gowlerk

Some people sit in county jail waiting for their trials. Other people try to steal presidential elections and barely get punished. It mostly depends on what race and especially class you belong to.

Not only were there pizzas, but basements were also in existence. So Hitler's opponents could have been doing those nasty things after all.

Well then, I'm no longer concerned that you may have meant nibbling. Which would have puzzled me greatly.

I may be slightly offended unless it turns out that you meant to type "sibling".

Sexual immorality is what other people do that I not only would not do, but also find off putting. Or, it is what I say I would not do but have actually done or want to do and I feel guilty about desiring it.

Sexual immorality is just a construct. The only immorality would be if someone is taking advantage of a child or a person otherwise not able to give informed consent. Homosexual sex is not immoral. Men entering the priesthood then using the posistion of trust to take advantage of children is immoral. Likewise it is not immoral for a boy or a girl to feel they don't fit your expectations of their sexuality. It is a struggle, and it may be very difficult for them, but it is not immoral.

Not at all unexpected. SCOTUS has shown no inclination at all to get involved with any of the false claims of fraud in any of the recent elections. I suppose that overall fact is a good thing, but not news.

At our small Cessna DZ we still do 4 way. But our average age is quite high and the younger jumpers we do have are not really very interested in it. Not yet dead but definitely dying.

So, after reading up on that I find that the common term for that is basically "heat". Now I'm thinking about being outside on a warm day and feeling the power of the Sun 93 million miles away. And that makes we wonder why some people think we can only power our civilization with fossil fuels. Just because that is what we have done for about 150 years. Talk about a lack of vision.

Wouldn't that be how the Sun radiates energy?

Well....Nicola Tesla thought he had the answer to that. But it seems he was wrong. None the less the problems of storage and distribution are not insurmountable. Unless the of course the increase in consumption being seen now by the apparently insatiable Bitcoin and now AI sectors push our needs to levels that can't be sustained.

I believe solar is the only electricity source we have that does not involve spinning magnets around to create a flux in a magnetic field. This huge advantage plus the fact that the Sun is always shining somewhere and the Earth has plenty of surface areas available leads me to the conclusion that solar is how almost all our electricity needs will be met eventually. It's really a no brainer. The obstacles of effective distribution and storage all have known solutions.

Don't worry. He won't stop. So you won't have to. Am I supposed to count or limit my posts now?

Okay then. Party on.

Are we REALLY going to engage in this game where deniers start comparing geological events that took place over 10s of thousands to millions of years to with the current events that have happened since the beginning of the industrial revolution? The speed of change is unprecedented to our knowledge. Only cataclysmic events like major volcanic events and large object collisions are comparable in speed.

No injury but a young lady here did a nude two way late last summer and they miss-spotted. She landed in a field of nearly mature Canola (rapeseed) and had to walk about a 1/4 out through it. It was unpleasant for her.

No matter the outcome, which I predict will be a hung jury, just having the Dotard forced to attend court every day that it is in session is delicious. It will go on for weeks. And a hung jury leaves the possibility of a retrial........

I can remember at the beginning of the pandemic there was a lot of speculation on how this particular virus spreads. There was a focus on surfaces cleaning for a long time. It later became more clear that covid mostly transmits through aerial droplets. It also became pretty clear that the first strains that were the most virulent caused worse disease when the viral load of the initial infection was higher. Both these things support the use of masks as an attenuator.

There are places in the world with higher compliance rates and lower death rates than those you witnessed.

There is no point to have an Executive Branch if it can’t take executive action. Congress is far too cumbersome of a tool for governing.

Truly you have shown yourself to be an opponent of government mandated masking. You have not made or even attempted to make any case that wearing masks does not reduce viral spread. Reducing and slowing the rate of spread was the sole reason for mask mandates. We always knew that we all were going to be infected sooner or later. But one thing is correct. There is no point in continuing the discussion. You are never going to change or give an inch in your opposition to mask mandates no matter their degree of effectiveness.

It always takes two to tango.

Horses here don't die. They absorb the blows and come back for another round. Again and again as if no one ever learns.

I'm somewhat aware of the paper chase and the fight for funding that goes on in the academic side of research. But the question remains......did the use of masks REDUCE the speed of the spread of covid? The Great Barrington Declaration was an outline of an alternative plan to deal with the pandemic. It did contain some strategies that had some validity. But it completely ignored the crisis situation in the healthcare system. In the end it was a political document of a libertarian posistion, not a validated scientific paper.

Yes, and we all thought that the Russian military was competent. We were wrong.