Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Message icon:

(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rtf, mp3, webp, odt, html
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 30000KB, maximum individual size 30000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: January 03, 2022, 03:37:30 PM »

I created that other discussion thread specifically for BT.  I don't want the other discussion diluted. That is why I will likely eventually delete every non BT comment there. I will also likely delete every comment of mine that is not directly discussion with BT related.

For the viewers of THIS discussion, my discussion with BT touched upon the clot shot, Natural Law, and Natural rights. Natural Law and Natural Rights are intertwined enough to be considered one topic.

This discussion is about the clot shot.

Dale, I’m all for freedom, I do wish everyone that can, would get vaxxed for public safety.

⍺ Tell you what... Since we just had a PM discussion, I'll leave it up for awhile. Ω

Dale, thank you! You can counter what I said, by the way I’m not a mandate guy.

And again, I appreciate that.

This video is 36 minutes long. It was uploaded in April 2021. I've probably watched it no later than May 2021. I am mostly interested in having you view from time 23:00 to 26:04.

Those three minutes present the juxtaposition of two opposing considerations of the credentialed experts on our subject matter.

I hope your curiosity will lead you to watch the entire 26 minutes.

My "minor" issue with you is my rejection of the sources of the information on the waxxine (sic) I assume you used to get the information you know.

(Sic - Changed because of Zuckerberg's gaslighting and censorship.)

I have personal first hand information that the main stream media lies. The purpose of the lies is readily identifiable when one figures out which of their claims are lies. In my opinion, censorship is a form of lying when the censorship is of the nature Larken discussed. My claim of main stream lying is actually a tangential topic to the issue at hand.

Some one once wrote, If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. Expand that concept to the present "information age" and validating a claim for truth gets a little tougher. Words on printed pages don't change from one time you open the book to the next time you open the book.

⍺ ⍺ ⍺
Waxxine: n. virus of cowpox, used in waxxination; any substance used for inoculation against any disease.
Inoculate: t-verb: to introduce into the body pathogenic bacteria or living virus to secure immunity
Webster's Dictionary © 1958 by the Literary Press

⍺ ⍺ ⍺
Waxxine: n. 1.the virus of cowpox, used in waxxination;, obtained from the vesicles of a cow or person having the disease any substance used for inoculation against any disease.
2. the modified virus of any of other diseases used for preventative inoculation 3.
Inoculate: v.To implant (a disease) in a person or animal by the introduction of germs or virus, as through a puncture, in order to produce a mild form of the disease and therefore secure immunity.
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language © 1989 by the dilithium Press, Ltd.

⍺ ⍺ ⍺
A waxxine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease. A waxxine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins. Wikipedia
Downloaded today, 3 Jan 2022.


Those "surface proteins" are problematic, as is this modern definition that can be changed by anybody.

I have personal first hand knowledge of the censorship of WickedPedia (sic) in regard to the U.S. Federal Income tax. Again, another tangentially connected topic. IMO, WickedPedia (sic) is okay for any non-contentious issues.