1041

Flat Earth Community / Re: NexStar 8SE

« on: October 30, 2021, 10:35:34 PM »

This suggests that people are getting longer than five minute exposure times. Your fibs are beyond obvious. You clearly just came here to lie to us rather to engage in any honest discussion.

What exactly is your argument here? Originally it seems like you were arguing that an equatorial mount would lose its target after a few minutes

You can get a decent scope for well under $600. Any cheap equatorial mounted scope will demolish the notion of a sun/moon/stars going in a circle above a flat plane.

Have you ever used an equatorial mounted scope? They only work for a few minutes before drifting off of the target star.

Now you're saying that's not true?

I'm not sure why you're hung up on camera exposure time limits. For instance, unbeknownst to me, my Canon 5D Mark IV can handle a whopping 99 hours with the shutter open:

1042

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cancel culture

« on: October 29, 2021, 12:19:24 AM »

Is he trying to make a case for the gay couple and not for the cake makers? That’s a twist I didn’t expect from him.

1043

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cancel culture

« on: October 28, 2021, 08:04:20 PM »

Are you saying that, in the US at least, trans folks should fall under the purview of the ADA? In other words, are you saying trans people are disabled?

I'm saying that people here are hypocrites for calling for transgender equality while simultaneously holding that businesses should be able to discriminate against transgenders. If you believed in true equality business should need to provide equivalent services to women with transgender genitalia.

The same side which argues that it was wrong for a cake-making business to discriminate against a gay wedding is siding with a position which discriminates against transgenders. How ironic.

Is it that the cake-making people were untrained in how to make a cake for gay people? If I recall, that was not the cake-makers' position.

Here we have a salon that doesn't wax anyone's balls regardless of how the ball carrier identifies. Perhaps if they simply posted a sign saying "We don't do balls" this would all go away.

And back to the cake-makers, if I remember correctly, they won their case on their religious grounds. I don't see here where religion was evoked as a reason.

1044

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cancel culture

« on: October 28, 2021, 06:04:42 PM »

I'm having a little trouble believing that's real. It sounds like something Tucker Carlson would make up.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/25/trans-woman-tried-to-sue-beauticians-for-refusing-to-wax-her-testicles-10982552/

Seems legit.
Canadian woman wanted a wax down below.  Salon did not advertise nor was trained for male genitalia waxing so they refused.

Seems pretty acceltable to me.

Why is it acceltable to discriminate against transgenders? Why not force salons to provide services to transgendered people just like businesses are forced to provide services to the disabled and take necessary training and install necessary modifications such as ramps and special parking spaces?

Are you saying that, in the US at least, trans folks should fall under the purview of the ADA? In other words, are you saying trans people are disabled?

1045

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: October 21, 2021, 05:48:19 PM »

But of an older video but it shows exactly where you can find the number of deaths that cover the old “died of motorcycle accident, had Covid”. It’s around 5% of deaths.

Did you watch the video?

His argument is to admit that people who die of physical injury are being counted as COVID deaths but claims that people who die of physical fatalities is generally a small percent of the number of the people who die so it's irrelevant. It's relevant because it affirms that they are counting anything and that this is an improper counting method. Many more people die to heart attack and cancer and biological causes and will be sweeped into those COVID death statistics. There shouldn't be people who died in motorvehicle crashes in the numbers at all, and just illustrates the point.

I think you're referring to the mention of "Intentional and unintentional injury, poisoning and other adverse events". Which in some cases would be accidents and such where the indivudual wouldn't have died if they didn't have Covid. But let's say all of the folks in that category were motorcycle accidents and had covid, died as a result of their injuries. and got dumped into that category.
That accounts for 3% of the Covid deaths. We stand at 732,000 Covid deaths in the US. Remove that 3% if you want. Then the number is now 710,000. And that's if you toss all 3% out. Which you shouldn't but I'm sure you will anyway. Not to mention that there's a lot of study around how we might be undercounting as opposed to over-counting. But I'm sure that stuff doesn't show up in your twitter feeds or the fringe mis-information panic inducing hack non-factual sites you follow.

So with 710k US Covid deaths, what's your point again?

1046

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: October 19, 2021, 04:09:56 AM »

In the video Dr Madej said when viewing the vax’s under a microscope she saw a “liquified computing system…something that can self-assemble…I felt it was ’self-aware’…” Which is super cool. I had no idea I got all of that and for free.

She seems to be the only person who has ever seen this so I guess no one else has ever looked at the vax’s under a microscope.

What I don’t get is that she was an invited guest speaker at Trump’s ‘Freedom Rally’ on January 6th. During her speech she said things like, “This is not your normal flu vaccine,” Madej said. “This is something totally different. This is a witches’ brew. I’ve never seen anything like this in science or medicine.”
“There’s many ways it can be taken up into our genome,” she continued. “So when this gets into the genome, if it’s permanent, guess what? You, as a human, can be patented and owned—look it up!”

I wonder if it was weird for her to be saying all that stuff about the vaccines when Trump in the same breath was minutes earlier on the same dais touting Operation Warp Speed and getting the vax to Americans as well as himself. I can’t really see how that all squares. I guess any publicity is good publicity.

1047

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: October 18, 2021, 06:59:51 AM »

In the case of your five lawyers talking about the immediacy of landlord payment (a far cry from federal law regarding drug/vaccine regulatory disclosure turnarounds) kind of gave vague answers. I mean 2 weeks was not immediate enough to pay a landlord. What about one week? One day? One hour?

And So what regarding urgency? A real sense of urgency is defined as….? And defined by whom?
The FDA can define their sense of “urgency”. And they can cite case law as to “the reasonableness of the circumstances.”

Perhaps looking at the timelines of other approved drugs/vaccines by the FDA would give a sense as to what their normal turnaround is. Aka, what is their normal reasonableness of circumstances?

1048

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: October 18, 2021, 05:35:52 AM »

Five lawyers who think that a two week delay is not "immediately":

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-there-a-legal-definition-of--immediately---2018777.html

Instead of going with your ambulance chasers, a bankruptcy lawyer, and a divorce lawyer, I'll go with actual case law:

So just in terms of dictionary definitions, immediately looks very much like promptly. And this similarity becomes more pronounced when you look at the caselaw, which indicates that just like promptly, immediately is subject to a reasonableness standard. Here are some representative cases:

- Dwoskin v. Rollins, Inc., 634 F.2d 285, 294 (5th Cir. 1981) (stating that “several Georgia cases arising in a variety of contexts suggest that immediate delivery means performance with reasonable diligence concerning the circumstances”).
- East Texas Medical Center Regional Healthcare System v. Lexington Insurance Co., No. 6:04‑CV‑165, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50613, at *19 n.10 (E.D. Tex. July 12, 2007) (“Texas courts interpret ‘as soon as practicable’ and ‘immediately’ to mean ‘within a reasonable time under the circumstances.'”).
- Briggs Ave, LLC v. Ins. Corp. of Hanover, 05 Civ. 4212, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34854, at *14 N.3 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2006) (“In any event, there is little or no functional difference between terms like ‘immediately’ or ‘as soon as practicable’; whatever language a policy uses to limit the time for notice, the touchstone is always the same, reasonableness under the circumstances.”).
- Martinez v. Dist. 1199J Nat’l Union of Hosp. & Health Care Employees, 280 F. Supp. 2d 342, 353 (D.N.J. 2003) (“The Court finds that ‘immediately prior’ means that a reasonable amount of time would pass between eligibility for health coverage with the Fund and the start of unemployment.”).
- Sunshine Textile Services, Inc. v. American Employers’ Insurance Company, No. 4:CV-95-0699, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22904, at *7 (M.D. Pa. May 12,1997) (“The requirement of notice ‘as soon as practicable’ or ‘immediately’ both prescribe notice within a reasonable amount of time under the circumstances after learning of the occurrence, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.”).

1049

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: October 17, 2021, 10:59:36 PM »

Why has the FDA, weeks after the filing of a federal lawsuit, still not agreed to timely release this data?  Why does the FDA persist in delaying its release when even federal law states that, once licensed, the “data and information in the biological product file [for the licensed vaccine] are immediately available for public disclosure.”

Sure looks like the law definition of ‘immediately’ as referenced above has been applied by the FDA. In essence the Fed law you reference reads like this:

“data and information in the biological product file are available for public disclosure at such convenient time as is reasonably requisite for doing the thing.”

Or perhaps:

“data and information in the biological product file are available as soon as can be done for public disclosure.”

1050

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: October 17, 2021, 06:07:12 PM »

Law definitions of 'immediately'

immediately
adv. 1) at once. 2) in orders of the court or in contracts it means "as soon as can be done" without excuse.

