatments (read primarily hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin) are no good and/or cause injury.
Yes. Some of them are medical doctors who felt impelled to do something to help their patients. Initially, there was no guidance whatsoever from health agencies upon a Covid-19 diagnosis other than get bed-rest, keep hydrated, and come to the hospital if it gets real bad—by which time it was too late. Most patients put on ventilators died.
So these doctors, mostly on their own & then they shared their results with colleagues, began experimenting with existing drugs to see if any could prevent the hospitalization that usually spelled death. They discovered and then shared with others their 80% or so success rate. One of them shared his regimen with the White House, and this is why when Trump was diagnosed with Covid, he was very soon up and running again.* Another pleaded before Congress—I heard him—that these drugs be made widely available. He stressed that he was not against vaccines, which then were only in the early stages of being developed and rolled out. He was only interested in saving his existing patients in the interim.
These doctors describe how they were aghast that, not only were the drugs not made widely available, but they were targeted for elimination. They describe their bewilderment that studies were undertaken administering these drugs at levels known to be toxic. Of one Brazilian study that came to be heralded as proof that these cheap drugs that had been around forever were dangerous, one of these doctors writes: 
“The Brazilian authors of this study must have known they were treading on dangerous territory by purposely causing many deaths. Coming from a poor area of the country, they may have felt they could get away with sacrificing their patients without local reprisals. They simply gave lethal doses of chloroquine to patients to prove that the drug and its derivative hydroxychloroquine were too dangerous to treat Covid-19”
This is an outrageous charge and these doctors were slow to make it. But a lethal dose is a lethal dose. Malfeasance is clearly demonstrated at many levels. It is assessing the motivation behind the malfeasance that is perilous and causes different docs to come to different conclusions, not always agreeing with each other. A prominent view, however, is that this campaign to discredit the drugs that demonstrably work amounts to mass murder and is the equal of previous genocides. Hundreds of thousands of people died who didn’t have to.
Didn’t many of Hitler’s medical experimenters wind up in South America? Of course, they’d be dead by now, but culture doesn’t die in an overlapping generation. I can’t picture rank and file technicians knowingly administering an experiment that kills people, but I can imagine them simply doing what they’re told, with no suspicions at all as to what their higher ups were concocting. Moreover, JWI I am sure will empathize with how poor people with the wrong skin color make good fodder for forward progress. Aren’t there examples in the US involving blacks and indigenous populations?
Some of the answer to this hinges on what you consider “academic.” The aforementioned doctor who sent his results to the White House and saved Trump also sent those results to certain official sources. These sources rejected the material because it was not a scientific study. “I understand it is not a scientific study,” he said, “it wasn’t intended to be, but it is still data.”
Scientific “studies” like the above Brazilian one are trumping actual data. They are infringing upon what these doctors consider sacred, the doctor-patient relationship. The “studies” have been used to go over the heads of doctors, who prescribe, say—Ivermecitn—and then the pharmacies refuse to fill it. (and in some cases report the doctor). What is “academic” is trampling what is real.
Some of them are widely published prior to going into this area of medical apostasy. I heard one of them say that he holds an advantage over some of his colleagues in that he has been published in some many journals that he will be difficult to take down.
All of them have been taken down, however,  on the mainstream outlets such as Facebook and YouTube. They are reduced to their own websites, where they aggregate breaking developments. How much they are actually reduced is a matter of debate. Most of them are reluctant beacons who never sought to be public figures. Their palpable integrity and manifest good motive draws people to their information. I consider them very credible. I mean, these are not the people who think Sandy Hook was a hoax.
___ * Aaron Rodgers, the quarterback, caused a major brouhaha when it was revealed that his prior claim of being “immunized” didn’t mean he was vaccinated. He was relying on something else, and then he came down with Covid-19. Of course, he missed the next game. But the one after that he led his team to a 17-0 victory. 
Doing my bit for “science,” I pointed out that it would have been 34-0 had he gone the conventional route.
 

