The people we should be concerned about are those who flagrantly disregard our new normal because it conflicts with their freedom or they have a "medical condition".
I witnessed a woman screaming at the top of her lungs because she wasn't allowed in a grocery store without a mask. She was being quite loud and obnoxious about it, making quite a scene, all the while holding up the (quite long) line behind her. At one point while carrying on she got almost nose -to-nose with the manager while screaming at him. So much for 6ft apart.
our new normal because it conflicts with their freedom or they have a "medical condition".
Are you assuming that all claims citing conflict of freedom or the "medical condition" (your quotes, not mine) are fakery?
The biz had no right to "not" allow her in, if she was there as a
patron to conduct business.
But it is the biz's obligation to "convey" that masks are required. Now.. I personally don't have any signs that have "must have masks
upon entry..", but Iwear a mask myself - and that is how I "convey"
the matter.
Hello Warpslide!
** On Wednesday 31.03.21 - 08:28, Warpslide wrote to Paradigms Shifting:
The people we should be concerned about are those who flagrantly disre our new normal because it conflicts with their freedom or they have a "medical condition".
Are you assuming that all claims citing conflict of freedom or
the "medical condition" (your quotes, not mine) are fakery?
I witnessed a woman screaming at the top of her lungs because she wasn allowed in a grocery store without a mask. She was being quite loud a obnoxious about it, making quite a scene, all the while holding up the (quite long) line behind her. At one point while carrying on she got almost nose -to-nose with the manager while screaming at him. So much 6ft apart.
The biz had no right to "not" allow her in, if she was there as
a patron to conduct business.
https://youtu.be/0knrnCBurQ8
Are you assuming that all claims citing conflict of freedom or the
"medical condition" (your quotes, not mine) are fakery?
Not at all, there are people who genuinely can't wear a mask (people who have COPD come to mine) ...
- But in those cases places like Fortinos require that you
wear a face shield instead. This lady wouldn't have any of
it, she wanted to walk into the store without either.
The biz had no right to "not" allow her in, if she was there as a
patron to conduct business.
Yup, and that's exactly what they did. After she got near
nose-to-nose with the manager (he was wearing a mask, she
wasn't) was near the end of the encounter. After that she
left, again screaming at the top of her lungs, that she has
a "medical condition" and that "you'll be hearing from
lawyers".
It's hard to have empathy for a person who acts in such a way.
..I personally don't have any signs that have "must have
masks upon entry..", but Iwear a mask myself - and that
is how I "convey" the matter.
The City of Hamilton has bylaws in place saying that you
have to display this sign and that sign, in addition to any
other restrictions that the business would like to impose.
"Wear a Mask", "Do you have any of these symptoms", "Max
occupancy", etc..
There is one Pet Valu close to my house that has so many
signs on the door that you can't see in to know how many
people are in the store.
The biz had no right to "not" allow her in, if she was there as
a patron to conduct business.
There is one Pet Valu close to my house that has so many signs on the
door that you can't see in to know how many people are in the store.
The biz had no right to "not" allow her in, if she was there as
a patron to conduct business.
And yet, "No shoes, no shirt, no service."
We live in Idiocracy, which resides somewhere between 1984
and Brave New World. No conspiracy rabbit holes required,
those with eyes to see need only to look around to see the
obvious.
So if you think its nuts now, fasten your seat belt! You
ain't seen nothin' yet!
The biz had no right to "not" allow her in, if she was there as
a patron to conduct business.
And yet, "No shoes, no shirt, no service."
Good observation. You would think that the biz owner can't
refuse service to people under those grounds either. But I
think there are some laws that govern decency that a biz owner
can fall back on.
On 01 Apr 2021 at 10:27a, Jeff pondered and said...
On 31 Mar 2021, Ogg said the following...
The biz had no right to "not" allow her in, if she was the
a patron to conduct business.
And yet, "No shoes, no shirt, no service."
Good observation. You would think that the biz owner can't refuse service to people under those grounds either. But I think there are some laws that govern decency that a biz owner can fall back on.
Either decency or hygiene. I would think that wearing/not wearing a m would fall under hygiene.
Not necessarily. The science has been clear for years that not only are masks completely ineffective in preventing the spread of disease, but
also that long term mask usage can be harmful in a variety of ways. It
is not about safety, it is about control.
So this is not as straight forward as "having no shoes and no shirt in
the store is bad hygiene". And if we're being honest, if the main stream media started telling everyone that shoes and shirts were dangerous, they'd toss all common sense out the window, forget everything they ever actually knew about hygiene and just do as they are told.
Oh, really? Has anyone told ER staff about this?
Jeff.
Oh, really? Has anyone told ER staff about this?For decades, the boxes in which masks are distributed come with a disclaimer that
surgery grade masks are not apt for defense against biological agents and diseases.
So yeah the boxes told the ER staff.
Actually I don't go as far as to say masks are useless ins this regard,
but they are
not half as powerful as people makes them to be. I think they are being
so heavily
promoted just because governments need people to believe something is being done, and
wearing a mask is a cheap way of achieving peace of mind for a lot of people.
For decades, the boxes in which masks are distributed come with a disclaimer that
surgery grade masks are not apt for defense against biological agents and diseases.
but they are
not half as powerful as people makes them to be. I think they are being
How powerful is that? Couldn't you just take whatever protection they do provide, multiply by two and
one, and say they're not half that powerful
as this new imaginary mask?
No need to be aggressive.
How powerful is that? Couldn't you just take whatever protection they d provide, multiply by two and
one, and say they're not half that powerful
as this new imaginary mask?
No need to be aggressive.
All I am saying is mask manufacturers have been claiming their products are not to be used as protection
against biological agents and diseases before the COVID crisis hit, and that the effectivity of masks is
being magnified in the eyes of the public for mass psychological reasons.
Since the effectivity of masks has become a political topic, in which people takes tribalistic
positions and assumes everybody who does not agree 100% with them is a member of an opposite tribe, and
therefore must be destroyed, I am letting the matter drop.
On 06 Apr 2021, Arelor said the following...
Since the effectivity of masks has become a political topic, in which people
takes tribalistic
positions and assumes everybody who does not agree 100% with them is a member
an opposite tribe, and
therefore must be destroyed, I am letting the matter drop.
That it most definitely has, and that's quite interesting, don't you think?
Jeff.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." --
L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.
an opposite tribe, and
therefore must be destroyed, I am letting the matter drop.
That it most definitely has, and that's quite interesting, don't you th
Jeff.
It is not interesting, it is an instance of something the Chinesse have known for
centuries.
We live in Idiocracy, which resides somewhere between 1984 and Brave New World. No conspiracy rabbit holes required, those with eyes to see need only to look around to see the obvious.
So if you think its nuts now, fasten your seat belt! You ain't seen nothin'yet!
The law is dead as far as I'm concerned and the Constitution has become toilet paper. The Constitution was originally designed to restrict government, but now there is no way to discern where corporations begin andgovernment ends, because they are so deeply in each others pockets.
phxl wrote to All <=-
1973 foreign import prices.. (spoiler: a high end mercedes benz 450 is about ~10 grand, but an Audi or something reasonable is between 2000$
and 3500$) and people will argue "Well, minimum wage was $1.60 back
then". Do you know who made mimimum wage? 14 year olds and people who worked at the concession stand at the little league park.
This is speculation, but from what I gather from relatives and older people who were working during this time, very few adults outside of
high school age made minimum wage. Paying people minimum wage for
every goddamn entry level job didn't become envogue until the 90s it
seems like (perhaps the rich were offsetting the money they blew on cocaine and hookers in the 1980s).
need of examples, see the news this past week. In Mississippi the
ruling class just undermined 75% of the voting base that voted for a
They didn't get minimum wage, but they also didn't make what they would now, either. For the same people who cannot afford them now, or think theyare too expensive now, $2000-$3500 would have been too much/too expensiveback then.
need of examples, see the news this past week. In Mississippi the ruling class just undermined 75% of the voting base that voted for a
Just FYI, it's against network rules to talk politics (take a look at the info pack that gets released frequently, and should be on all FSXnet
BBSs)
They didn't get minimum wage, but they also didn't make what they would now, either. For t
same people who cannot afford them now, or think theyare too expensive now, $2000-$3500 wou
have been too much/too expensiveback then.
Surely there were people selling used vehicles back then like now?? So if todays equivalent is
paying 22,000$ for a new low end vehicle.. and back then was like $2000 well.. hrm.. $700 bucks
surely could have got you a nice ride.. hell they probably had $100 beater cars you could drive
around uninsured and HALF-drunk and nobody batted an eye; pretty much right? i mean.. 50 years a
On 06 Apr 2021, Paradigms Shifting said the following...
