The official Corona virus C**T list

[LlcoolJ]

And so another thread becomes a soapbox for someone to spout their views, without listening to or acknowledging anybody else’s point of view, and has zero to do with the original thread...!

How could this possibly happen on NSC?!

To be fair I never thought I'd see anyone trying to argue with the point that Ealmon Holmes is a C***!

 

[darkwolf666]

How could this possibly happen on NSC?!

To be fair I never thought I'd see anyone trying to argue with the point that Ealmon Holmes is a C***!

I know, I am not sure why I am surprised, it seems to be happening even more lately though, or maybe I’m just becoming more intolerant.

 

[Swansman]

No I actually do it in real life. By helping people on low incomes navigate the UK tax system and by defending clients against the bullshit when they are attacked incorrectly by HMRC.

Stuff that actually helps people. Stuff that eventually gets laws changed.

What do you do apart from write conspiracy theory bollocks in the internet?

I guess you're on the front line. In your head.

You've picked the wrong target mate. Let's just leave it there eh.

So you are... a lawyer?

Aside from sharing information about the 0,001% obtaining complete control over society through modern technology, I've - among other things - coached kids and provided them with care and attention they are not getting because their parents are watching their smartphones 9 hours a day. Last year I created a model for schools to decrease social anxiety in older teens and young adults, helping them out of social media addiction and in to actual human interaction.

It may not be Nobel prize level and it may not fit all of you "we need moooooooore internet" fighters, but its what I believe in.

 

[Weststander]

So you are... a lawyer?

Aside from sharing information about the 0,001% obtaining complete control over society through modern technology, I've - among other things - coached kids and provided them with care and attention they are not getting because their parents are watching their smartphones 9 hours a day. Last year I created a model for schools to decrease social anxiety in older teens and young adults, helping them out of social media addiction and in to actual human interaction.

It may not be Nobel prize level and it may not fit all of you "we need moooooooore internet" fighters, but its what I believe in.

The irony .... social media addiction.

(Me as well).

 

[Swansman]

And so another thread becomes a soapbox for someone to spout their views, without listening to or acknowledging anybody else’s point of view, and has zero to do with the original thread...!

A lot of forum threads have a tendency to evolve into threads where people express their views, yes. I

I am acknowledging other views, I just dont agree with them. The original thread - "the c*nt list" - may have been excellent but I didnt choose for this discussion to happen. I expressed my view and the Springal fella wanted to discuss it (which I find perfectly fine).

The irony .... social media addiction.

(Me as well).

Yup. People are allowed to dislike their own addictions though. There's always a 'well if you dont like it why dont you stop?' but they have obviously very little knowledge of addiction. And besides I find these old school type social medias far less damaging than ie Instagram and Twitter and all that pointless crap.

 

[Springal]

I dont know why you are obsessed with analogue tv, its a very different thing compared to the technology used for 5G, but feel free to hand me a source for your statement.

Actually I’m bowing out of this conversation as it’s going nowhere

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Ok, 5G in Sweden will be operating between 3,5 GHz and 26 GHz while the analogue tv frequencies ~50-800 MHz.

"Spectrum is spectrum"... would you hug a radar?

Spectrum is one thing but you might want to take into account the ‘Maximum Peak Power’.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Ok, 5G in Sweden will be operating between 3,5 GHz and 26 GHz while the analogue tv frequencies ~50-800 MHz.

"Spectrum is spectrum"... would you hug a radar?

If you hugged a radar, say like something on ship ... it would burn the shit out of you. Hug a base station ... you’d look stupid. To hug the transmitting you’d need to climb the tower .... also stupid.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bakero]

Eamonn Holmes, reckons he has an enquiring journalistic mind

Channel surfing today I came across that tw*t on This Morning, immediately moving on. Can’t stand the bloke, a presenter for the lowest common denominator. Stealing a living

Sherlock he ain't

 

[Swansman]

If something uses say, 600mhz to transmit on - how can it be different ? I.e was analogue tv, now 5G. Find me a journal similar to what you’ve already linked and we can continue the conversation.

I'm no engineer or whatever you need to be to understand this shiet on a deeper level (I can read journals though), so I cant answer that question. And I cant find a journal comparing 5G to analogue television. However first googling "analogue tv frequency span" and then googling "5G frequency span" gives me the impression that you are as clueless in that regard (though I could be misinterpreting the numbers - you tell me).

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

If you hugged a radar, say like something on ship ... it would burn the shit out of you. Hug a base station... you’d look stupid. To hug the transmitter you’d need to climb the tower ... also stupid.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[beorhthelm]

Of course:

appreciate the effort. i picked three, one said they think they found some effect of using 3G device to heart rate, one suggests skin might absorb radiation (but not what this might mean), the other postulates whether 5G breaches legal limits of electromagnetic radiation and find they might (without anything about what this leads to).

we have been exposed to large ranges of EMF for decades (aside from sunlight of course), from CRT TVs, terrestrial and satellite TV, various generations of mobile phone, wifi, microwave ovens, emergency service radio, military radio. where are the specific proven health risks? heres the science: everything below visable light is safe (within reasonable power output), UV up and higher frequencies are not safe.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I'm no engineer or whatever you need to be to understand this shiet on a deeper level (I can read journals though), so I cant answer that question. And I cant find a journal comparing 5G to analogue television. However first googling "analogue tv frequency span" and then googling "5G frequency span" gives me the impression that you are as clueless in that regard (though I could be misinterpreting the numbers - you tell me).

View attachment 122178

So in summary you are happy to pontificate on the content of the papers even though you haven’t a clue whether you are correct or not. That in polite circles is known as ‘talking bollocks’.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Swansman]

So in summary you are happy to pontificate on the content of the papers even though you haven’t a clue whether you are correct or not. That in polite circles is known as ‘talking bollocks’.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yup. I'm also able to pontificate on that the world is round and I can understand the content of studies proving it, but I dont know the exact details.

I can also pontificate on "its dangerous to drink gasoline" and I can read and understand the content and the conclusions but I dont grasp every detail of why the gasoline is hurting me.

You get it? If you tell me "I know how to drive a car" and I ask you "oh? Okay how do you build the ECU?", you still know how to drive the car even if you dont understand all the technological details as to why you can drive it.

 

[Swansman]

we have been exposed to large ranges of EMF for decades (aside from sunlight of course), from CRT TVs, terrestrial and satellite TV, various generations of mobile phone, wifi, microwave ovens, emergency service radio, military radio. where are the specific proven health risks? heres the science: everything below visable light is safe (within reasonable power output), UV up and higher frequencies are not safe.

I'm going to leave you with this and go for a walk:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Yup. I'm also able to pontificate on that the world is round and I can understand the content of studies proving it, but I dont know the exact details.

I can also pontificate on "its dangerous to drink gasoline" and I can read and understand the content and the conclusions but I dont grasp every detail of why the gasoline is hurting me.

You get it? If you tell me "I know how to drive a car" and I ask you "oh? Okay how do you build the ECU?", you still know how to drive the car even if you dont understand all the technological details as to why you can drive it.

You really are full of shit.

FWIW, my first degree is in Electrical and Engineering. This chestnut has been discussed to death in the letter pages of the IET periodicals as well as a number of well written pieces and the consensus is that there is no proof or evidence to back up claims that radio mast fry your brain.

I found ‘Fields and Waves’ one of the most difficult subjects to understand and I still shudder when I think of Maxwell and his equations ....

Of course, you know better ......


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I'm going to leave you with this and go for a walk:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths

The paper showed that cancers in rats nor humans ....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm going to leave you with this and go for a walk:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths

so when exposing rodents to radiation of 5W/kg or 10W/kg they find "equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity" in some of the groups, which in the detail is about 1 or 2 incidents in 114 (including control). you should have a look through the papers, 90 pages of setup, tables, 2 years study to come to that conclusion. the journalists probably didnt.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

so when exposing rodents to radiation of 5W/kg or 10W/kg they find "equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity" in some of the groups, which in the detail is about 1 or 2 incidents in 114 (including control). you should have a look through the papers, 90 pages of setup, tables, 2 years study to come to that conclusion.

Not going to work. [MENTION=38333]Swansman[/MENTION] .... he knows ‘things’!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Swansman]

You really are full of shit.

FWIW, my first degree is in Electrical and Engineering. This chestnut has been discussed to death in the letter pages of the IET periodicals as well as a number of well written pieces and the consensus is that there is no proof or evidence to back up claims that radio mast fry your brain.

I found ‘Fields and Waves’ one of the most difficult subjects to understand and I still shudder when I think of Maxwell and his equations ....

Of course, you know better ......


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is no definite proof (but plenty of indicators) that this wifi-mania is harmful but there is also no definite proof it is harmless.

But... like you, also tired of discussing these subjects to death. Its always hopeless trying to tell someone that the establishment is ****ing you over.

We'll agree to disagree. But congratulations, you'll win - at one point your leaders will kill 7 billion people (not needed once AI and robots can do all the work) and lock the rest in an Orwellian cage. Its probably for the better anyway, humans are a dumb and destructive species.