The idea is that the architecture of the spike virus it itself inflicts damage, enabling it to puncture the cell it infects. If this is true, the antigen the body is coerced  to manufacture through the vaccine also has that spiky shape which tears at surfaces and logjams up. Think of computerized enactments you have seen of how strokes begin, by plaques accumulating and forming blockages. Molecules in the bloodstream flow best if they are ‘smooth.’ The spike protein is anything but.
Remember, it is not a natural shape. It does not occur in nature of its own, but it has been unleashed through gain-of-function research. Therefore, the shape of the antigen, even as it does combat the virus to an extent, is also unnatural.
Understand that I make no claim to be any expert. I’m okay with being corrected. The above I have gleaned through sources I consider trustworthy. 

The idea is that if the archtecture (the spikiness) of the virus in itself inflicts damage, enabling it to puncture cells, so will that of the manufactured antigens. Think along the lines of those computerized enactments of how strokes develop, blood passageways being clogged up by plaque, logjams that occur within the body. Molecules that flow through the body ought be smooth, and the virus, as well as the antigens made to combat it, are anything but. 
The virus itself is not anything naturally occurring, but has been created through ‘gain of function’ research. If this is true, as is alleged with considerable evidence, then the antigens created that fight the virus are just as unnatural, even as they do succeed to some extent in muting it.
Understand, I make no claim to be any expert. I’ve gleaned this from reading sources I consider trustworthy. 

More effective than any wall Trump ever could have dreamt up. And free, too.

More effective than any wall Trump ever could have dreamt up. And free, too.

More effective than any wall Trump ever could have dreamt up. And free, too.

You may be right. Stand by for my latest persona: NoisyNoisySrecko.

Perhaps we should ask @Srecko Sostar. Does he consider NoisySrecko a jibe? Or is he flattered?
Friend, do you think such language is appropriate? Especially on a day when one notable land devotes itself to thanks?

Friend, being as righteous as I am able to muster while yet residing in the flesh, allow me to make an observation on
Rather than carry on about rights, I prefer to focus on the Golden Rule, to whit, that we ought treat others as we would wish to be treated ourselves.
It preserves all that is noble about human rights while discarding what is pretentious. After all, if they are rights, shouldn’t you be able to do something about it when they are violated?
The only thing we really have a right to in this system of things is old age and death. Everything else is gravy—which we can secure if we can only persuade people to follow the Golden Rule.

Friend, I’m not aware that it does. But if you will give me an example or two, I’ll take it under advisement.
Isn’t your very moniker, NoisySrecko, an unkind taunt at dear Srecko, who presents himself here as another friend? 

Without peaking, didn’t capitalism get underway when people began pooling investments? With regard to European exploration of North America, expeditions were financed from pooled investors. They were not self-financed. 
Queen Isabella of Spain is the one to watch in this instance. Expeditions to South America were not investor financed. They could not be, because Spain (and Italy) were solidly Catholic. Catholics considered any kind of investor finance was usury prohibited by scripture. The only one who with deep enough pockets to self-finance a voyage to South. America was the crown. That is why South America was exploited to a much greater degree than North. ‘Grab the gold and go’ was the motto of Catholic Spain and Italy. But investors from England and the Netherlands were not thwarted by usury scriptures that ruled out investing. They had no need for their stake to be paid back instantly.
Does the legacy even remain to this day?
 

It’s okay to know things. It doesn’t in itself make you ‘part of this world.’
Some firebrand bro on Twitter tweeted how JWs are NOT interested in politics. Sometimes they are, I said. What they are not is partisan, or non-neutral, but as a field of activity, sometimes they keep abreast of it. He replied once more that JWs are NOT interested in politics. When I answered again, I was blocked.
Granted, one foolproof way to stay neutral with regard to politics is to know nothing about it. I do not criticize anyone taking that route. It’s a practical strategy.
Some people are greatly interested in sports. Some people care not a whit. Some people are greatly interested in cars. Others wouldn’t know a Astin Martin from a Yugo. Some are interested in the human interaction that is politics. Some are not. Not a problem, any of it. It’s all personal choice. The thing that nettles is when people misrepresent their non-interest as piety.
 

Perhaps we should ask @Srecko Sostar. Does he consider NoisySrecko a jibe? Or is he flattered?
Friend, do you think such language is appropriate? Especially on a day when one notable land devotes itself to thanks?

You may be right. Stand by for my latest persona: NoisyNoisySrecko.

We don’t even have a right to ‘old age and death,’ the more I think on it, just death.
What does the verse day? “That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men…”
It doesn’t say, “That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and old age and death through sin, and so old age death spread to all men….
Don’t get me wrong. I like the idea of old age. But it is icing on cake in a world sabotaged by sin, not a right  Just how many rights can you demand from the Devil? But with God you can reliably hope for undeserved kindness.

Friend, being as righteous as I am able to muster while yet residing in the flesh, allow me to make an observation on
Rather than carry on about rights, I prefer to focus on the Golden Rule, to whit, that we ought treat others as we would wish to be treated ourselves.
It preserves all that is noble about human rights while discarding what is pretentious. After all, if they are rights, shouldn’t you be able to do something about it when they are violated?
The only thing we really have a right to in this system of things is old age and death. Everything else is gravy—which we can secure if we can only persuade people to follow the Golden Rule.

It’s okay to know things. It doesn’t in itself make you ‘part of this world.’
Some firebrand bro on Twitter tweeted how JWs are NOT interested in politics. Sometimes they are, I said. What they are not is partisan, or non-neutral, but as a field of activity, sometimes they keep abreast of it. He replied once more that JWs are NOT interested in politics. When I answered again, I was blocked.
Granted, one foolproof way to stay neutral with regard to politics is to know nothing about it. I do not criticize anyone taking that route. It’s a practical strategy.
Some people are greatly interested in sports. Some people care not a whit. Some people are greatly interested in cars. Others wouldn’t know a Astin Martin from a Yugo. Some are interested in the human interaction that is politics. Some are not. Not a problem, any of it. It’s all personal choice. The thing that nettles is when people misrepresent their non-interest as piety.
 

Without peaking, didn’t capitalism get underway when people began pooling investments? With regard to European exploration of North America, expeditions were financed from pooled investors. They were not self-financed. 
Queen Isabella of Spain is the one to watch in this instance. Expeditions to South America were not investor financed. They could not be, because Spain (and Italy) were solidly Catholic. Catholics considered any kind of investor finance was usury prohibited by scripture. The only one who with deep enough pockets to self-finance a voyage to South. America was the crown. That is why South America was exploited to a much greater degree than North. ‘Grab the gold and go’ was the motto of Catholic Spain and Italy. But investors from England and the Netherlands were not thwarted by usury scriptures that ruled out investing. They had no need for their stake to be paid back instantly.
Does the legacy even remain to this day?
 

It’s okay to know things. It doesn’t in itself make you ‘part of this world.’
Some firebrand bro on Twitter tweeted how JWs are NOT interested in politics. Sometimes they are, I said. What they are not is partisan, or non-neutral, but as a field of activity, sometimes they keep abreast of it. He replied once more that JWs are NOT interested in politics. When I answered again, I was blocked.
Granted, one foolproof way to stay neutral with regard to politics is to know nothing about it. I do not criticize anyone taking that route. It’s a practical strategy.
Some people are greatly interested in sports. Some people care not a whit. Some people are greatly interested in cars. Others wouldn’t know a Astin Martin from a Yugo. Some are interested in the human interaction that is politics. Some are not. Not a problem, any of it. It’s all personal choice. The thing that nettles is when people misrepresent their non-interest as piety.
 

I had a very brief and blunted “sharp outburst of anger” with someone over Rittenhouse. In the process of restoring peace, I observed they shouldn’t put trials on the media anyway. To get the populace all worked up when they can’t know more than 1% of the facts? It’s just done for ratings. 
The only people who (hopefully) know it all will the the 12 of the jury. Let them decide it. Or, if you are not going to let them decide it, send them home. Nobody wants to serve jury duty anyway. Broadcast the entire trial on social media and decide the outcome by ‘likes’