- OT: Nashville Shooter, A Tranny FREAK, Kills SIX :-( - 6 Updates
- Gochujang Is So Much More Than a Condiment - 1 Update
- People who think they're attractive are less likely to wear masks, a study shows - 11 Updates
- What's Cookin'? 4/2/23 - 4 Updates
- I am BACK! - 1 Update
- Aunt Jemima - 2 Updates
| lucretia@florence.it: Apr 03 07:04PM -0300 On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 05:10:54 +1000, Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>time). >>I don't recall saying anything about Charlie?? >Strange, you did so quite recently. Maybe you're strange - I believe we discussed him at the time he became King. |
| lucretia@florence.it: Apr 03 07:08PM -0300 On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 13:34:30 -0700 (PDT), Thomas Joseph >there has been another "school shooting" somewhere, >what are you supposed to do, yell, "Time out" to everybody >before going outside to cry for them? You're exaggerating as usual. I can't say I would join a public display though I understand that they are very helpful mentally to some people. I just find it rather distasteful that the discussion of the Nashville Shooter here branched into a discussion on sexuality while seemingly ignoring the suffering caused. That shooter would have been happy to know he/she got all the argument time, rather than her victims. |
| jmcquown <j_mcquown@comcast.net>: Apr 03 07:19PM -0400 >>> involved with any incident such as that? >> Looking at it now I suppose it does have a rant vibe to it. >> I have as much empathy as anyone else. (snipped) > while seemingly ignoring the suffering caused. That shooter would > have been happy to know he/she got all the argument time, rather than > her victims. Consider the source. GM is the one who started the thread about the shooter being a "Tranny Freak". That man has issues. :( Jill |
| Graham <g.stereo@shaw.ca>: Apr 03 04:44PM -0600 > while seemingly ignoring the suffering caused. That shooter would > have been happy to know he/she got all the argument time, rather than > her victims. I suppose the vigils take the place of church services. One thing I can never understand is why do people feel it necessary to dump flowers and teddy bears at a murder or accident site. |
| Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>: Apr 04 08:44AM +1000 >>Strange, you did so quite recently. >Maybe you're strange - I believe we discussed him at the time he >became King. 2 days ago or so, I said Prince Charles was a cheater from day 1. You defended him by saying Diana was a cheater too -which she wasn't until after Charles had ruined their marriage. Graham called him King Chuck. Etc, etc. Don't remember? |
| Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>: Apr 04 08:46AM +1000 >I suppose the vigils take the place of church services. >One thing I can never understand is why do people feel it necessary >to dump flowers and teddy bears at a murder or accident site. Maybe to express empathy/sympathy? Do you struggle with many things? |
| Bryan Simmons <bryangsimmons@gmail.com>: Apr 03 03:41PM -0700 On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 3:15:48 PM UTC-5, GM wrote: > Of course, some of the sour miserable cranks here might accuse me of "copyright violations " in posting whole articles, but > they are *most* welcome to go fuck themselves... > There is nothing more frustrating than someone providing links that are either paywalled, or require "registration" to view... I wouldn't want to discourage you from reading the NY Times. --Bryan |
| T <T@invalid.invalid>: Apr 03 02:34PM -0700 On 4/3/23 08:23, SteveW wrote: > it is close enough to stop, reduce the size of and reduce the speed of > droplets containing the virus, making it at least a little safer for > those around a mask wearing carrier. Also not the case. Humidity builds up on the material after about ten minutes and then has no effect EXCEPT if you breath hard you CLUSTER BOMB everyone around you. Add to that that the primary infection vector is "Aerosolization", which masks do nothign to stop. Before repeating your above "political science" please read the "actual science" On respiratory droplets and face masks https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0015044 |
| T <T@invalid.invalid>: Apr 03 02:34PM -0700 On 4/3/23 00:10, alan_m wrote: > On 03/04/2023 04:31, Rod Speed wrote: >> Must be why those taking covid swabs always use them. > Extensively used in hospitals long before Covid, and not by the patients. And extensively do not work. It is for "virtue signaling" so they give the "impression" that they are actually doing something. Here is the scientific evidence from before the issues was monetized and politicized (2010): Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05 Oh and that last time we had to go to the ER, you should have heard their "private" comments about the masks, they were sick and tired of pretending. And instead of "pretending" to do something, the lazy shits could actually wash their stupid hands between patients. |
| T <T@invalid.invalid>: Apr 03 02:35PM -0700 On 4/3/23 08:29, Joe wrote: >> little safer for those around a mask wearing carrier. > And so the mask goes on and on absorbing water and viruses until... > what, exactly? You breath hard and then you CLUSTER BOMB everyone around you. |
| Thomas Joseph <jazeev1234@gmail.com>: Apr 03 02:38PM -0700 T wrote: > Actually Steve, they do not. > Please read the follow actual scientific studies: Yo, T Bag - I'm not hopping into this debate - I don't debate period - but in regards to relying on "actual scientific studies", may I ask what sort of validity comes from any expert of any kind when they are often used by both the defense and prosecution in criminal trials. So called experts do not always agree on the same thing. They are much like ex sports stars turned announcers on pre game shows predicting who's going to win and who's going to lose. They have opinions and they sometimes differ, maybe most times - but people listen because they are "The Experts." I prefer, for myself anyway, intuitive science over scientists playing God. I am not so much against the 'experts' as much as those who put their undying faith in them all the time. Fuck the experts. |
| T <T@invalid.invalid>: Apr 03 02:44PM -0700 On 4/3/23 08:57, Bob F wrote: >> And so the mask goes on and on absorbing water and viruses until... >> what, exactly? > Until you throw it away. That's why they are "disposable". Every ten minutes Bob? Better to "virtual signal" that you are "conforming"? Aerosols amnd small dropplets go right though? Large (not small) droplets only blocked for ten minutes? Cluster bomb everyone around you so you can feel self righteous? Put people who ae at risk thinking they are protected? End justifies the means? Now back to all the hassles of separating your recyclables out so the trash service can tossed in the regular trash sites so you can make sure you "virtue signal" that you "get it" and you are "saving the planet". You did not, but you got to feel real good for nothing. Same nonsense with masks. You have ZERO actual science to back you up. The ONLY thing you have is political science. |
| T <T@invalid.invalid>: Apr 03 02:51PM -0700 On 4/3/23 07:40, Graham wrote: > Ed, it's pointless trying to argue with people who are neither Doctors > or scientists. They haven't a clue how to interpret the data, nor the > conclusions in scientific papers. Yup, totally pointless arguing with folks that are capable of reading actual science papers written by researchers with PHd's. You know, the ones that actually do the research properly. Now you go and listen to your political science from ass holes in white lab coats pulling shit out their asses and presenting it as actual science. Put yourself and other at risk so you can "virtue signal" The rest of us will stick with placebo controlled randomized clinical trials from actual scientists with PHd's out the wazoo doing proper, actual research. |
| SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk>: Apr 03 11:02PM +0100 On 03/04/2023 22:22, T wrote: > This one is from before the issues was monitized and politicized (2010): > Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: a systematic review > https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic-review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05 Which, right at the start, in the Summary, says "There is some evidence to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may help to reduce influenza virus transmission." > Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory > viruses > https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full and that says, "The observed lack of effect of mask wearing in interrupting the spread of influenza‐like illness (ILI) or influenza/COVID‐19 in our review has many potential reasons, including: poor study design; insufficiently powered studies arising from low viral circulation in some studies; lower adherence with mask wearing, especially amongst children; quality of the masks used; self‐contamination of the mask by hands; lack of protection from eye exposure from respiratory droplets (allowing a route of entry of respiratory viruses into the nose via the lacrimal duct); saturation of masks with saliva from extended use (promoting virus survival in proteinaceous material); and possible risk compensation behaviour leading to an exaggerated sense of security" and "We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed." > Or you can stick with "political science" and > virtue signal by "wearing a mask" Neither of those links show that masks do not help. The first suggests that there is some evidence that it does and the second says that there are many reasons why an effect may not have been seen and they are uncertain of the results. Between them they show that the likelihood of a beneficial effect is greater than the likelihood of no effect, but the studies are not well enough designed and run to be sure. |
| Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>: Apr 04 08:05AM +1000 On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 14:21:41 -0700 (PDT), Thomas Joseph > Dave Smith wrote: >>The misrepresentation of the facts was self serving. >You can apply that to just about anything coming through the media. ThoJo no like no media. <https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/834375176334741504/xU4VKBQj_400x400.jpg> |
| T <T@invalid.invalid>: Apr 03 03:07PM -0700 On 4/3/23 06:03, Ed P wrote: > So instead of getting the Polio vaccine, I'd be better equipped if I was > actually exposed to Polio. I guess we should get rid of all vaccines to > make us stronger. You really LOVE to twist things Ed. *NO ONE* is saying not to go get vaccines that actually work. Effective vaccines have saves countless human lives. Please stop lying about and misrepresenting others. The not-a-real-vaccine vaccine is not even a real vaccine. AND IT IS DANGEROUS. Here you go and this is THE LAST TIME I WILL PRESENT THE EVIDENCE TO YOU. I will not play your "where's the proof" games with you. England: Deaths by vaccination status, England https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland and the graph: https://twitter.com/TheRustler83/status/1627628881053118470 France: Effectiveness of second booster compared to first booster and protection conferred by previous SARS CoV-2 infection against symptomatic Omicron BA.2 and BA.4/5 in France https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.11.23284137v1 FROM A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST FROM THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT: Request Number HNZ00007453 https://hatchardreport.com/pdf-files/official-information-request-hnz00007453.pdf and the graph https://twitter.com/stkirsch/status/1627877662990667776?s=20 |
| T <T@invalid.invalid>: Apr 03 03:12PM -0700 On 4/3/23 15:02, SteveW wrote: > Between them they show that the likelihood of a beneficial effect is > greater than the likelihood of no effect, but the studies are not well > enough designed and run to be sure. Read further. They could not justify it. |
| T <T@invalid.invalid>: Apr 03 03:24PM -0700 On 4/3/23 15:02, SteveW wrote: > to support the wearing of masks or respirators during illness to protect > others, and public health emphasis on mask wearing during illness may > help to reduce influenza virus transmission." That paragraph is "opinion" not the results of their study. You are mistaking what a "political officer" states are fact ad actual proof and then asking everyone every to disprove you. That is not how science works. > leading to an exaggerated sense of security" and "We are uncertain > whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of > respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed." Again, you are stating that the moon is made of swiss cheese because it is politially correct and then telling everyone they have to disprove you. The burden is on you to prove your point, not the rest of us. > that there is some evidence that it does and the second says that there > are many reasons why an effect may not have been seen and they are > uncertain of the results. You only read what you wanted to see. And the rapid response you gave means you could not have possible read the entire studies. You tossed anything out that did not fit your politically correct axioms. > Between them they show that the likelihood of a beneficial effect is > greater than the likelihood of no effect, but the studies are not well > enough designed and run to be sure. They disproved the effect. Again, your Axioms are not science. As stated OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER in the Cambridge study **** NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE **** By the way, you need to look up "Lysenkoism", which is the science your presenting. |
| jmcquown <j_mcquown@comcast.net>: Apr 03 06:43PM -0400 On 4/3/2023 10:09 AM, Michael Trew wrote: >> recipe. I'm the one who decided to add the lemon zest and the feta >> cheese. I can't imagine this dish without it! > That sounds interesting. I don't think that I've ever cooked lamb before. Lamb is expensive. (Yes, like all the other old farts I remember when lamb was relatively cheap.) You could probably achieve very similar results using ground beef. Season it with S&P and cook it in a skillet with about 1 Tbs. of minced garlic until the meat is almost cooked through. Drain the excess fat. Stir in about 8 oz. of cut-leaf spinach (I thaw and drain frozen bagged leaf spinach) and also about a teaspoon of grated freshly grated lemon zest. Cover and let it cook for a bit, then stir in 8 oz. of crumbled feta cheese. Cover and let it cook a few minutes more. Stir and serve. That's all there is to it. > Nothing exciting last night, just left-over "jambalaya". The rest is > going to the freezer in re-used cottage cheese containers. > Tonight is TBD. Tonight (4/3) I'll probably just have a couple of slices of PB toast. Jill |
| Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca>: Apr 03 05:54PM -0400 On 2023-04-03 6:43 p.m., jmcquown wrote: >> before. > Lamb is expensive. (Yes, like all the other old farts I remember when > lamb was relatively cheap.) I am an old fart who doesn't remember when lamb was cheap. Around here it was usually relatively expensive. Shoulder chops weren't bad but they are one of the least desirable cuts. I eventually decided that loin chops were so much better that they were worth the extra money. Boneless legs, while not the best legs, are quite affordable these days. > of grated freshly grated lemon zest. Cover and let it cook for a bit, > then stir in 8 oz. of crumbled feta cheese. Cover and let it cook a few > minutes more. Stir and serve. That's all there is to it. We have been using ground land to make shepherds pie. I find that a good way to use ground lamb when we don't have ground beef to make shepherds pie ;-) |
| jmcquown <j_mcquown@comcast.net>: Apr 03 07:14PM -0400 On 4/3/2023 5:54 PM, Dave Smith wrote: > they are one of the least desirable cuts. I eventually decided that loin > chops were so much better that they were worth the extra money. Boneless > legs, while not the best legs, are quite affordable these days. I've never cooked a leg of lamb. I should look for some lamb shanks to braise. I did buy a cryo-vac'd *frozen* rack of lamb at the meat market which went right into the freezer when I got home. Even though I don't celebrate Easter I may cook it next weekend. Unfortunately, shortly after I bought the rack of lamb the meat market had a freezer malfunction and they lost a whole lot of frozen "specialty" foods. They are not open on Sunday or Monday so when the employees went to on Tuesday morning... uh oh. No telling when the freezer cases went kaput. They had to throw out a ton of food. It was just over a year ago they were closed for a few days for renovations and had all new freezer cases as well as regular fresh meat cases installed. They filed an insurance claim but what a sad thing to have to throw away all that frozen food! :( > We have been using ground land to make shepherds pie. I find that a > good way to use ground lamb when we don't have ground beef to make > shepherds pie ;-) Michael might like shepherd's pie or cottage pie made with ground beef. ;) We all know he buys a lot of potatoes so the mashed potato topping would fit the bill nicely. Jill |
| Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>: Apr 04 08:19AM +1000 On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 17:54:46 -0400, Dave Smith >> Lamb is expensive. (Yes, like all the other old farts I remember when >> lamb was relatively cheap.) >I am an old fart True but cheer up, Dave. |
| Thomas Joseph <jazeev1234@gmail.com>: Apr 03 03:16PM -0700 Leonard Blaisdell wrote: > Everyone will see the caption as TJ Rulez. The .jpg goes away > I have never logged into postimage and I use it frequently > I hope this helps It helps in terms of me now knowing how to work it but I still can't access it from this computer. I get a message (not from all groups, oddly enough), that says, "Connection Not Secure", followed by some kind of suggestion that if I want to take a chance I can by clicking "OK" - but when I do it asks me to sign in with my ID and I am afraid that if I do so I won't be able to get back to my old ID. It scares me. So I'm not all that concerned not being able to access links and so forth from this machine - I can live with it - and just want people to know when I don't respond to something to which they provide a link it is for the above reason. I'm rolling with it. No stress needed. Nothing new. No changes. Status quo. As things die I die along with them. Here we go! Thanks though, you explained it nicely and I actually gave it a shot. I'll bet I can find another way. I'm not a techie but I can figure out lots of stuff on some of these machines, how to get around, etc., nothing about the actual machine itself. |
| Thomas Joseph <jazeev1234@gmail.com>: Apr 03 02:54PM -0700 Mike Duffy wrote: Thomas Joseph wrote: > Here is a riddle for you: In what university-level physics > course were we encouraged to guess test / exam answers? > Hint: Was my highest mark of any university course. I can't get beyond physics into specific types. I quit school when I was 15 - and boy am I glad. I have taken a few IQ tests though - along with others - and I seem to remember all of them saying to not waste time on a single question and to move on to the next one for best results. I thought it was common for all tests to encourage not wasting time. Anyway, I can't guess because seriously I don't know the various branches of physics. Oh now I think I know what you're saying. Are you saying you were encouraged to guess the answers to all questions right from the start? That is interesting. How about multiple choice? For example, I'm watching a quiz show and I come up with the only answer I know. I only know one because I am not up on the topic. But then they give multiple answers and suddenly I am filled with doubt. "Uh, this one looks good", now starting to distrust my original guess. I suppose there are some good tests, but as a rule there seems to be an awful lot of idiots passing just enough tests to get through the university doors after which time they learn nothing. Sorry, I don't know what you mean exactly. And I admit it. That's what makes me great. |
| Thomas Joseph <jazeev1234@gmail.com>: Apr 03 03:01PM -0700 Dave Smith wrote: > office and do solve the problem there and if the person could not to it > they would be kicked out of the class. He then said that since it was a > probability and statistics course, the person would be chosen at random. Interesting. I never verified this, I only heard it from a friend - that Henry Ford would take prospective employees out to eat and if they put salt on their food without tasting it first he would not hire them. Not a very flexible test but an interesting test non the less. Of course in time someone's going to find out, especially if Henry tells them why he's not hiring them. So word gets around and nobody ever salts their food when Henry invites them to eat. I guess in the end all tests can be beat - if they exist long enough. I believe in tests to some degree - we all test things from time to time. But the written ones seem to be the most meaningless. Hey man, don't test me! |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.food.cooking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment