>>>>> Bernard Peek wrote:

>>>>>> On the other hand that is suspicious. Even the best vaccines have
>>>>>> side
>>>>>> effects in something like one per 100,000 doses. Zero reports
>>>>>> would be
>>>>>> low enough to look like someone had been fiddling the figures.
>>>>>> Even if
>>>>>> there were zero side effects someone somewhere would be likely to
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> died of unrelated causes shortly after the vaccination, and I would
>>>>>> expect the press to trumpet that.

>>>>> Did you read the Daily Mail a few weeks back, screaming that a young
>>>>> girl had died as a result of the HPV vaccination, when it turned out
>>>>> (in very short order) that she had been killed by an undiagnosed
>>>>> tumour in her chest cavity?

>>>>> Don't worry; if there's the slightest chance that the scum press in
>>>>> this country can scaremonger on the basis of no evidence, they'll do
>>>>> it. All you have to do is wait.

>>>> The scaremongering from both press and government(s) regarding H1N1
>>>> is ridiculous. Somewhere in the region of 150+ deaths in the UK have
>>>> been attributed to swine flu. Annually, somewhere between 3000 to
>>>> 4000 UK deaths are attributed to "normal" influenza.

>>> Which is reason enough to get both shots - when you can. I don't want
>>> to die whether it's 150 or 4,000 other people who die with me.

>> They will have to kill me to get me to take it.

> Or just leave it to the virus to do so. But since you were around in
> 1957, when the last swine flu happened, chances are you'll be OK. I hope
> so, anyway.

>>>>>>>>> Do you know how many recorded incidents there are of that
>>>>>>>>> happening?

>>>>>>>>> As far as I can tell, it's exactly same as the number of recorded
>>>>>>>>> incidents of somebody walking all the way from London to New
>>>>>>>>> York without
>>>>>>>>> stopping.

>>>>>>>>> Not that that would stop this government passing a law about it.

>>>>>>>>     I wasn't the one who brought it up, I'm just saying I'd
>>>>>>>> support such a law if my government was bored enough to make it up.

>>>>>>> You prove my point. By so doing, you would further empower
>>>>>>> government to deny your basic rights and meddle in your choices.
>>>>>>> Government is a lot more potentially dangerous and evil than
>>>>>>> poisoned candy.

>>>>>>     Um, no. No it isn't. That's a completely insane statement.

>>>>> Perhaps it seems that way to the uninformed.

>>>>> How many humans were murdered during the Twentieth Century by the
>>>>> use of poisoned candy and how many by the use of government?

>>>>> There's a number of orders of magnitude difference. The candy is
>>>>> not the "winner."

>>>> Here's just one very small example of what I'm addressing:

>>>> "The 1983 to 1985 famine in Ethiopia, which Ms. Weldu survived, was
>>>> a direct result of then-President Mengistu Haile Miriam's policies,
>>>> which combined socialism with a violent resettlement program. Unable
>>>> to trade, people engaged in subsistence agriculture. When drought
>>>> struck in 1983, as it does periodically, millions were unable to
>>>> obtain enough food. Aid flowed in from foreign governments and from
>>>> naïve Westerners (including me, since I bought a couple of copies of
>>>> "Do They Know It's Christmas?"), but much of it was requisitioned by
>>>> the regime and used to oppress the very people it was supposed to
>>>> help. Over a million died.

>>>> "Mengistu continued to implement his socialist vision after the
>>>> drought, forcing over 12 million people to live in essentially
>>>> autarkic villages, promoting poverty and inhibiting adaptation.
>>>> Ethiopia's economy had been growing steadily until Mengistu came to
>>>> power, with real per capita GDP rising by about 50% in the 20 years
>>>> before 1973 (in spite of attempts by the government at planned
>>>> agro-industrialization). But by the time he was eventually forced
>>>> out of office in 1990, Ethiopia's real per capita output was about
>>>> 10% lower than in 1973."

>>> The trouble with this story, as opposed to the events it describes,
>>> is that it repeatedly uses the words "socialist" and "socialism" to
>>> describe a regime that's about as far removed from Socialism as it's
>>> possible to be. This diminishes the impact, causing the reader to
>>> throw out a baby (that may very well exist) of unacceptable
>>> happenings along with the bath water of bad reporting.

>> I know how to read between the lines.

>> To me, the significant fact is

>> "Over a million died."

> Oh, that's important all right, along with all the other deaths caused
> by incompetent governments. But that doesn't mean that the idea of
> government is evil, just that implementation is horrific.

> <snip>

>>>> Where I *will* meet you part of the way is to say that good
>>>> government requires constant vigilance on the part of the citizens.
>>>> Encouraging that is far more productive than simply (and
>>>> simplistically) saying that "All gummint is eeeevil".

>>> Tell me about a good government. Humans are complacent and lazy; they
>>> will not be constantly vigilant. Government, by its nature will
>>> continue to attract and create and empower psychopaths. Over time,
>>> the injustice and evil multiplies. Government is based on force, on
>>> denying basic human rights. How is that not evil?

>>> -Sparkle Farkle's boyfriend
>>> --
>>> Trust the Government.

>>     That presupposes several things.

>> 1) That all force is evil. 'Tisn't. Using force against someone trying
>> to kill you, for example.

> Agreed.

>> Using force as part of healing someone.

> How does that work? Seems counter-intuitive.

>> Using force to protect those dear to you.

> Agreed.

>> 2) Government is about denying basic rights? The basis of our
>> government is a document that proclaims those basic rights; before it
>> existed, nobody *had* any.

> That's not possible. Rights can be taken away, but they can't be given.
> In an anarchic situation, everybody has all the rights there are;
> government is about denying some rights to some people for the good of
> the rest of the people.

>> I certainly don't feel like the government is trampling over any of my
>> rights or trying to force me to do anything except pay taxes - which
>> is needed if I want to do things like, you know, ride the bus or get
>> free health care.

> You and I are lucky in that we live in Canada. Afghanis, Chinese people,
> people in many African countries and so on might not feel quite so happy
> about their governments.

>> 3) Government by its nature will try to empower psychopaths? Unless
>> you're referring to the military, perhaps, if a psychopath gets into
>> government they will probably be voted out very quickly.

> That's how it should work, yes, but there's plenty of evidence that it
> doesn't, just in Canada - one of the better-run countries. A politician
> who murdered his wife, for instance, or one who sued for libel the
> country he once ran and received a huge award of tax-payers money, which
> he accepted to add to his enormous personal fortune, not to give to
> charity; then when it turned out to be no libel he refused to give back
> the money. Or a whole group of people who, while in power, saw nothing
> wrong in using taxes to pay large sums to their party's supporters for
> doing nothing at all.

>     If you consider what sort of person is likely to think they have the
> right to control how other people live, it's not too surprising.

> >Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >> <shrug> The thing to bear in mind is that *any* stadium is pretty much
> >> forced to be a certain shape by its very nature. That's been true
> >> since at least Greek and Roman times. Thus the poor architect is stuck
> >> trying to do something "innovative" with the outside, because he
> >> *can't* do much to the inside without rendering it useless for its
> >> primary purpose.

> >Your point is a valid one. However, the Greeks and Romans , with limited
> >materials and no modern machinery still managed to build impressive and
> >imposing buildings that somehow *don't* look like public urinals :-)

> Yes, because back then all the good ideas hadn't been used up yet.
> Today, if an architect insists on doing something nobody else has ever
> done before, you can get all sorts of abonimations.

>>>>>> Bernard Peek wrote:

>>>>>>> On the other hand that is suspicious. Even the best vaccines have
>>>>>>> side
>>>>>>> effects in something like one per 100,000 doses. Zero reports
>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>> low enough to look like someone had been fiddling the figures.
>>>>>>> Even if
>>>>>>> there were zero side effects someone somewhere would be likely to
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> died of unrelated causes shortly after the vaccination, and I would
>>>>>>> expect the press to trumpet that.

>>>>>> Did you read the Daily Mail a few weeks back, screaming that a young
>>>>>> girl had died as a result of the HPV vaccination, when it turned out
>>>>>> (in very short order) that she had been killed by an undiagnosed
>>>>>> tumour in her chest cavity?

>>>>>> Don't worry; if there's the slightest chance that the scum press in
>>>>>> this country can scaremonger on the basis of no evidence, they'll do
>>>>>> it. All you have to do is wait.

>>>>> The scaremongering from both press and government(s) regarding H1N1
>>>>> is ridiculous. Somewhere in the region of 150+ deaths in the UK
>>>>> have been attributed to swine flu. Annually, somewhere between 3000
>>>>> to 4000 UK deaths are attributed to "normal" influenza.

>>>> Which is reason enough to get both shots - when you can. I don't
>>>> want to die whether it's 150 or 4,000 other people who die with me.

>>> They will have to kill me to get me to take it.

>> Or just leave it to the virus to do so. But since you were around in
>> 1957, when the last swine flu happened, chances are you'll be OK. I
>> hope so, anyway.

> There are four different formulations of the vaccine being used in the
> USA now and most of them are full of poisons like squaline and mercury.
> They are being promoted by a program full of lies and misinformation and
> scare-mongering. I don't even want to be in the same room with that
> crap, let alone have it in my body.

>>>>>>> Bernard Peek wrote:

>>>>>>>> On the other hand that is suspicious. Even the best vaccines
>>>>>>>> have side
>>>>>>>> effects in something like one per 100,000 doses. Zero reports
>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>> low enough to look like someone had been fiddling the figures.
>>>>>>>> Even if
>>>>>>>> there were zero side effects someone somewhere would be likely
>>>>>>>> to have
>>>>>>>> died of unrelated causes shortly after the vaccination, and I would
>>>>>>>> expect the press to trumpet that.

>>>>>>> Did you read the Daily Mail a few weeks back, screaming that a young
>>>>>>> girl had died as a result of the HPV vaccination, when it turned out
>>>>>>> (in very short order) that she had been killed by an undiagnosed
>>>>>>> tumour in her chest cavity?

>>>>>>> Don't worry; if there's the slightest chance that the scum press in
>>>>>>> this country can scaremonger on the basis of no evidence, they'll do
>>>>>>> it. All you have to do is wait.

>>>>>> The scaremongering from both press and government(s) regarding
>>>>>> H1N1 is ridiculous. Somewhere in the region of 150+ deaths in the
>>>>>> UK have been attributed to swine flu. Annually, somewhere between
>>>>>> 3000 to 4000 UK deaths are attributed to "normal" influenza.

>>>>> Which is reason enough to get both shots - when you can. I don't
>>>>> want to die whether it's 150 or 4,000 other people who die with me.

>>>> They will have to kill me to get me to take it.

>>> Or just leave it to the virus to do so. But since you were around in
>>> 1957, when the last swine flu happened, chances are you'll be OK. I
>>> hope so, anyway.

>> There are four different formulations of the vaccine being used in the
>> USA now and most of them are full of poisons like squaline and
>> mercury. They are being promoted by a program full of lies and
>> misinformation and scare-mongering. I don't even want to be in the
>> same room with that crap, let alone have it in my body.

> There are four different formulations of the vaccine being used in the
> USA now and all are perfectly safe.  Squaline and mercury are being
> promoted as poisons by a program full of lies and misinformation and
> scare-mongering.

> http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home....
> http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=851
> http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/thimerosal/index.html

>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:18:14 +0000,  an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused ca...@wrhpv.com (Carol Hague) to write:

>> >Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com> wrote:
><snip>
>> >> <shrug> The thing to bear in mind is that *any* stadium is pretty much
>> >> forced to be a certain shape by its very nature. That's been true
>> >> since at least Greek and Roman times. Thus the poor architect is stuck
>> >> trying to do something "innovative" with the outside, because he
>> >> *can't* do much to the inside without rendering it useless for its
>> >> primary purpose.

>> >Your point is a valid one. However, the Greeks and Romans , with limited
>> >materials and no modern machinery still managed to build impressive and
>> >imposing buildings that somehow *don't* look like public urinals :-)

>> Yes, because back then all the good ideas hadn't been used up yet.
>> Today, if an architect insists on doing something nobody else has ever
>> done before, you can get all sorts of abonimations.

>Just because all the good ideas have been used up [1] doesn't mean they
>need to start using up all the bad ones.

>I think architects ought to be made to live/work in the buildings they
>design to prove the concept. We might get some rather less silly
>buildings then.

>{1] Which I'm not convinced is the case, but will use as a premise here
>for argument's sake.

>> Note the Godwin about half way down

> And the hasty disclaimer that follows it, presumably resulting from a
> temporary attack of sanity in the sub-editor.

>>> "Anarchy" is not synonymous with chaos; it means "no monarch."

>> No, it means "no ruler". Often enough, it also means "no rules". That
>> usually means "rule by the most violent".

>>> It means I am nobody's property, nobody's slave.

>> And nobody will come to your aid when you find yourself in
>> difficulties, even if those difficulties are not of your making (i.e.
>> 'bad luck'). I wouldn't want even to *visit* a place which operated on
>> those rules.

> I would.

>>>>>>>> Bernard Peek wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On the other hand that is suspicious. Even the best vaccines
>>>>>>>>> have side
>>>>>>>>> effects in something like one per 100,000 doses. Zero reports
>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>> low enough to look like someone had been fiddling the figures.
>>>>>>>>> Even if
>>>>>>>>> there were zero side effects someone somewhere would be likely
>>>>>>>>> to have
>>>>>>>>> died of unrelated causes shortly after the vaccination, and I
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> expect the press to trumpet that.

>>>>>>>> Did you read the Daily Mail a few weeks back, screaming that a
>>>>>>>> young
>>>>>>>> girl had died as a result of the HPV vaccination, when it turned
>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> (in very short order) that she had been killed by an undiagnosed
>>>>>>>> tumour in her chest cavity?

>>>>>>>> Don't worry; if there's the slightest chance that the scum press in
>>>>>>>> this country can scaremonger on the basis of no evidence,
>>>>>>>> they'll do
>>>>>>>> it. All you have to do is wait.

>>>>>>> The scaremongering from both press and government(s) regarding
>>>>>>> H1N1 is ridiculous. Somewhere in the region of 150+ deaths in the
>>>>>>> UK have been attributed to swine flu. Annually, somewhere between
>>>>>>> 3000 to 4000 UK deaths are attributed to "normal" influenza.

>>>>>> Which is reason enough to get both shots - when you can. I don't
>>>>>> want to die whether it's 150 or 4,000 other people who die with me.

>>>>> They will have to kill me to get me to take it.

>>>> Or just leave it to the virus to do so. But since you were around in
>>>> 1957, when the last swine flu happened, chances are you'll be OK. I
>>>> hope so, anyway.

>>> There are four different formulations of the vaccine being used in
>>> the USA now and most of them are full of poisons like squaline and
>>> mercury. They are being promoted by a program full of lies and
>>> misinformation and scare-mongering. I don't even want to be in the
>>> same room with that crap, let alone have it in my body.

>> There are four different formulations of the vaccine being used in the
>> USA now and all are perfectly safe.  Squaline and mercury are being
>> promoted as poisons by a program full of lies and misinformation and
>> scare-mongering.

>> http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home....
>> http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=851
>> http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/thimerosal/index.html

> You see, that's what I think you are doing. The sources you mention are
> propaganda sites promoting the official government line. These people
> have an agenda. Those who are sounding the warning are mostly Doctors
> and Medical techs, who have nothing to gain from their campaign. Come
> on: mercury is *not* a poison????? Squaline is good for you????

>>>>>> Bernard Peek wrote:

>>>>>>> On the other hand that is suspicious. Even the best vaccines have
>>>>>>> side
>>>>>>> effects in something like one per 100,000 doses. Zero reports
>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>> low enough to look like someone had been fiddling the figures.
>>>>>>> Even if
>>>>>>> there were zero side effects someone somewhere would be likely to
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> died of unrelated causes shortly after the vaccination, and I would
>>>>>>> expect the press to trumpet that.

>>>>>> Did you read the Daily Mail a few weeks back, screaming that a young
>>>>>> girl had died as a result of the HPV vaccination, when it turned out
>>>>>> (in very short order) that she had been killed by an undiagnosed
>>>>>> tumour in her chest cavity?

>>>>>> Don't worry; if there's the slightest chance that the scum press in
>>>>>> this country can scaremonger on the basis of no evidence, they'll do
>>>>>> it. All you have to do is wait.

>>>>> The scaremongering from both press and government(s) regarding H1N1
>>>>> is ridiculous. Somewhere in the region of 150+ deaths in the UK
>>>>> have been attributed to swine flu. Annually, somewhere between 3000
>>>>> to 4000 UK deaths are attributed to "normal" influenza.

>>>> Which is reason enough to get both shots - when you can. I don't
>>>> want to die whether it's 150 or 4,000 other people who die with me.

>>> They will have to kill me to get me to take it.

>> Or just leave it to the virus to do so. But since you were around in
>> 1957, when the last swine flu happened, chances are you'll be OK. I
>> hope so, anyway.

> There are four different formulations of the vaccine being used in the
> USA now and most of them are full of poisons like squaline and mercury.
> They are being promoted by a program full of lies and misinformation and
> scare-mongering. I don't even want to be in the same room with that
> crap, let alone have it in my body.

> The best way to stave off any kind of flu is to take 4,000 to 5,000
> units of Vitamin D3 per day,

> But wait.  I had heard that the last time it was in North America
> was in 1976 (when I had a really bad flu - fell sick at my
> grandparents and was completely useless).

> Regardless, either would explain the higher death rates for the
> young population.  Argh.

> Either way, maybe it is okay for me not to be stabbed.  I
> hate getting stabbed.

>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:18:14 +0000,  an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused ca...@wrhpv.com (Carol Hague) to write:

>>> Chris Zakes <donti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>>>> <shrug> The thing to bear in mind is that *any* stadium is pretty much
>>>> forced to be a certain shape by its very nature. That's been true
>>>> since at least Greek and Roman times. Thus the poor architect is stuck
>>>> trying to do something "innovative" with the outside, because he
>>>> *can't* do much to the inside without rendering it useless for its
>>>> primary purpose.
>>> Your point is a valid one. However, the Greeks and Romans , with limited
>>> materials and no modern machinery still managed to build impressive and
>>> imposing buildings that somehow *don't* look like public urinals :-)
>> Yes, because back then all the good ideas hadn't been used up yet.
>> Today, if an architect insists on doing something nobody else has ever
>> done before, you can get all sorts of abonimations.

> Just because all the good ideas have been used up [1] doesn't mean they
> need to start using up all the bad ones.

> {1] Which I'm not convinced is the case, but will use as a premise here
> for argument's sake.

> Excellent idea! Might be a bit difficult with stadia, though.

>This does no harm unless you have GERD, and may do some good. But do
>remember that Linus Pauling's field (in which he excelled and for which
>he received the Nobel Prize) was molecular structure; when talking
>about Vitamin C he was off his head.

>> and  eat whole, natural unprocessed foods and avoid sweets.

>Always good advice. But such a diet is a little on the dull side, don't
>you think?

>> The reason winter  is flu season is the lack of sunshine and Vitamin
>>D.

>And everybody huddling together in rooms with closed windows, breathing
>each other's exhaust, and then going outside into the cold and/or wet
>before huddling together with different people in different rooms. And
>quite possibly SAD: there does seem to be a connection between being
>unhappy and getting sick.

>> And I *totally* agree that architects should have to live/work in
>> their abominations. Or maybe live across the street, so they have to
>> look at their blot on the landscape every day.

>I see the point of the living across the street thing, but I prefer the
>idea of them having to put up with whatever failings their buildings may
>have internally as well.

> Maybe they can live across the street, but work in the abomination, or
> vice-versa. That'd cover both options.

> My favorite bad example around here is a style of house that is
> nominally "split level." But it's really a two-story house with a set
> of stairs leading up to the front door. Once inside, you're on a
> landing with a choice of either going up more stairs to the second
> floor, or back down to the ground floor. The *only* thing on the level
> with the front door is the landing.

> http://images04.olx.com/ui/1/43/75/f_42073875_1.jpeg

> I'd love to take the idiot responsible, break his leg and then make
> him live there for six months.

>> And I *totally* agree that architects should have to live/work in
>> their abominations. Or maybe live across the street, so they have to
>> look at their blot on the landscape every day.

> I see the point of the living across the street thing, but I prefer
> the idea of them having to put up with whatever failings their
> buildings may have internally as well.

>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:01:15 +0000,  an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused ca...@wrhpv.com (Carol Hague) to write:

>> >I see the point of the living across the street thing, but I prefer the
>> >idea of them having to put up with whatever failings their buildings may
>> >have internally as well.

>> Maybe they can live across the street, but work in the abomination, or
>> vice-versa. That'd cover both options.

>OK, that could work :-)

>> My favorite bad example around here is a style of house that is
>> nominally "split level." But it's really a two-story house with a set
>> of stairs leading up to the front door. Once inside, you're on a
>> landing with a choice of either going up more stairs to the second
>> floor, or back down to the ground floor. The *only* thing on the level
>> with the front door is the landing.

>> http://images04.olx.com/ui/1/43/75/f_42073875_1.jpeg

>> I'd love to take the idiot responsible, break his leg and then make
>> him live there for six months.

><boggle> That's not only stupid, but also wastes space. I don't
>understand how anyone could think that was a good idea.

>> Don't we all! And this one gives you a sore arm for a couple of days,
>> too. But it's still better than getting the flu - my granddaughter had
>> a temperature of 104.6 by the time they got her to the hospital,
>> despite the Tylenol and the cool bath.

> I got it during the summer and just had a slight fever and aching bones
> for a few days.

>> She has now completed the course of Tamiflu and is completely well
>> again; she and her brother will be back at school tomorrow.
>> Seven-year-olds are so resilient, when they're not so vulnerable.

> Most people who got the infection in summer will have had quite a mild
> case, but different people react in different ways. The numbers suggest
> that there will be more deaths from seasonal flu than from swine-flu
> this winter.