You can still engage in an intelligent discussion. Simply provide evidence for your fantasy claims.
So that is not a problem. Visibility of celebrities to the public (how well the public is aware of them and their lives) is high because their behavior is followed by the news media and advertised frequently to the masses of people. Visibility of any ordinary member of the public to any other member of the public (how well you are aware of your neighbors' identify and lives) is low because as they become more remote (live farther away), your information on them is increasingly sporadic and incomplete.
But that is incidental to the fact that you have provided no evidence to support your original assertions. You work on that, and we might have an intelligent discussion. You try to make this all about my mastery of English, then you have flopped and changed the subject. Who will you impress? Not me. Not you. And the more we go at this, the less likely it will impress anyone else, because the thread is too deep.
Visibility of celebrities to the public (how well the public is aware of them and their lives) is high because their behavior is followed by the news media
This is what I was trying to elicit from you, because atleast now I know what you are basing your assertion on, and we can have an intelligent discussion.
Here is the fundamental error in your logic. What is relevant to our discussion is the relative increase in the celebrity deaths as reported by the media before and after vaccines. It does not matter how highly the media reports their behaviour as long as you are not claiming that suddenly the media has increased their coverage of the celebrities compared to pre-vaccines.
Visibility of any ordinary member of the public to any other member of the public (how well you are aware of your neighbours' identify and lives) is low because as they become more remote
This is another deduction based on similar faulty logic:
We are interested in relative increase is overall mortality of general public. All we care is the stats. You don't need to know which of your neighbours died. You just need to know what the overall increase in mortality rates are.
But that is incidental to the fact that you have provided no evidence to support your original assertions.
Again, you are mistaking the purpose of this comment. It is for people to exchange opinions and dig into potential connections, and build a bigger picture. Thats what being an Anon is. Its not about proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt. We dont do that here. If that is what you are looking for, you are in the wrong place.
There is a reason why I keep saying that you are confusing logical and provable. I don't claim that anything I post is provable. My claims are logical assertions based on my own observations. If my observations are wrong, then my claims are wrong. I most definitely am not posting a scientific paper.
You really need to take a chill pill and stop trying to make it your life's goal to catch me in a mistake simply because I have called out your subject matter expertise one too many times in the past. Honestly, catching me in a mistake is not that hard.
Many Anons do it routinely and I stand corrected more times than I can count. Thats what helps me grow.
What is irritating is that you try to do it in some grandiose manner with obvious flaws, and you quibble over technicalities when it is convenient for you and yet when cornered you complain that I quibble too much. Just be consistent.
You don't even claim that what you are saying is worth taking seriously. But you make claims nevertheless, and claims are allegations about reality. You don't make any caveat that "this is just my hare-brained personal preference." What I was putting forth were counter-explanations (alternative and more credible theories), but you dodged them like they were bullets.
Now you refer to statistics. In your original comments you were comparing news accounts to "what we see around us." I'm not aware that anyone is keeping stats on "celebrities." Or that miscellaneous news accounts are "statistics." If there were statistics, you could cite them. You don't.
Bottom line: no evidence or basis to believe in "kill switches" for the vaxx, or even that Navalny was vaxxed. Pure imagination.
I'm not impressed with flights of fancy being palmed off as works of careful deduction. Paranoid delusions are not the stuff that will make us free, or enable us to help anyone puzzled by events. There is a lot of incredible bullshit that is tolerated on this page, and few here seem to appreciate how seriously it undermines our credibility to "outsiders." It has seriously undermined my credulity toward what goes on here. It has caused people to walk away and be public about their dismay and reservation. Such great PR. I come here to gain insight...not to share delusions.
When I force you to make a coherent statement and prove that its based on faulty logic you revert back to your ramblings. You dont seem to have the capacity of nuanced thinking. Everything is black and white for you.
I'm not impressed with flights of fancy being palmed off as works of careful deduction.
This place is not intended to "impress" anyone. Plenty of sleeping people who will find this place outrageous. Its not really for them.
No. You cater to those who can't resist checking under their beds. No "kill switch."
You want me to take you seriously---or you don't want to "impress" me? You can't even make an argument to support your pipe dream. My "coherent statement" was nothing other than the face value of the words I used, and I am only surprised that what I said was initially beyond your grasp. Surprised no longer.
You can still engage in an intelligent discussion. Simply provide evidence for your fantasy claims.
So that is not a problem. Visibility of celebrities to the public (how well the public is aware of them and their lives) is high because their behavior is followed by the news media and advertised frequently to the masses of people. Visibility of any ordinary member of the public to any other member of the public (how well you are aware of your neighbors' identify and lives) is low because as they become more remote (live farther away), your information on them is increasingly sporadic and incomplete.
But that is incidental to the fact that you have provided no evidence to support your original assertions. You work on that, and we might have an intelligent discussion. You try to make this all about my mastery of English, then you have flopped and changed the subject. Who will you impress? Not me. Not you. And the more we go at this, the less likely it will impress anyone else, because the thread is too deep.
This is what I was trying to elicit from you, because atleast now I know what you are basing your assertion on, and we can have an intelligent discussion.
Here is the fundamental error in your logic. What is relevant to our discussion is the relative increase in the celebrity deaths as reported by the media before and after vaccines. It does not matter how highly the media reports their behaviour as long as you are not claiming that suddenly the media has increased their coverage of the celebrities compared to pre-vaccines.
This is another deduction based on similar faulty logic:
We are interested in relative increase is overall mortality of general public. All we care is the stats. You don't need to know which of your neighbours died. You just need to know what the overall increase in mortality rates are.
Again, you are mistaking the purpose of this comment. It is for people to exchange opinions and dig into potential connections, and build a bigger picture. Thats what being an Anon is. Its not about proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt. We dont do that here. If that is what you are looking for, you are in the wrong place.
There is a reason why I keep saying that you are confusing logical and provable. I don't claim that anything I post is provable. My claims are logical assertions based on my own observations. If my observations are wrong, then my claims are wrong. I most definitely am not posting a scientific paper.
You really need to take a chill pill and stop trying to make it your life's goal to catch me in a mistake simply because I have called out your subject matter expertise one too many times in the past. Honestly, catching me in a mistake is not that hard.
Many Anons do it routinely and I stand corrected more times than I can count. Thats what helps me grow.
What is irritating is that you try to do it in some grandiose manner with obvious flaws, and you quibble over technicalities when it is convenient for you and yet when cornered you complain that I quibble too much. Just be consistent.
You don't even claim that what you are saying is worth taking seriously. But you make claims nevertheless, and claims are allegations about reality. You don't make any caveat that "this is just my hare-brained personal preference." What I was putting forth were counter-explanations (alternative and more credible theories), but you dodged them like they were bullets.
Now you refer to statistics. In your original comments you were comparing news accounts to "what we see around us." I'm not aware that anyone is keeping stats on "celebrities." Or that miscellaneous news accounts are "statistics." If there were statistics, you could cite them. You don't.
Bottom line: no evidence or basis to believe in "kill switches" for the vaxx, or even that Navalny was vaxxed. Pure imagination.
I'm not impressed with flights of fancy being palmed off as works of careful deduction. Paranoid delusions are not the stuff that will make us free, or enable us to help anyone puzzled by events. There is a lot of incredible bullshit that is tolerated on this page, and few here seem to appreciate how seriously it undermines our credibility to "outsiders." It has seriously undermined my credulity toward what goes on here. It has caused people to walk away and be public about their dismay and reservation. Such great PR. I come here to gain insight...not to share delusions.
When I force you to make a coherent statement and prove that its based on faulty logic you revert back to your ramblings. You dont seem to have the capacity of nuanced thinking. Everything is black and white for you.
This place is not intended to "impress" anyone. Plenty of sleeping people who will find this place outrageous. Its not really for them.
No. You cater to those who can't resist checking under their beds. No "kill switch."
You want me to take you seriously---or you don't want to "impress" me? You can't even make an argument to support your pipe dream. My "coherent statement" was nothing other than the face value of the words I used, and I am only surprised that what I said was initially beyond your grasp. Surprised no longer.