Immediately (law)
Courts have used immediately to mean "Promptly, with expedition, with reasonable haste consistent with fair business activity." 46 Am J1st Sales § 163.
Courts, looking at the substance of contracts and statutes, have, during the last two centuries, repeatedly declared that the word "immediately," although in strictness it excludes all meantimes, yet to make good the deeds and intents of the parties, it shall be construed "such convenient time as is reasonably requisite for doing the thing." Anno: 16 ALR 609.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immediately_(law)

1051

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: October 17, 2021, 01:03:00 AM »

Incorrect. That's talking about the FIOA request which said that the request was urgent. The FDA acknowledged that they had the information, but claimed it wasn't urgent.

They determined that whatever the request was, was not urgent. Regardless of whether they had "information" or not. Just that a request was not deemed to be actionable.
It's your interpretation that they have stuff they are "withholding" from you. Just because you ask for something doesn't mean you will get it in the timeframe you asked for it. Are you a lawyer, an expert? Is your interpretation founded on your expertise in the matter?

Again, one lawyer says they should get X. Another lawyer says not in your timeframe. Who is right? Which lawyer? Are you equipped to say who is right?

This is not a claim that they didn't violate the specific law referenced. This is separate issue entirely. There is a federal law that states that it must be immediately available upon licensing. It is referenced in the lawsuit as well. Is there a specific response to this law by the FDA?

No, there is not. You are unable to even find a denial on this matter.

Did you look into the link I sent you regarding FDA Regulations? And how there are caveats regarding disseminating their findings? Subsequent to "immediately available upon licensing." There's a whole bunch of stuff around proprietary info, disclosures, etc. Again, you cherry pick one line in a regulatory document and leave out a whole host of context around it.

As evidenced by all of your other efforts to assert affidavits as proof of something, you're batting about .000%.

1052

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: October 17, 2021, 12:30:35 AM »

The lawyer says that they violated federal law by not releasing it right here:

https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/scientists-sue-the-fda-for-data-it

Why has the FDA, weeks after the filing of a federal lawsuit, still not agreed to timely release this data?  Why does the FDA persist in delaying its release when even federal law states that, once licensed, the “data and information in the biological product file [for the licensed vaccine] are immediately available for public disclosure.”

Where did the FDA claim that they were not in violation of the law on this matter?

What's the definition of immediate?

And the lawyer for the FDA says, "I have determined that your request for expedited processing does not meet the criteria under the FOIA. You have not demonstrated a compelling need that involves an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual. Neither have you demonstrated that there exists an urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity. Therefore, I am denying your request for expedited processing."

This above taken from your affidavit.

So one lawyer says "they violated federal law by not releasing it", and the FDA lawyer(s) say bollocks to that.

So what's your point? Why does your lawyer have more credibility in your eyes as opposed to the FDA lawyer(s)? And in answering that question, who are you to answer it? Are you a lawyer? Are you expert in FDA laws and regulations? Why are you interpreting one way or the other in this case? What expertise do you bring to the table?

1053

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How to explain Midnight sun/No sun?

« on: October 17, 2021, 12:19:58 AM »

When your looking across the earth you cannot see the sun or other Low Altitude objects because of distance, perspective, and atmospheric interference.  Thats why some stars cannot be seen in the south from the north and vice versa.

If this were the case, how come I can see a sun set below the horizon?

I just moved a flashlight slowly away from this dome as I looked through it, and sure enough I saw a perfect sunset.  When I removed the dome, I could see the flash light again. 

If you think moving a flashlight over an upside down glass bowl represents the complexity of the cosmos, have at it.

You seem to be looking through some sort of dome on your mousepad from space. Not from earth.

I know I haven't been able to look through the dome and work everything out yet...  But I think the potential is there.

Explore the potential. There are other potentials to explore. Go to a University space telescope set up. Talk to the astrophysicists about theory, observation, and facts. Pick their brains. Look through their equipment, etc. Dive in. It's wondrous what we know and don't know, but surmise.

Relinquish your bias that there is a "dome". There might not be. Maybe there is one. Talk to people who have explored all these notions and more rather than flipping a bowl onto to your mousepad and blasting it with a flashlight..

1054

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: October 17, 2021, 12:09:08 AM »

The group's lawyer says that according to federal law it was supposed to be released immediately. Are you a lawyer? Are you a legal expert? He is.

And an FDA lawyer wrote back saying that the request to expedite was unfounded. Lawyer v Lawyer, two experts in law. I'm sure the lawyers, experts, will work this out.

The FOIA and the request to expedite is good that they made those requests, but irrelevant to the point that it was supposed to have been immediately released when the application was approved. It wasn't. The FDA is withholding safety data from the public in violation of federal law.

According to the lawyer who submitted the FOIA. According to the lawyer from the FDA who responded to the request, s/he/them deemed the request for expedition did not qualify under their own regulations. What makes your lawyer's interpretation more worthwhile than the FDA's lawyers? Are you in an interpretive position to say that the FDA is withholding safety data from the public in violation of federal law?  I think not as you are not an expert.

I would leave this up to the courts to decide.

1055

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How to explain Midnight sun/No sun?

« on: October 16, 2021, 11:10:46 PM »

When your looking across the earth you cannot see the sun or other Low Altitude objects because of distance, perspective, and atmospheric interference.  Thats why some stars cannot be seen in the south from the north and vice versa.

If this were the case, how come I can see a sun set below the horizon?

However, looking through a glass dome, you can see high altitude stars more clearly from the edges of the earth then at its center... See example:

You seem to be looking through some sort of dome on your mousepad from space. Not from earth.

1056

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: October 16, 2021, 11:01:36 PM »

The group's lawyer says that according to federal law it was supposed to be released immediately. Are you a lawyer? Are you a legal expert? He is.

And an FDA lawyer wrote back saying that the request to expedite was unfounded. Lawyer v Lawyer, two experts in law. I'm sure the lawyers, experts, will work this out.

1057

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: October 16, 2021, 07:10:32 PM »

Per the legal complaint, the FDA did not refuse to provide information, they refused to expedite the FOIA request. Massive difference there.

Which is an admission that they have not released it to the public and that the FDA was working against public disclosure. Why wasn't it released to the public on day one? If it wasn't released it means that the FDA was working against public disclosure and still is.

How is it an "admission" of anything? Isn't that rather speculative on your part. Are you an expert in FDA approval policies and procedures?

The FDA denied the expedition, not the overall request. Perhaps the FDA has a whole system around how and when they publish. And perhaps this request for expedited info doesn't fall into the system (Regs) that warrants expedited anything. I have no idea, neither do you, so it seems presumptuous on your part to claim that the FDA is doing something untoward because they are not meeting an arbitrary timeline set by an arbitrary request.

Where does the case stand now? The filing was a month ago.

Also, if interested, you can search the FDA regulations pretty easily:

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm

There's a lot more to C.F.R. § 601.51 (and elsewhere in the Regs) than is mentioned in the filing regarding immediacy, data, disclosure, etc.

1058

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: October 14, 2021, 05:53:05 PM »

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

True. So what about this:

It is a fact unvaxxed national guard will replace unvaxxed health care workers.

Where's your extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim?

I have posted that evidence.

There is ZERO evidence any virus is more easily spread in a hospital.

You are just another conspiracy theorist cosigning for a conspiracy theorist.

What evidence did you post that says, "It is a fact unvaxxed national guard will replace unvaxxed health care workers."? Are you referring to the Jimmy Dore comedy bit as evidence? If so, that's hilarious. Not Jimmy Dore, you using him as evidence.

1059

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: October 14, 2021, 05:09:01 AM »

COVID may not kill many young people but it killed more American’s than anything else last month:

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/live-updates/covid-delta-surge/?id=80516253&__twitter_impression=true&s=09

Yet you have been shown numerous times that they are counting people who died "with" Covid and not of Covid, unlike previous diseases. Your argument is completely illegitimate.

Here's an interesting one. Rumor has it that the famous Biblical Flat Earther and anti-vaxxer Rob Skiba has passed away. He, as rumored, had covid, developed pneumonia, put on Remdesivir. After a few days he was taken off of Remdesivir, put on a ventilator and placed in a medically-induced coma.  He had been in a coma for the last 40 days. Had a heart attack and died. Again, all rumor.

If all of that is true, the question is whether his is a Covid death or not? More specifically, should it be counted in the Covid death count?

1060

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Blue Origins / William Shatner space launch (T-1hour)

« on: October 14, 2021, 04:43:24 AM »

90 year old Shat looks a little scared and not so agile. He is 90 after all. Here's some footage: