Is Hillary Biohacking (On Top Of The Regular 'hacking' She Does)?

2456789

Comments

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭
    edited September 2016


    The same goes for climate change, global warming, and global cooling. It's all the same fearmongering lies.




    The data doesn't lie. The climate is changing. 


     


     




    We can't be sure what the reason for the IPCC's deathgrip on the consensus and seemingly limitless scientific funds for its pointless research is, but we do know they've rebranded many times as the article you shared demonstrates (and will most likely continue to do so). 




    What fantasy world do you live in where the IPCC has limitless funding for climate research?! The IPCC doesn't do research. They operate off of the consensus of the peer-reviewed research.


     


    You do realize that nobody wants to fund climate change because good regulation would cost the elite class insane amounts of money, right? Corporations uproot manufacturing and move it to other countries when their host country decides to implement environmental regulations, just like they do with taxes or even more so.


     


     




    But look, we do need to be concerned about the environment. And corporations do need to be regulated, more for their industrial pollution including petrochemicals, pesticides, and now electromagnetic pollution and pollution of the genetic code. 




    This is the cause of climate change. Corporate pollution is 80% of the problem! Both by direct destruction of the biosphere and by industrial emissions. The fact that they use marketing to get the public to use products that pollute is the other 20% of the issue.


     


     




     It's just this insanity about your own personal impact that needs to be shut down. Specifically re: my "carbon footprint." I have a catalytic converter. I get my inspections. But even if I didn't, and I was just using the products, I don't think that would be my responsibility. The creators of dangerous/harmful technology need to be regulated, not the users—they just need to be made aware so they can vote with their dollar. 




    You're getting way too hung up on the individual-targeting propaganda from the 90s. The issue is not you as an individual, it's when 7+ billion people are using products that pollute the environment. You're not a special snowflake, you're just one of the billions of people on the planet screwing things up by pretending the problem doesn't exist and blissfully contributing to the pollution in your ignorance of the bigger environmental picture.


     


    As for voting with your dollar, you can't vote with your dollar when you think climate change is a myth or a conspiracy! Even if you could, most people on this planet still choose the cheaper option most of the time, which plays into the industrial model of squeezing every cent out of production that you can (e.g. cutting pollution regulation and not paying the extra cost of environmentally safe manufacturing). Manufacturers who comply with regulations pass these extra costs on to their customers, and their corporate competition (the ones that manufacture products in countries without regulation) will take all the customers who don't want to pay that extra cost (which will be most of them). Thus you only move pollution around to the less developed countries which is what is happening now.


     


     




    So until you start to develop a healthy distrust of the establishment and prove it in your rhetoric (which doesn't involve branding and dismissing those who distrust the authorities as conspiracy theorists), we won't be able to find common ground. 




    It's adorable that you want to label me as agreeing with "the establishment" because I prefer actual demonstrable facts. I do not care where the facts come from, and I follow the facts even if I don't like where they lead. Dismissing information because of the source is known as a "genetic fallacy", and I avoid committing this fallacy and critically analyze the information instead. Thus I can even admit when someone like Alex Jones have something right (like he does with most of what he says about the TPP) even if those instances are few and far between. Rhetoric is useless, you shouldn't stoop to using rhetoric when you want to make a point. You should use demonstrable facts, logic, and reason. Your claims need to be testable instead of unfalsifiable speculation, regardless of how much you trust or distrust an "authority". You should also avoid labeling people and instead criticize their arguments. I rip apart and debunk conspiracy theories instead of dismissing people as conspiracy theorists


     


     


     


    My favorite type of people to have discussions with are those who have a knee-jerk distrust of "authorities" because they tend to have their own list of trusted-individuals (that are simply their own personal "authorities") who they get information from. Unless they are a legitimate authority (i.e. the expert in a field that authored the information in question or who wrote the definitive peer-reviewed paper on a subject) then you should assign a confidence percentage to what the person says based on their previously established reliability and accuracy, and still critically analyze what they say. (This approach infuriates some people around here when I'm disagreeing with something Dave does! Especially his marketing tactics!)


  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    Are you implying that Hillary is old? Sparefilms, troll this conspiracy theorist!




    I do not troll on these forums. Trolling is posting with the sole purpose of inciting feelings of anger and mental anguish in others. Trolls do not back up their claims with data or critically analyze what the others posting in a thread say. I think you are using the term "troll" to whitewash those who do not agree with you.


     


     


    That being said, Hillary Clinton is old. I made that point perfectly clear in one of my earlier posts. She is 68 years old. Shocking that a 68 year old woman was fatigued by a presidential campaign! Wait...

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭
    edited September 2016


    So you're suggesting that once something gets enough traction in the mainstream media from its constantly being presented in the alternative media, it should immediately be dismissed by virtue of its prominence. What you're talking about is contrarianism, not pursuit of the Truth. The outlets on the fringe are expected to cover the alternative narrative, and obscure topics first and foremost—but it would discredit them if the things they brought into the limelight would then be covered differently once that point of view became mainstream. It is to their credit that sites like Infowars are presenting the same narrative in light of the rise of what Rachel Maddow calls "the new normal," regardless of the populism and "unfringe" status of the beliefs they're espousing. This is how new political parties are formed and eliminated. Some just go to the wayside, like the Whig party. 


     


    What you're implying as a flaw in the alternative media would be the same as saying your favorite band now sucks if they get popular. Or more broadly your favorite style of music. I didn't stop liking the indie sound when bands like Interpol, the Strokes, and Arcade Fire started cropping up in the mainstream. I celebrated that my counterculture had elevated the state of the art, and enjoyed the new wave of musical enlightenment and influence that great idea had now come to enjoy.


     


    When organic, whole food becomes popular, and genetically modified food becomes fringe, will you start to eat at McDonald's again, drummin'? You'd be foolish if so. 


     


    I really really hope that people reading this have a brain and realize the outrageous logical fallacy suggested in the quoted post.




    He basically said the further to the left or right you go (alt-left or alt-right) the more likely it is to be extremist rhetoric. Just like the closer to the center you go the more likely it is to be centerist rhetoric. So exactly the opposite of what you said.


     


    Stop trying to get your "Truth" from people who make money off of peddling you a story or random people on the internet and start comparing what people claim to reality! Critically analyze what people say online, because most of it is bullshit that can be debunked easily. This is the whole reason for peer-reviewed publications, to keep bullshit from cluttering up human scientific knowledge. Science and investigation is hard and making stuff up is easy, so check your "Truth" constantly against reality to make sure it is actually true




  • Yeah, distraction is a good word. When people these days talk about being "woke", or even "informed", distracted is what they really mean.




    Drummin raises an interesting point: people who have awoken to find that the media they enjoyed at one point is now unenlightened; and they take solace and pride in the fact that their new form of media has broken the spell, has enlightened and awoken them. Even Dave within the BPwhateveritis has used awakening metaphors. And its like a dream within a dream. You wake up from one dogma/programming/culture and find yourself entangled another, your not lucid you still don't know your dreaming. 


     


    Sparefilms or someone in this thread said that the true conspiracy is how is it that American Politics has come down to Clinton v. Trump? Well I think American politics and the American Medium for the last century has striven to give people distractions from the Truth. Conversations these days among my coworkers, online, and family just become who can be google or a news feed and just spout off whatever whatever media told them to spout off instead of actually going into more personal deep conversations with one another. When I meditate or pray or have what to my mind is meaningful conversations with others or within myself 'Hillary Clinton's Biohacking' doesn't come up, politics in general doesn't come up, popular culture, or anything resembling culture or dogmas come up. Personality, minds, intellects, souls should be shared with one another, we should get to know ourselves and each other; instead of the thing being who can be more distracted, who can prove they are more distracted. :shrugs:

    Make, [then,] thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every body; transcend all Time; become Eternity; and [thus] shalt thou know God. Conceiving nothing is impossible unto thyself, think thyself deathless and able to know all,—all arts, all sciences, the way of every life.  – Corpus Hermeticum XI “The Mind of Hermes”



  • Calorie-restriction is the way to go if you want to live longer. But that's like living life at a slow pace, not something any of the 'type A personalities' ever want. They want to sleep little, go full throttle during every waking hour, and not waste any second doing nothing.




    Bingo. I like to think of metabolic winter. Ketosis, calorie restriction, cold environment, high NAD+, mitochondrial uncoupling, SIRT family expression, hydrogen sulfide, low light, high melatonin blah blah...


    I see it in the Ray Peat vs Jack Kruse debate, too. Ray Peat favors summer, high sugar, high metabolism. Kruse is winter. Maybe a generalization, but I think it's very valid. They're polar opposites in some respects, but they seem to agree on MOST things that conventional medicine gets wrong.


    I'm unabashedly a fan of fertility/full-throttle > longevity. But I think it's counter-productive to live full throttle ALL THE TIME, leads to a lower top speed. Cycles, people!!! I tend to go extreme on the metabolic winter occasionally, and I come out feeling grrrrrrreat, a million times better than if I went full-throttle on 5 hours of sleep. It should be obvious. Fill your tank before you drive.


    Perhaps I overdid it on the car analogy...

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    No. My point is that i think it's ridiculous to put too much faith in any media source, and that the more immersed you are in any one particular bias the smaller your perspective is. The further you go down the infowars rabbit hole the less aware you are of everything they omit or ignore. I think that's how life in general is.




    I definitely agree, you need to mix it up. However, at the moment, Infowars seems to be the best consistent source. I know many will disagree knee-jerk style and blast this post. lol

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    The truth cannot be found in the media. The only thing media is good for is distraction and that is only if one wishes to be distracted. The internet in general as a medium and this forum as specific media, is providing refuge from the truth for me, for a lil bit. 




    What is a good source of truth?

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Yeah, distraction is a good word. When people these days talk about being "woke", or even "informed", distracted is what they really mean.




     




    The truth cannot be found in the media. The only thing media is good for is distraction and that is only if one wishes to be distracted. The internet in general as a medium and this forum as specific media, is providing refuge from the truth for me, for a lil bit. 




     


    Then again, I must say, this sounds like a good excuse to not pay attention to what's going on in the world, sit back in your comfortable world of your own thoughts and even hedonism, while the world goes to hell. At least I'm trying to do something about what I see on the news, and trying to sift through the lies by diversifying my intake. It's very easy to sit back and criticize those who are spending tons and tons of time on this noble pursuit, then criticizing them for trying to take action, while you do nothing. Sounds a little reversed. I'm going to go ahead and turn around the criticism and point at you for making excuses. This nihilistic suggestion you both are riffing on is quite counterproductive, in all honesty. It's like saying "good deeds are all cancelled out by more plentiful and more heinous bad deeds done simultaneously." I'm not going to buy into these lies. 


    Even sparefilms is doing his part by distracting from the truth and derailing any and all true skepticism (ironically in the name of skepticism). He is obviously sold out to what he believes in and puts a lot of effort into expressing his point of view with his extremely long posts (which I still need to read *sigh*).

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Drummin raises an interesting point: people who have awoken to find that the media they enjoyed at one point is now unenlightened; and they take solace and pride in the fact that their new form of media has broken the spell, has enlightened and awoken them. Even Dave within the BPwhateveritis has used awakening metaphors. And its like a dream within a dream. You wake up from one dogma/programming/culture and find yourself entangled another, your not lucid you still don't know your dreaming. 


     


    Sparefilms or someone in this thread said that the true conspiracy is how is it that American Politics has come down to Clinton v. Trump? Well I think American politics and the American Medium for the last century has striven to give people distractions from the Truth. Conversations these days among my coworkers, online, and family just become who can be google or a news feed and just spout off whatever whatever media told them to spout off instead of actually going into more personal deep conversations with one another. When I meditate or pray or have what to my mind is meaningful conversations with others or within myself 'Hillary Clinton's Biohacking' doesn't come up, politics in general doesn't come up, popular culture, or anything resembling culture or dogmas come up. Personality, minds, intellects, souls should be shared with one another, we should get to know ourselves and each other; instead of the thing being who can be more distracted, who can prove they are more distracted. :shrugs:




    Like it or not, Hillary could potentially be the leader of the Free World. Looking at the track record of the Clinton/Bush dynasty (yes, they're essentially the same thing), do you really think it's pointless to discuss the campaign, and the health (or lack thereof) of your new (even if it is puppet-like) leadership?


     


    In any case, I thought it would be an interesting topic to bring up on the forum, because we discuss biohacking and BLB glasses here. Are you trying to say this was a pointless thread? Why even join in then?

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    I do not troll on these forums. Trolling is posting with the sole purpose of inciting feelings of anger and mental anguish in others. Trolls do not back up their claims with data or critically analyze what the others posting in a thread say. I think you are using the term "troll" to whitewash those who do not agree with you.


     


     


    That being said, Hillary Clinton is old. I made that point perfectly clear in one of my earlier posts. She is 68 years old. Shocking that a 68 year old woman was fatigued by a presidential campaign! Wait...




     


    Others have agreed you are a troll, sparefilms. I won't name names (so I guess that's an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory) out of respect for them, and I do realize it's a logical fallacy and ad hominem, but I'll just throw it out there.


     


    Trolling aside, let me briefly discuss your tactics: You do come with data, it's true, but you employ Rules for Radicals–type ploys like rarely if ever acknowledging common ground. In these past posts, you've subtly suggested common ground, but you don't hand it to me politely, always painting me as the ignorant nincumpoop (or misguided child), regardless of some "lucky" or whatever good points I happen to make. This makes you appear quite weak in your stances, honestly—rather than having a stronger position, as Alinksy would have you believe it makes you. I don't know what you're like in person, but it would be interesting to see if we'd have a better discourse.


     


    Also, when I accuse someone of being a troll, I'm not necessarily literally saying they're a troll. It could be just an accusation of using "troll-like" tactics. I would imagine one of the most subtle and effective methods of trolling is to pick apart every little detail of what someone said. This tends to incite feelings of aggravation, thus triggering the person to get worked up enough to constantly waste their time trying to defend their well-formed position, even if the position would otherwise be accepted and left alone by someone not just getting their jollies off of the person's discomfort. Those who are susceptible to trolls get worked up by someone constantly badgering them, even though we clearly disagree on a position and would otherwise just move on. So, in a sense—whether you're a troll or not, bro—I am trolled (trolled am I). --Just as someone's being a cuckold has a negative connotation for that individual, even though it wasn't necessarily their own actions that earned them the title. Either way, this is how I view our relationship on the forum. If you'd like to rectify it, you can stop picking things apart on this microscopic level and try and save us both some time and anguish. And if you're going to hop on all my threads like you have been (another reason I feel trolled), at least have some decency and let me breathe a little bit. 

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited September 2016


    Stop trying to get your "Truth" from people who make money off of peddling you a story or random people on the internet and start comparing what people claim to reality! Critically analyze what people say online, because most of it is bullshit that can be debunked easily. This is the whole reason for peer-reviewed publications, to keep bullshit from cluttering up human scientific knowledge. Science and investigation is hard and making stuff up is easy, so check your "Truth" constantly against reality to make sure it is actually true




     


    Glad you agree with Alex on the TPP by the way.


     


    If I'm not a scientist and don't have the credentials to do the lab work (or the wherewithal), then I have every right to choose the most credible source most representative of reality. I have every reason to believe the alternative media is more credible than the mainstream media based on my own experience and what I can see with my own two eyes, and my reason (which works quite well). 


     


    This is based on seeing mainstream science get it completely wrong with nutrition (wrongfully demonizing animal foods and high fat) for decades and decades, with the obvious agenda of selling me sugar, preservatives, flour, and cereal grains. If Dave Asprey, Chris Kresser, Robb Wolf, or Dr. Mercola get something wrong, it isn't in this way off the mark fashion that causes me to question their motives. With the USDA and those behind these false notions, I can see a clear motive and a perpetuation of disinformation that eliminates my trust in them completely. If Asprey and Co. mess up in this heinous way that shows a highly likely concealment of critical info that compromises health, then you bet I'll move on to the next alternative.


     


    My distrust of the mainstream media comes from a reaction to these geniuses trying to pass off the fact that this was a result of debris from a plane that hit two buildings near it several hours before: 


     


    https://youtu.be/iEuJimaumW4?t=5m40s


     


    That is obviously a controlled demolition. If you don't see that, you're actually retarded. The MSM and U.S. government think we're retarded. 


  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭

    I'm going to stick to the pertinent reply rather than waste time on the "You're a troll/sellout/Alinskyite/establishment shill accusations. I've already explained that to have a rational discussion we should deal with ideas rather than people/personalities. I've also posted this:


    Graham’s Hierarchy Of Disagreement


     




    Glad you agree with Alex on the TPP by the way.




    Yep, like I said it's not about the source (the source just provides you your initial confidence level) it's about critically analyzing the information being presented. I haven't listened to everything Alex Jones has said about the TPP, so I'm fairly sure there are some fine details on international trade where we would disagree (probably in the area of freedom of employment across borders, which I am hugely in favor of) but on the whole I agree that it is more screwing over of the average American worker.


     


     




    If I'm not a scientist and don't have the credentials to do the lab work (or the wherewithal), then I have every right to choose the most credible source most representative of reality. I have every reason to believe the alternative media is more credible than the mainstream media based on my own experience and what I can see with my own two eyes, and my reason (which works quite well). 




    Why would you get your information on advancements in science from the media?! They are both biased, and neither source is an authority on science. Popular science articles are hardly any better. You should either look for highly credible science reporters (which are hard to vet properly these days), professional science communicators, or online lectures and scholarly sources.


     


    Certain popular science communicators are better than others, for example Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Michio Kaku, Bill Nye, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris and to a lesser extent Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and V.S. Ramachandrann, are all spending the later half of their careers distilling modern science into a format that is easier for the public to grasp and understand (and some are also still conducting research). Even then, reading their books is merely a basic summary of the science topics and it would require several years of university courses to begin to actually understand the research they are presenting on a functional level.


     


     




    This is based on seeing mainstream science get it completely wrong with nutrition (wrongfully demonizing animal foods and high fat) for decades and decades, with the obvious agenda of selling me sugar, preservatives, flour, and cereal grains. If Dave Asprey, Chris Kresser, Robb Wolf, or Dr. Mercola get something wrong, it isn't in this way off the mark fashion that causes me to question their motives. With the USDA and those behind these false notions, I can see a clear motive and a perpetuation of disinformation that eliminates my trust in them completely. If Asprey and Co. mess up in this heinous way that shows a highly likely concealment of critical info that compromises health, then you bet I'll move on to the next alternative.




    Dave and the others are still basing their ideas off of current scientific research. I think you're confusing the current scientific research with the propaganda commissioned by huge megacorporations and broadcast over mainstream media. There isn't a mainstream science vs alternative science, the public is sbjected to a mainstream median interpretation of science vs alternative media interpretation, and both skew things to fit their own agendas and ignore the consensus view of the scientific community (which is what makes it into textbooks and journals). I feel the need to reiterate that relying on media for your understanding of modern science, even the alternative media, is not the way to keep up to date on science because they both have a major bias toward their own agendas.


     


     




    My distrust of the mainstream media




    Don't. Trust. Any. Media. Even the one that says the things you agree with. They are all making money off of you watching their programming, even the alternative media sources, so they are biased towards keeping you watching. If they know their viewers like being told everything is just fine then they will tell them that (*cough*CNN*cough*), if they know their viewers like to hear about the immigrants taking over and there is a war on prayer, God, Christians, and Christmas (*cough*Fox 'News'*cough*) then they will give them that, and if they know their viewers like sensationalized stories about constant governmental conspiracies, elites drinking blood and marrying horses, and the New World Order coming to murder them then they will give them those stories (guess who). Even if they have to lie constantly. Their viewers will believe that they found the lone source of Truth and keep funneling them money. Compare all the sources. Fact check, and if it's a story you can't fact check then you can't reasonably draw a conclusion about it and are at the mercy of liars and charlatans trying to make a buck. 


     


     


     


    Here's the perfect example of how easy it is to debunk bogus alternative media claims, even for a random YouTuber, as long as you have access to factual information:



  • HegReg33HegReg33 ✭✭
    edited September 2016

    Hell, I've even seen conclusions from the researchers themselves that erroneously interpret the data they produced. Usually due to some gross oversimplification, or ignoring feedback mechanisms etc.



  • I definitely agree, you need to mix it up. However, at the moment, Infowars seems to be the best consistent source. I know many will disagree knee-jerk style and blast this post. lol




    Why is infowars more trustworthy other than that it confirms your own bias? Have you really immersed yourself in other media and given it the benefit of the doubt? Have you applied the same skepticism you have for mainstream media to infowars? You do realize it is a for-profit operation right?
  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    Hell, I've even seen conclusions from the researchers themselves that erroneously interpret the data they produced. Usually due to some gross oversimplification, or ignoring feedback mechanisms etc.




    Confirmation bias, improper controls, or even willfully fabricating data just so their conclusion is what they wanted it to be is a huge problem, especially around fringe ideas like ESP/out-of-body experiences/psychic abilities/the eCAT device. Luckily the scientific community not only strives for peer review, you can also replicate the experiments for yourself and verify them. Unfortunately for most "Truth" believers, rigorous testing so far has shown the aforementioned ideas to either be scams or false positives.


  • Then again, I must say, this sounds like a good excuse to not pay attention to what's going on in the world, sit back in your comfortable world of your own thoughts and even hedonism, while the world goes to hell. At least I'm trying to do something about what I see on the news, and trying to sift through the lies by diversifying my intake. It's very easy to sit back and criticize those who are spending tons and tons of time on this noble pursuit, then criticizing them for trying to take action, while you do nothing. Sounds a little reversed. I'm going to go ahead and turn around the criticism and point at you for making excuses. This nihilistic suggestion you both are riffing on is quite counterproductive, in all honesty. It's like saying "good deeds are all cancelled out by more plentiful and more heinous bad deeds done simultaneously." I'm not going to buy into these lies.




    That's if you define "what's going on in the world" as what other organizations tell you is going on. I don't think spreading propaganda and/or conspiracy theory is really the answer to making the world a better place. I think what's going on in my life, the people around me, the communities I belong to are more important, enjoyable, and useful to focus on. When you die, are you going to reflect on your life and say "I should've read more infowars articles, I should have tried harder to convince the unbelievers!", or are you going to say, "I should have spent more time with family and friends, I should have contributed more to my community, I should have learned all of the cool things there are to learn, I should have been the best example I can be of a life lived well" etc?
  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    Why is infowars more trustworthy other than that it confirms your own bias? Have you really immersed yourself in other media and given it the benefit of the doubt? Have you applied the same skepticism you have for mainstream media to infowars? You do realize it is a for-profit operation right?




    I'm constantly stunned that Alex Jones has been given all these documents and secretly told inside information by the "elites" about their plans. Not to mention exclusive Secret Service interviews (off the record and not recorded of course) and being let into the "secret rooms at UTD" where they do their evil experiments. You'd think the "elites" would be tired of being exposed by him and...I dunno...stop telling him all their secret plans? 

  • Maybe he's a Jedi? The illuminati can't bust him because then the secret will get out that the force is real, but he can't just come out and say it because then the illuminati have no reason not to kill him.
  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited September 2016


    Here's the perfect example of how easy it is to debunk bogus alternative media claims, even for a random YouTuber, as long as you have access to factual information:




     


    That video isn't funny. It's a retarded rip-off combo of South Park and Strongbad. You're retarded if you think that's cute or funny. Making something look ridiculous in this crappy Daily Show reject way, with antiquated humor, does not a debunk constitute. This is like the equivalent of christian rock for skeptics to me. Is this the kind of content you watch regularly, sparefilms? Kind of embarrassing.


     


    Not entirely convinced by the video. The wave was debunked effectively, but not the camera phones. If someone who was there would post another view of the event with one of the 2 or 3 dozen apparent simultaneous filmings of it, I'd be convinced. 


     


    My main criticism: Overuse of the word "conspiracy theory." These are simply observers reporting on what they see, and some speculation perhaps. Speculation and questioning shouldn't be shunned. It should be encouraged. When you use the word "conspiracy theory," you're immediately discounting yourself, because it's a weak dismissal that's been fed to you on a silver platter by the CIA to deal with inquisitive souls since the Warren Commission, and it's apparently not going away any time soon.


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited September 2016


    I'm constantly stunned that Alex Jones has been given all these documents and secretly told inside information by the "elites" about their plans. Not to mention exclusive Secret Service interviews (off the record and not recorded of course) and being let into the "secret rooms at UTD" where they do their evil experiments. You'd think the "elites" would be tired of being exposed by him and...I dunno...stop telling him all their secret plans? 




     


    Anonymous sources are kept anonymous for a reason. They inform at risk of their own safety, so if he started revealing them, then he would lose all credibility. He shuts people down all the time who call in with tips, because he hasn't had a proper opportunity to vet them out. Most of what he reveals is declassified, and can be researched at your leisure (like the Internment/Resettlement documents and material on Agenda 21, which are undebunkable). No one has shown me evidence of Alex Jones falsifying info from sources or inventing sources. If you're accusing him of that, the onus is on you to provide it, not to just accuse him of something because it's convenient to your narrative to do so.


    You research to see if what he's being told is occurring. Over time, Alex has been given inside information that has become apparent in time. He's not right on every prediction he makes, which he acknowledges are predictions, but events occur in the public eye and things come out that show his sources were reliable. The information from the Secret Service regarding Hillary's health has been quite vindicated by this fainting spell. You have no reason to doubt his sources.


     


    The mainstream media has time and time again shown itself to be falsifying, spinning, and even manufacturing news. Infowars is far more credible in my eyes.


  • NO reason to doubt him whatsoever? Do you know him personally? One time when I was hangin out with Alex back in the day he told me he was fed up with watching the Elites con everyone and get filthy rich while honest hardworking folks barely get by. He said he's so sick of it that he is going to make the situation work in his favor by pandering to the frustration of those working class folks by pretending to have inside knowledge of the elites, with a promise of ending their tyranny someday. I told him it's cool to get people to question things but offering fake answers and profitting off of it sounds fucked up and probably wouldn't even work that well (this was before Facebook and stuff). He reminded me of L Ron Hubbard's quote that J.R. "Bob" Dobbs made famous: "you know how dumb the average guy is? Well mathematically by definition, HALF of them are even dumber than that".
  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    Anonymous sources are kept anonymous for a reason. They inform at risk of their own safety, so if he started revealing them, then he would lose all credibility. 




    An anonymous source is impossible for you, the listener, to distinguish from an imaginary source or from InfoWars simply lying about having a source at all. Especially when you have no means to verify the "information".


     


    Not only that, Jones constantly says that the evil elites are the ones telling him the stuff they are doing, not some low-level anonymous whistle blower.


     


     




    Most of what he reveals is declassified, and can be researched at your leisure (like the Internment/Resettlement documents and material on Agenda 21, which are undebunkable). 




    Declassified documents are not the issue, the bogus conclusions drawn from them are the issue. Did you know that there are government documents detailing the United State's plan to weaponize live bats as living bombs, and to use psychics and channelers to replace field agents gathering intelligence and as telepathic assassins? Just because there is a government document saying something does not mean it 1) actually exists or 2) was actually put into practice.


     


     


     




    No one has shown me evidence of Alex Jones falsifying info from sources or inventing sources. If you're accusing him of that, the onus is on you to provide it, not to just accuse him of something because it's convenient to your narrative to do so.




    You won't be able to show evidence of someone falsifying information from their "sources" if they refuse to give the sources in the first place. Remember way back in middle school and high school when kids would say they had a girlfriend that went to another school, you wouldn't know her but she's totally real? You couldn't disprove this claim, but you shouldn't believe it just because it wasn't disproved.


     


    Also look up Russell's Teapot, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the undetectable dragon that lives in my closet, and the fact that I can fly as long as nobody is looking at me. Can't show me evidence that those things are lies either. You still shouldn't believe them.


     


     


    TL;DR


    To put it simply, I'm not claiming that Jones specifically did anything, I'm stating that I do not believe him when he says things. He does not meet his burden of proof, and I see right through his ranting rhetorical formula. He is way down on my credibility list, slightly above religious fundamentalists.


     


    (Especially when says he has an inside informant telling him that the "elites" sacrifice their own children, drink blood, and marry horses. Yes, I have video clips to prove that he says exactly that if you're interested.)


     


     




    You research to see if what he's being told is occurring. Over time, Alex has been given inside information that has become apparent in time. He's not right on every prediction he makes, which he acknowledges are predictions, but events occur in the public eye and things come out that show his sources were reliable. The information from the Secret Service regarding Hillary's health has been quite vindicated by this fainting spell. You have no reason to doubt his sources.




    I have researched the various things Alex Jones has claimed are going on over the years (at least the things that you could actually even attempt to verify) and it takes only a trivial effort to show that he is systemically wrong about most of the conclusions he makes. My favorite ones are when he makes claims about counterculture communities that I am a part of, it is absolutely hilarious the things he claims are going on.


     


    We can doubt the claim of an anonymous Secret Service source for Hillary Clinton's personal information not only because that would constitute multiple Federal violations, risk compromising the safety of someone under a Secret Service protective detail (and risk the agent's own well being due to the inevitable investigation to discover who the leak was out of the small handful of agents assigned to protect her) but also because the leaked information completely matches the narrative that InfoWars has already been using for weeks. Kind of like when a prescription drug is being investigated for being unsafe and the corporation conducts a "clinical trial" themselves that shows the drug is totally safe. 


     


     




    The mainstream media has time and time again shown itself to be falsifying, spinning, and even manufacturing news. Infowars is far more credible in my eyes.




    Neither source is credible, they both have inherent biases and make their money off of crafting a narrative that their audiences will buy into.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Declassified documents are not the issue, the bogus conclusions drawn from them are the issue. Did you know that there are government documents detailing the United State's plan to weaponize live bats as living bombs, and to use psychics and channelers to replace field agents gathering intelligence and as telepathic assassins? Just because there is a government document saying something does not mean it 1) actually exists or 2) was actually put into practice.


     


    You won't be able to show evidence of someone falsifying information from their "sources" if they refuse to give the sources in the first place. Remember way back in middle school and high school when kids would say they had a girlfriend that went to another school, you wouldn't know her but she's totally real? You couldn't disprove this claim, but you shouldn't believe it just because it wasn't disproved.


     


    TL;DR


    To put it simply, I'm not claiming that Jones specifically did anything, I'm stating that I do not believe him when he says things. He does not meet his burden of proof, and I see right through his ranting rhetorical formula. He is way down on my credibility list, slightly above religious fundamentalists.


     


    (Especially when says he has an inside informant telling him that the "elites" sacrifice their own children, drink blood, and marry horses. Yes, I have video clips to prove that he says exactly that if you're interested.)




     


    You don't have to show me the clips of him saying those things. I know he does, and I believe they do those things. And might I add, if you admit you're a part of some of the countercultures he calls out, why should I believe you about anything or even take you seriously? On top of being an Alinsky-ite, agnostic, skeptic, are you also a Satanist—or just a transhumanist? All of the above? If you're a Satanist, I have no reason to believe you're not lying. Even as a simple Alinsky-ite, I can't trust you. It's within their moral code to employ lying, and any and all means of deception/chicanery to achieve their ends.


    I'll just say right now, I'm an evangelical christian, so maybe you should just stop responding to my posts. [Please?] If not, allow me to turn the tables on you a second. I hold transhumanists and skeptics/reductionists just above Satanists in my book. Whatever you are, I don't hate you, though. I just feel you're quite misguided, especially if you think child sacrifice, vampirism (literal blood-drinking I mean), and bestiality among elites don't exist. Just because it sounds ridiculous doesn't mean it's not happening.


     


    An anonymous source is impossible for you, the listener, to distinguish from an imaginary source or from InfoWars simply lying about having a source at all. Especially when you have no means to verify the "information".


    I have researched the various things Alex Jones has claimed are going on over the years (at least the things that you could actually even attempt to verify) and it takes only a trivial effort to show that he is systemically wrong about most of the conclusions he makes. My favorite ones are when he makes claims about counterculture communities that I am a part of, it is absolutely hilarious the things he claims are going on.

     We can doubt the claim of an anonymous Secret Service source for Hillary Clinton's personal information not only because that would constitute multiple Federal violations, risk compromising the safety of someone under a Secret Service protective detail (and risk the agent's own well being due to the inevitable investigation to discover who the leak was out of the small handful of agents assigned to protect her) but also because the leaked information completely matches the narrative that InfoWars has already been using for weeks. Kind of like when a prescription drug is being investigated for being unsafe and the corporation conducts a "clinical trial" themselves that shows the drug is totally safe.



    First of all, the bottom paragraph is an extremely weak argument for the nonexistence of whistleblowers. They do exist, and many have come forward at great risk, and will continue to do so. At the top paragraph you're saying that we can't verify the source, so it can't be true. But even if it was true, we could never prove it, because the sources choose to remain anonymous. Then at the end you've come full circle and provided the exact reasons why a Secret Service informant would wish to remain anonymous, because if they were found out, they would be eliminated. I don't know what kind of coward you are (probably a substantial one considering how cucked you are to the Singularity with your obvious williingness to sign up for an embedded microchip ASAP (do you have one already?)—evident in your screenname and profile pic), but there are some pretty courageous people out there who would die for Freedom and the Truth. 


     


    In any case, what we have to go on is whether the information that the alleged informant provides pans out (like I said in my last post, which you ignored). And it has. Hillary is falling down, hacking, and stumbling around, unable to appear in public for more than 20-30 minutes at a time. Infowars is vindicated. Also, you're quite mistaken that Hillary's health was being discussed on the program for weeks before they talked about the SS informant. And even if it had been, that isn't evidence against the existence of an informant providing more specific info on the matter at that time. Quite to the contrary, it would most likely get some SS guys' noggins churning about some of the things they'd seen in their day-to-day and inspire them to report some specifics.



     


    Declassified documents are not the issue, the bogus conclusions drawn from them are the issue. Did you know that there are government documents detailing the United State's plan to weaponize live bats as living bombs, and to use psychics and channelers to replace field agents gathering intelligence and as telepathic assassins? Just because there is a government document saying something does not mean it 1) actually exists or 2) was actually put into practice.



     


    True they might not exist or be being put into practice, but if you started to see the sociopolitical climate and rhetoric of politicians in office shift in that direction, it shouldn't be considered absurd to review these documents. I hadn't even said that those camps exist, and neither did Alex. He's saying there's an infrastructure and preexisting structure of command in place for these contingencies. HAHA, you've now gone to "just because it exists, doesn't mean it exists." Nobody is falling for your stupid ploys, spare.


     



     


    Not only that, Jones constantly says that the evil elites are the ones telling him the stuff they are doing, not some low-level anonymous whistle blower.



     


    Again, though, my argument is just as strong as yours. Since we can't prove either way whether he went to the enemy's lair or consulted with elites revealing their plans, all we'd have to go on were whether the revelations he shares from them turned out to be true. Most of what he relates of their revealed plans are things like corruption of the genepool (GMO), poisoning the water and food supply, dumbing down of the public (reality TV, video games, dumb phones, and pharmaceuticals), mind control, addiction to video games, people literally plugging themselves into their computers all day, proliferation of chemicals/pharmaceuticals to  weaponized energy (EMFs from routers), literally plugging into the Matrix, transhumanism (Ray Kurzweil), etc. etc. etc.) All stuff that's really happening. And these were laid out in the works of Huxley, Orwell, Quigley, Brzezinski, Rothschild throughout the 20th century.  Most of what he says that's hidden is hiding in plain sight. So perhaps you're not familiar with Alex Jones' rhetoric. Or perhaps you're not familiar with reality. I'm inclined to believe it's a little bit of both, combined with a smidge of good ol' fashioned denial.


     



     

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    On top of being an Alinsky-ite, agnostic, skeptic, are you also a Satanist—or just a transhumanist? All of the above? If you're a Satanist, I have no reason to believe you're not lying. Even as a simple Alinsky-ite, I can't trust you. It's within their moral code to employ lying, and any and all means of deception/chicanery to achieve their ends.




    1) You've labeled me all of those things, you haven't actually asked me what I think about any of them. I know that "negatively" labeling those that disagree with you is a common tactic used to easily dismiss what they say, but it's incredibly dishonest.


     


    2) I don't think you know the tenants that any of those groups you listed actually hold to. Outside of "Alinsky-ite", which I thought I made up earlier (is there really a group called Alinsky-ites?), none of the labels you forced on me have a moral code that glorifies lying. They are all actually opposed to lying and value facts and information above comforting beliefs and blind faith.


     


    3) Satanists are atheists who have been trolling the Christians since the 60s. It's not that hard to get. The Christians that freak out when they hear the word "Satanist" are exactly the type of people they have been messing with for decades. They don't believe in Satan any more than they believe in Santa. 


     


    The question remains, how many labels will I find myself with by the end? Why do you even engage with me if you think I am perpetually lying?


     


     




    I'll just say right now, I'm an evangelical christian, so maybe you should just stop responding to my posts. [Please?] If not, allow me to turn the tables on you a second. I hold transhumanists and skeptics/reductionists just above Satanists in my book. Whatever you are, I don't hate you, though. I just feel you're quite misguided, especially if you think child sacrifice, vampirism (literal blood-drinking I mean), and bestiality among elites don't exist. Just because it sounds ridiculous doesn't mean it's not happening.




    This is a public forum that discusses health and cutting edge science, and I feel a responsibility to point out misinformation, deception, lack of critical thinking, and erroneous beliefs in any posts where I see them.


     


    You also conveniently ignored the entire term I used, I clearly said radical evangelicals. You know, the people who want to teach a 6000 year old Earth in science classes and think "abstinence only" sex ed works despite every single study showing that it increases teen pregnancy. If you consider yourself a radical then the only reason I consider Alex Jones slightly more credible because I have a feeling he doesn't actually believe the crazy things he says. Though I may be wrong, he might actually believe them. 


     


    You should not believe insane claims like the unnamed "elites" partaking in child sacrifice, vampirism, and marrying their horses without actual evidence. Alex Jones screaming about it on a YouTube clip is not evidence, it's marketing.


     


    You've also fallen victim to the biggest conspiracy in human history: religion.


     


     




    First of all, the bottom paragraph is an extremely weak argument for the nonexistence of whistleblowers. They do exist, and many have come forward at great risk, and will continue to do so.




    Don't be dishonest. I never stated that whistleblowers do not exist. 


     


    Whistleblowers exist. Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Mark Felt, Daniel Ellsberg, we know these people exist. Secret Service agents on an active protective detail are not likely to be whistleblowers for the reasons I already listed, and would not be likely to risk their careers over such mundane information.


     


     




    At the top paragraph you're saying that we can't verify the source, so it can't be true. But even if it was true, we could never prove it, because the sources choose to remain anonymous. Then at the end you've come full circle and provided the exact reasons why a Secret Service informant would wish to remain anonymous, because if they were found out, they would be eliminated.




    I don't know how you missed this point, but if you are one of a dozen agents assigned to protect a person, and that person's personal health information is leaked to an alternative media site, and that alternative media site tells everyone the leak came from the Secret Service, then you will probably be found out because they only have a dozen people to investigate! So, unless they are just shitty at trying to stay anonymous why would they let Alex Jones blab all over the internet that a Secret Service agent is leaking Hillary's info? They must want to be caught! Or...Alex Jones could be lying. Either way, Alex Jones telling everyone that a Secret Service agent did this is not quite anonymous, is it? It is lucrative though.


     


     


     




    I don't know what kind of coward you are (probably a substantial one considering how cucked you are to the Singularity with your obvious williingness to sign up for an embedded microchip ASAP (do you have one already?)—evident in your screenname and profile pic), but there are some pretty courageous people out there who would die for Freedom and the Truth.




    Hahaha what? My screen name is evidence of cowardice and being sexually dominated by my spouse and the potential for exponential technological growth through artificial intelligence? Why would I have to sign up for an embedded microchip? I'd rather use biometric identification. What does any of that have to do with freedom and truth?


     


     


     




    In any case, what we have to go on is whether the information that the alleged informant provides pans out (like I said in my last post, which you ignored). And it has. Hillary is falling down, hacking, and stumbling around, unable to appear in public for more than 20-30 minutes at a time. Infowars is vindicated. 




    That also fits the hypothesis that Hillary Clinton is a major alcoholic and gets drunk in public. Or that she abuses hard drugs. Or that someone is using an EMF weapon on her. Or that she has been poisoned. Or that she diedmand we only see body-doubles. Or that she is a reptilian that cannot stand being outside the hollow earth. Or that she is actually a hologram. All of which you can find on various Alex Jones clips from the last decade.


     


     




    Also, you're quite mistaken that Hillary's health was being discussed on the program for weeks before they talked about the SS informant. 




    Here's a link to a clip from January 21st, 2016 (that's 8 months ago folks):


    Hillary Has Mental Problems


     


    InfoWars has been discussing this for years. At least as far back as her fall and concussion three years ago. Cheers.


     


     




    Quite to the contrary, it would most likely get some SS guys' noggins churning about some of the things they'd seen in their day-to-day and inspire them to report some specifics.




    The Secret Service detail protecting Clinton would be far better informed than InfoWars, and if she actually had health problems they would have known about it for years at this point. Even if there was a Secret Service leak, they wouldn't want Alex Jones blabbing about it all over the internet! That's how you get caught and black-bagged. Why do you think Edward Snowden didn't go to Alex Jones? He was smart, careful, and wanted to 1) Not get killed, 2) be believed and 3) release actual evidence over the course of a year to keep interest and keep the pressure on for political reform.


     


     




    True they might not exist or be being put into practice, but if you started to see the sociopolitical climate and rhetoric of politicians in office shift in that direction, it shouldn't be considered absurd to review these documents. I hadn't even said that those camps exist, and neither did Alex. He's saying there's an infrastructure and preexisting structure of command in place for these contingencies.




    We also have government documents detailing contingencies for first contact with aliens and going to war with the British Empire. So? Are these things being put into practice? Do these contingency plans actually impact American citizens, or should we actually focus on the legislation that actually impacts our daily lives? The presidential election being between an establishment politician and a crooked business man who buys establishment politicians, anyone? 


     


    I didn't say it was absurd to review these documents, I said there was an issue with the conclusions drawn from them by people like Alex Jones. These people keep ranting about an impending government takeover and the inevitable murder of the American population, and they have been ranting about it for nearly 50 years! All the evil things Obama was suppose to do didn't happen. Jade Helm didn't initiate marshal law, Agenda 21 has been around since the 90's, and there are no FEMA death-camps being used to murder us all. Their conclusions are simply fearmongering, and very lucrative fearmongering by the way.


     


     




    HAHA, you've now gone to "just because it exists, doesn't mean it exists." Nobody is falling for your stupid ploys, spare.




    No, I've said just because something is written in a government document doesn't mean the thing it's talking about actually exists. Try being honest.


     


    I'll give you a real simple example. There are tons of Spiderman books that talk about him being in New York, and New York is actually a real place! That doesn't mean Spiderman exists. People even dress up as him on the internet! Spiderman still doesn't exist.

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    Again, though, my argument is just as strong as yours. Since we can't prove either way whether he went to the enemy's lair or consulted with elites revealing their plans, all we'd have to go on were whether the revelations he shares from them turned out to be true. Most of what he relates of their revealed plans are things like corruption of the genepool (GMO), poisoning the water and food supply, dumbing down of the public (reality TV, video games, dumb phones, and pharmaceuticals), mind control, addiction to video games, people literally plugging themselves into their computers all day, proliferation of chemicals/pharmaceuticals to  weaponized energy (EMFs from routers), literally plugging into the Matrix, transhumanism (Ray Kurzweil), etc. etc. etc.) All stuff that's really happening. And these were laid out in the works of Huxley, Orwell, Quigley, Brzezinski, Rothschild throughout the 20th century.  Most of what he says that's hidden is hiding in plain sight. So perhaps you're not familiar with Alex Jones' rhetoric. Or perhaps you're not familiar with reality. I'm inclined to believe it's a little bit of both, combined with a smidge of good ol' fashioned denial.




    You hit the nail on the head. You listed some things that actually exist (video games, genetically modified organisms, television, addiction, the Matrix films, wireless technology, transhumanists, books by Huxley, Orwell, Quigley, Brzezinski, Rothschild) and have strung it together via rhetoric from InfoWars and Alex Jones (and possibly others like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Donald Trump) into a grand overarching plot instead of being properly skeptical and critically analyzing not just the claims they make but also the people who profit off of this type of extreme rhetoric themselves.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited September 2016


    what are your thoughts on this Modern Life? 


     


     




    VC Mario is definitely entitled to his opinion. Watching the whole thing before I give you a complete response.


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited September 2016


    what are your thoughts on this Modern Life? 




     


    Sounds like some pretty unfounded mudslinging at the beginning. Alex definitely has a testimony, and he does spread the Gospel. This is my favorite clip of Alex lately:


     



     


    He wraps up his speech about attachment parenting very beautifully by bringing in the Gospel at the end.


     


    Focusing on his fighting the Police State for awhile back then isn't very current considering his recent defense of cops lately in the wake of the extremist group BLM. Alex doesn't like bad/corrupt cops, like the kinds with MRAPs up in the Pacific Northwest. He's kind of turned it around, saying "cops and military are on average more awake than most people."


     


    The clip where the guy somewhat criticizes the "radical christians" is ridiculous, because obviously the "infowarrior" they're spotlighting is making the point that radical Islam and radical Christianity are nothing alike. So that's debunked. It is true, he brands them fanatics at the beginning. But that's just because Alex often calls out your standard Christian as being deceived by megachurches that preach non-intervention "because the Rapture is coming and God will take care of it." Perhaps this has affected his perception of the standard street preacher/pamphlet Christian he might come across. The megachurches I've been to do partake in this sort of "repent, the end is nigh" stuff, and I'm starting to have my doubts as well whether it's really the way to go. I haven't seen a single conversion to christianity because of this action. It mostly just kinda freaks people out, like the guy said. I don't judge street preachers, either, though. I admire the bravery of those people.


     


    Truth is, no one can be sure about the state of Alex's soul (even though we can judge fruit—which I'll do in a sec). I think Alex could definitely be a shill. I think it's even likely that he's Bill Hicks. But as Mario quoted from the Bible, I can judge him by his fruits. I'm seeing some great stuff coming out of Infowars, e.g. especially my own Awakening to the corrupt PTB and the agenda to bring in World Government. I owe him a lot, and I see many many others waking up because of the information he's sharing. Even if ultimately he's out to destroy us, in the process, he's just happening to do a lot of good just by bringing some things to light I'd never even have thought about (even if it's only 80% of the Truth, that's a sight more accurate than MSM). I could go on and on about the good things about him, but not very long about the bad things.


     


    And TBH, I don't care for Mario's gay cat (not accusing him of being gay, just saying it's kinda gay to show off your cat—I'm all: "like anybody cares, bro.")


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    You hit the nail on the head. You listed some things that actually exist (video games, genetically modified organisms, television, addiction, the Matrix films, wireless technology, transhumanists, books by Huxley, Orwell, Quigley, Brzezinski, Rothschild) and have strung it together via rhetoric from InfoWars and Alex Jones (and possibly others like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Donald Trump) into a grand overarching plot instead of being properly skeptical and critically analyzing not just the claims they make but also the people who profit off of this type of extreme rhetoric themselves.




     


    You should just do yourself a favor and read Tragedy & Hope. I haven't finished it, but I know the gist pretty well. In it, we are given a course in real history by Carroll Quigley. If you understand the way civilizations rise and fall and how Western civilization differs, read books by insiders like those I mentioned, and use your God-given human brain which has the fantastic ability to identify patterns and make accurate predictions based on past trends, you'll see what Alex and I are talking about.

  • Phew. I'm exhausted. Haven't logged on since Friday. Had to get caught up on this thread. :wink:
Sign In or Register to comment.