On 01 Apr 2021 at 10:27a, Jeff pondered and said...
On 31 Mar 2021, Ogg said the following...
The biz had no right to "not" allow her in, if she wa
a patron to conduct business.
And yet, "No shoes, no shirt, no service."
Good observation. You would think that the biz owner can't refuse service to people under those grounds either. But I think there are some laws that govern decency that a biz ow can fall back on.
Either decency or hygiene. I would think that wearing/not wearin would fall under hygiene.
Not necessarily. The science has been clear for years that not only a masks completely ineffective in preventing the spread of disease, but also that long term mask usage can be harmful in a variety of ways. I is not about safety, it is about control.
Oh, really? Has anyone told ER staff about this?
On 06 Apr 2021, Paradigms Shifting said the following...
So this is not as straight forward as "having no shoes and no shirt i the store is bad hygiene". And if we're being honest, if the main str media started telling everyone that shoes and shirts were dangerous, they'd toss all common sense out the window, forget everything they e actually knew about hygiene and just do as they are told.
This isn't a law; it's up to the various restaurants and other establishments. A fine dining establishment can even require male customers to wear a coat and tie to be served, while a becahfront establishment might be just fine with shoeless, shirtless customers sauntering up to the bar.
The question is not whether shoes and a shirt are the law; it's a
question of whether individual businesses can uphold certain clothing standards for their on-site customers. Generally speaking, they can, and it really has nothing to do with the media.
The people we should be concerned about are those who flagrantly disregard our new normal because it conflicts with their freedom or they have a "medical condition".
I witnessed a woman screaming at the top of her lungs because she wasn't allowed in a grocery store without a mask. She was being quite loud and obnoxious about it, making quite a scene, all the while holding up the (quite long) line behind her. At one point while carrying on she got almost nose -to-nose with the manager while screaming at him. So much for 6ft apart.
our new normal because it conflicts with their freedom or they have a "medical condition".
Are you assuming that all claims citing conflict of freedom or the "medical condition" (your quotes, not mine) are fakery?
The biz had no right to "not" allow her in, if she was there as a
patron to conduct business.
But it is the biz's obligation to "convey" that masks are required. Now.. I personally don't have any signs that have "must have masks
upon entry..", but Iwear a mask myself - and that is how I "convey"
the matter.
Hello Warpslide!
** On Wednesday 31.03.21 - 08:28, Warpslide wrote to Paradigms Shifting:
The people we should be concerned about are those who flagrantly disre our new normal because it conflicts with their freedom or they have a "medical condition".
Are you assuming that all claims citing conflict of freedom or
the "medical condition" (your quotes, not mine) are fakery?
I witnessed a woman screaming at the top of her lungs because she wasn allowed in a grocery store without a mask. She was being quite loud a obnoxious about it, making quite a scene, all the while holding up the (quite long) line behind her. At one point while carrying on she got almost nose -to-nose with the manager while screaming at him. So much 6ft apart.
The biz had no right to "not" allow her in, if she was there as
a patron to conduct business.
https://youtu.be/0knrnCBurQ8
Are you assuming that all claims citing conflict of freedom or the
"medical condition" (your quotes, not mine) are fakery?
Not at all, there are people who genuinely can't wear a mask (people who have COPD come to mine) ...
- But in those cases places like Fortinos require that you
wear a face shield instead. This lady wouldn't have any of
it, she wanted to walk into the store without either.
The biz had no right to "not" allow her in, if she was there as a
patron to conduct business.
Yup, and that's exactly what they did. After she got near
nose-to-nose with the manager (he was wearing a mask, she
wasn't) was near the end of the encounter. After that she
left, again screaming at the top of her lungs, that she has
a "medical condition" and that "you'll be hearing from
lawyers".
It's hard to have empathy for a person who acts in such a way.
..I personally don't have any signs that have "must have
masks upon entry..", but Iwear a mask myself - and that
is how I "convey" the matter.
The City of Hamilton has bylaws in place saying that you
have to display this sign and that sign, in addition to any
other restrictions that the business would like to impose.
"Wear a Mask", "Do you have any of these symptoms", "Max
occupancy", etc..
There is one Pet Valu close to my house that has so many
signs on the door that you can't see in to know how many
people are in the store.
The biz had no right to "not" allow her in, if she was there as
a patron to conduct business.
There is one Pet Valu close to my house that has so many signs on the
door that you can't see in to know how many people are in the store.
The biz had no right to "not" allow her in, if she was there as
a patron to conduct business.
And yet, "No shoes, no shirt, no service."
We live in Idiocracy, which resides somewhere between 1984
and Brave New World. No conspiracy rabbit holes required,
those with eyes to see need only to look around to see the
obvious.
So if you think its nuts now, fasten your seat belt! You
ain't seen nothin' yet!
The biz had no right to "not" allow her in, if she was there as
a patron to conduct business.
And yet, "No shoes, no shirt, no service."
Good observation. You would think that the biz owner can't
refuse service to people under those grounds either. But I
think there are some laws that govern decency that a biz owner
can fall back on.
There is one Pet Valu close to my house that has so many signs on the door that you can't see in to know how many people are in the store.
After working at libraries for many years, I grew to enjoy saying,
"signs are for ignoring". Because _everyone_ misses signs, because there are _so_ many, because people want to get other people to do various things. Which, of course, is not the way to actually get people to do various things.
But signs are _super_ useful _when people are looking for them_.
These two aspects are often in conflict.
E.g., we had self-checkouts, and we _knew_ there were some common stumbling blocks. So, of course, we put up a sign.
So eventually I wound up helping a woman with the self-checkout, and
after explaining the workaround for the difficulty she was experiencing, she said something along the lines of, "you should put up a sign about that".
At which point I picked up the sign and said, "like this one?".
Hello Paradigms Shifting!
** On Thursday 01.04.21 - 15:32, Paradigms Shifting wrote to Ogg:
We live in Idiocracy, which resides somewhere between 1984
and Brave New World. No conspiracy rabbit holes required,
those with eyes to see need only to look around to see the
obvious.
This is an interesting book, from over 10 years ago!
Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents
Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense |
Paperback
Torsten Engelbrecht | Claus Koehnlein | Etienne de Harven MD
Trafford Publishing | Trafford Pub
Health & Fitness / Diseases / Business & Economics / Commerce
Published Sep 19, 2007
$24.00 US list price
You can read a description here:
https://tinyurl.com/yfyc6ffk
There is an updated reprint edition with the subtitle "Virus
Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer,
Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio. How the Medical
Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar
Profits At Our Expense"
So if you think its nuts now, fasten your seat belt! You
ain't seen nothin' yet!
On one side of the coin I see economic experts predicting a
major crash. But just tonight on the evening news was a
comparison that our economy is mirroring the roaring 20s that
followed the Spanish Flu epidemic.
I don't know what to think or believe anymore. Maybe that is the
goal of the media and the elite - and thus keep the public under
control by fear and confusion.
On 31 Mar 2021, Ogg said the following...
The biz had no right to "not" allow her in, if she was there as
a patron to conduct business.
And yet, "No shoes, no shirt, no service."
Good observation. You would think that the biz owner can't
refuse service to people under those grounds either. But I
think there are some laws that govern decency that a biz owner
can fall back on.
Either decency or hygiene. I would think that wearing/not wearing a mask would fall under hygiene.
On 01 Apr 2021 at 10:27a, Jeff pondered and said...
On 31 Mar 2021, Ogg said the following...
The biz had no right to "not" allow her in, if she was the
a patron to conduct business.
And yet, "No shoes, no shirt, no service."
Good observation. You would think that the biz owner can't refuse service to people under those grounds either. But I think there are some laws that govern decency that a biz owner can fall back on.
Either decency or hygiene. I would think that wearing/not wearing a m would fall under hygiene.
Not necessarily. The science has been clear for years that not only are masks completely ineffective in preventing the spread of disease, but
also that long term mask usage can be harmful in a variety of ways. It
is not about safety, it is about control.
So this is not as straight forward as "having no shoes and no shirt in
the store is bad hygiene". And if we're being honest, if the main stream media started telling everyone that shoes and shirts were dangerous, they'd toss all common sense out the window, forget everything they ever actually knew about hygiene and just do as they are told.
Oh, really? Has anyone told ER staff about this?
Jeff.
Oh, really? Has anyone told ER staff about this?For decades, the boxes in which masks are distributed come with a disclaimer that
surgery grade masks are not apt for defense against biological agents and diseases.
So yeah the boxes told the ER staff.
Actually I don't go as far as to say masks are useless ins this regard,
but they are
not half as powerful as people makes them to be. I think they are being
so heavily
promoted just because governments need people to believe something is being done, and
wearing a mask is a cheap way of achieving peace of mind for a lot of people.
For decades, the boxes in which masks are distributed come with a disclaimer that
surgery grade masks are not apt for defense against biological agents and diseases.
but they are
not half as powerful as people makes them to be. I think they are being
How powerful is that? Couldn't you just take whatever protection they do provide, multiply by two and
one, and say they're not half that powerful
as this new imaginary mask?
No need to be aggressive.
How powerful is that? Couldn't you just take whatever protection they d provide, multiply by two and
one, and say they're not half that powerful
as this new imaginary mask?
No need to be aggressive.
All I am saying is mask manufacturers have been claiming their products are not to be used as protection
against biological agents and diseases before the COVID crisis hit, and that the effectivity of masks is
being magnified in the eyes of the public for mass psychological reasons.
Since the effectivity of masks has become a political topic, in which people takes tribalistic
positions and assumes everybody who does not agree 100% with them is a member of an opposite tribe, and
therefore must be destroyed, I am letting the matter drop.
On 06 Apr 2021, Arelor said the following...
Since the effectivity of masks has become a political topic, in which people
takes tribalistic
positions and assumes everybody who does not agree 100% with them is a member
an opposite tribe, and
therefore must be destroyed, I am letting the matter drop.
That it most definitely has, and that's quite interesting, don't you think?
Jeff.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." --
L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.
an opposite tribe, and
therefore must be destroyed, I am letting the matter drop.
That it most definitely has, and that's quite interesting, don't you th
Jeff.
It is not interesting, it is an instance of something the Chinesse have known for
centuries.
We live in Idiocracy, which resides somewhere between 1984 and Brave New World. No conspiracy rabbit holes required, those with eyes to see need only to look around to see the obvious.
So if you think its nuts now, fasten your seat belt! You ain't seen nothin'yet!
The law is dead as far as I'm concerned and the Constitution has become toilet paper. The Constitution was originally designed to restrict government, but now there is no way to discern where corporations begin andgovernment ends, because they are so deeply in each others pockets.
phxl wrote to All <=-
1973 foreign import prices.. (spoiler: a high end mercedes benz 450 is about ~10 grand, but an Audi or something reasonable is between 2000$
and 3500$) and people will argue "Well, minimum wage was $1.60 back
then". Do you know who made mimimum wage? 14 year olds and people who worked at the concession stand at the little league park.
This is speculation, but from what I gather from relatives and older people who were working during this time, very few adults outside of
high school age made minimum wage. Paying people minimum wage for
every goddamn entry level job didn't become envogue until the 90s it
seems like (perhaps the rich were offsetting the money they blew on cocaine and hookers in the 1980s).
need of examples, see the news this past week. In Mississippi the
ruling class just undermined 75% of the voting base that voted for a
They didn't get minimum wage, but they also didn't make what they would now, either. For the same people who cannot afford them now, or think theyare too expensive now, $2000-$3500 would have been too much/too expensiveback then.
need of examples, see the news this past week. In Mississippi the ruling class just undermined 75% of the voting base that voted for a
Just FYI, it's against network rules to talk politics (take a look at the info pack that gets released frequently, and should be on all FSXnet
BBSs)
They didn't get minimum wage, but they also didn't make what they would now, either. For t
same people who cannot afford them now, or think theyare too expensive now, $2000-$3500 wou
have been too much/too expensiveback then.
Surely there were people selling used vehicles back then like now?? So if todays equivalent is
paying 22,000$ for a new low end vehicle.. and back then was like $2000 well.. hrm.. $700 bucks
surely could have got you a nice ride.. hell they probably had $100 beater cars you could drive
around uninsured and HALF-drunk and nobody batted an eye; pretty much right? i mean.. 50 years a
| Sysop: | CyberNix |
|---|---|
| Location: | London, UK |
| Users: | 22 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 08:12:58 |
| Calls: | 892 |
| Files: | 4,436 |
| Messages: | 669,210 |
