LaxPower Back-Up Stick

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:01 am Interesting stats from the "UK nurse trainer " ... post FOIA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:01 am Interesting stats from the "UK nurse trainer " ... post FOIA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:01 am Interesting stats from the "UK nurse trainer " ... post FOIA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw

So we have to believe that all those people with co-morbidities would have just died anyhow? They had a co-morbidity that the virus just pushed them over the edge. Happens with viral infections right(it does)......... So we would expect similar excess deaths every year when cold and flu season hits would we not? Or...perhaps it is because of this particular virus that these people died. IT is a BS postulation imo. An extra 150K(ball park here) just do not die every year due to viral infections....if so there would be no real excess deaths right now would there.

BTW...using this logic, most cancer deaths would not be from cancer. The original tumor for which a person diagnosed rarely is the cause of death. Usually it is secondary metastasis that get people. It is a result of the co-morbidity of the first tumor.

Is it your position that all these increased deaths have nothing to do with the virus? That it is all blown it of proportion?

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:01 am Interesting stats from the "UK nurse trainer " ... post FOIA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw

So we have to believe that all those people with co-morbidities would have just died anyhow? They had a co-morbidity that the virus just pushed them over the edge. Happens with viral infections right(it does)......... So we would expect similar excess deaths every year when cold and flu season hits would we not? Or...perhaps it is because of this particular virus that these people died. IT is a BS postulation imo. An extra 150K(ball park here) just do not die every year due to viral infections....if so there would be no real excess deaths right now would there.

BTW...using this logic, most cancer deaths would not be from cancer. The original tumor for which a person diagnosed rarely is the cause of death. Usually it is secondary metastasis that get people. It is a result of the co-morbidity of the first tumor.

Is it your position that all these increased deaths have nothing to do with the virus? That it is all blown it of proportion?

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 7:40 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 4:06 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:26 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:06 pm Stumbled on this: Great Barrington Declaration

Careful youth... this will have the censorship crowd on edge

If it was censored-----how'd ya find it?

Tech, you don't seem to understand how leading an organization works.

Picture a platoon taking a hill. Ya got one leader, making the call as to how to do it. Will he seek input from others? Sure.

But what you're suggesting is that this platoon leader (Fauci) take advice from ANYONE and EVERYONE. Heck, you're citing a doctor in the UK, and implying that if Fauci doesn't follow that Nurse Educator, it's somehow a conspiracy, and Fauci is the devil. Someone has to lead the CDC....and there's NO WAY that someone will make everyone happy....why do you not understand that?

Someone has to call the play, tech. It's not a conspiracy. And yep, that play call might be wrong...you seem to think that Fauci and the rest of us who think there's no right move in a pandemic don't understand that. But let's say you get your wish, and "someone else" replaces Fauci......how the F do you know anyone else would have done a better job than Fauci? You don't. There are no guarantees here.

And, as I keep telling you, Fauci is doing nothing but making suggestions. That's it. Governors make the ACTUAL call. And all 50 of them have made their own choices, and NONE of them are doing the same, exact thing. Heck, you cited my own Governor......Polis is done with the shut downs etc. Just like you want.

Trump got one thing really, really correct, iMHO. He left Covid up to the States. I have NO CLUE why so many Americans missed that memo, and therefore blame Fauci for things he's not AT ALL responsible for......

"If it was censored-----how'd ya find it? "

Damn. You sure got me with that one a fan.

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 7:40 am All kidding aside... I'm at a loss for words, other than to say, best case you come off as an apologist, and worst case, a "useful idiot."

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:46 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:01 am Interesting stats from the "UK nurse trainer " ... post FOIA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw

So we have to believe that all those people with co-morbidities would have just died anyhow? They had a co-morbidity that the virus just pushed them over the edge. Happens with viral infections right(it does)......... So we would expect similar excess deaths every year when cold and flu season hits would we not? Or...perhaps it is because of this particular virus that these people died. IT is a BS postulation imo. An extra 150K(ball park here) just do not die every year due to viral infections....if so there would be no real excess deaths right now would there.

BTW...using this logic, most cancer deaths would not be from cancer. The original tumor for which a person diagnosed rarely is the cause of death. Usually it is secondary metastasis that get people. It is a result of the co-morbidity of the first tumor.

Is it your position that all these increased deaths have nothing to do with the virus? That it is all blown it of proportion?

Thanks Bart, appreciate your knowledge and opinion in this area. I posted this because to my untrained scientific mind it looks "interesting," as I stated. To my untrained scientific mind, what you're saying seems logical as well. Debate is good...cancellation/censorship isn't. I'm sure you agree.

It would be great to hear from others with your background and/or understanding, in the interest of open discourse.

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:50 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:46 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:01 am Interesting stats from the "UK nurse trainer " ... post FOIA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw

So we have to believe that all those people with co-morbidities would have just died anyhow? They had a co-morbidity that the virus just pushed them over the edge. Happens with viral infections right(it does)......... So we would expect similar excess deaths every year when cold and flu season hits would we not? Or...perhaps it is because of this particular virus that these people died. IT is a BS postulation imo. An extra 150K(ball park here) just do not die every year due to viral infections....if so there would be no real excess deaths right now would there.

BTW...using this logic, most cancer deaths would not be from cancer. The original tumor for which a person diagnosed rarely is the cause of death. Usually it is secondary metastasis that get people. It is a result of the co-morbidity of the first tumor.

Is it your position that all these increased deaths have nothing to do with the virus? That it is all blown it of proportion?

Thanks Bart, appreciate your knowledge and opinion in this area. I posted this because to my untrained scientific mind it looks "interesting," as I stated. To my untrained scientific mind, what you're saying seems logical as well. Debate is good...cancellation/censorship isn't. I'm sure you agree.

It would be great to hear from others with your background and/or understanding, in the interest of open discourse.

You don't want open discourse, tech. You NEVER have. If you did, you wouldn't run away and hide every time someone asked a question you didn't want to answer, because it levels your position. It's why you call me a "lawyer wanna be". As if using logic to find the best idea is somehow a bad thing.

You didn't answer Bart's question, bolded above. You want discourse? Great. Answer his question, and we'll discuss your answer.

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:46 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:01 am Interesting stats from the "UK nurse trainer " ... post FOIA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw

So we have to believe that all those people with co-morbidities would have just died anyhow? They had a co-morbidity that the virus just pushed them over the edge. Happens with viral infections right(it does)......... So we would expect similar excess deaths every year when cold and flu season hits would we not? Or...perhaps it is because of this particular virus that these people died. IT is a BS postulation imo. An extra 150K(ball park here) just do not die every year due to viral infections....if so there would be no real excess deaths right now would there.

BTW...using this logic, most cancer deaths would not be from cancer. The original tumor for which a person diagnosed rarely is the cause of death. Usually it is secondary metastasis that get people. It is a result of the co-morbidity of the first tumor.

Is it your position that all these increased deaths have nothing to do with the virus? That it is all blown it of proportion?

Thanks Bart, appreciate your knowledge and opinion in this area. I posted this because to my untrained scientific mind it looks "interesting," as I stated. To my untrained scientific mind, what you're saying seems logical as well. Debate is good...cancellation/censorship isn't. I'm sure you agree.

It would be great to hear from others with your background and/or understanding, in the interest of open discourse. Unfortunately we'll probably only get the usual condescension/ridicule from the usual characters on this board.

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:46 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:01 am Interesting stats from the "UK nurse trainer " ... post FOIA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw

So we have to believe that all those people with co-morbidities would have just died anyhow? They had a co-morbidity that the virus just pushed them over the edge. Happens with viral infections right(it does)......... So we would expect similar excess deaths every year when cold and flu season hits would we not? Or...perhaps it is because of this particular virus that these people died. IT is a BS postulation imo. An extra 150K(ball park here) just do not die every year due to viral infections....if so there would be no real excess deaths right now would there.

BTW...using this logic, most cancer deaths would not be from cancer. The original tumor for which a person diagnosed rarely is the cause of death. Usually it is secondary metastasis that get people. It is a result of the co-morbidity of the first tumor.

Is it your position that all these increased deaths have nothing to do with the virus? That it is all blown it of proportion?

Thanks Bart, appreciate your knowledge and opinion in this area. I posted this because to my untrained scientific mind it looks "interesting," as I stated. To my untrained scientific mind, what you're saying seems logical as well. Debate is good...cancellation/censorship isn't. I'm sure you agree.

It would be great to hear from others with your background and/or understanding, in the interest of open discourse. Unfortunately we'll probably only get the usual condescension/ridicule from the usual characters on this board.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:52 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:50 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:46 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:01 am Interesting stats from the "UK nurse trainer " ... post FOIA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw

So we have to believe that all those people with co-morbidities would have just died anyhow? They had a co-morbidity that the virus just pushed them over the edge. Happens with viral infections right(it does)......... So we would expect similar excess deaths every year when cold and flu season hits would we not? Or...perhaps it is because of this particular virus that these people died. IT is a BS postulation imo. An extra 150K(ball park here) just do not die every year due to viral infections....if so there would be no real excess deaths right now would there.

BTW...using this logic, most cancer deaths would not be from cancer. The original tumor for which a person diagnosed rarely is the cause of death. Usually it is secondary metastasis that get people. It is a result of the co-morbidity of the first tumor.

Is it your position that all these increased deaths have nothing to do with the virus? That it is all blown it of proportion?

Thanks Bart, appreciate your knowledge and opinion in this area. I posted this because to my untrained scientific mind it looks "interesting," as I stated. To my untrained scientific mind, what you're saying seems logical as well. Debate is good...cancellation/censorship isn't. I'm sure you agree.

It would be great to hear from others with your background and/or understanding, in the interest of open discourse.

You don't want open discourse, tech. You NEVER have. If you did, you wouldn't run away and hide every time someone asked a question you didn't want to answer, because it levels your position. It's why you call me a "lawyer wanna be". As if using logic to find the best idea is somehow a bad thing.

You didn't answer Bart's question, bolded above. You want discourse? Great. Answer his question, and we'll discuss your answer.

He just lost interest…

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:47 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 7:40 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 4:06 pm

tech37 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:26 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:06 pm Stumbled on this: Great Barrington Declaration

Careful youth... this will have the censorship crowd on edge

If it was censored-----how'd ya find it?

Tech, you don't seem to understand how leading an organization works.

Picture a platoon taking a hill. Ya got one leader, making the call as to how to do it. Will he seek input from others? Sure.

But what you're suggesting is that this platoon leader (Fauci) take advice from ANYONE and EVERYONE. Heck, you're citing a doctor in the UK, and implying that if Fauci doesn't follow that Nurse Educator, it's somehow a conspiracy, and Fauci is the devil. Someone has to lead the CDC....and there's NO WAY that someone will make everyone happy....why do you not understand that?

Someone has to call the play, tech. It's not a conspiracy. And yep, that play call might be wrong...you seem to think that Fauci and the rest of us who think there's no right move in a pandemic don't understand that. But let's say you get your wish, and "someone else" replaces Fauci......how the F do you know anyone else would have done a better job than Fauci? You don't. There are no guarantees here.

And, as I keep telling you, Fauci is doing nothing but making suggestions. That's it. Governors make the ACTUAL call. And all 50 of them have made their own choices, and NONE of them are doing the same, exact thing. Heck, you cited my own Governor......Polis is done with the shut downs etc. Just like you want.

Trump got one thing really, really correct, iMHO. He left Covid up to the States. I have NO CLUE why so many Americans missed that memo, and therefore blame Fauci for things he's not AT ALL responsible for......

"If it was censored-----how'd ya find it? "

Damn. You sure got me with that one a fan.

Well....I did. Try finding that info. while traveling in China. THAT is censorship.
Ha, well no you didn't. The point was, the "censorship crowd would be on edge" because they missed that one. It was tongue-in-cheek dude.

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 7:40 am All kidding aside... I'm at a loss for words, other than to say, best case you come off as an apologist, and worst case, a "useful idiot."

I'm not an apologist. I'm telling you that no matter who ran the CDC, you'd be on here complaining that "they're doing it wrong".

They could have shipped Fauci off to some other post MONTHS ago. I wouldn't have cared a whit. I told you...the ONLY person that affects my day to day life is Jared Polis, and Denver's Mayor. I haven't heard a Fauci speech in months.

The Governors are making all the calls. Your silly conspiracy ends with them. Not a single Governor has followed Fauci's advice, to the letter.
Your usual strawman arguments. Who said the governors weren't making the calls? Not me. I even cited/referred to your state governor on more than one occasion that I agreed with his current position and that you would do well to listen to him.

But hey, why waste some perfectly good tin foil, right? This is America! It MUST be a conspiracy!!

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 11:16 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:52 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:50 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:46 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:01 am Interesting stats from the "UK nurse trainer " ... post FOIA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw

So we have to believe that all those people with co-morbidities would have just died anyhow? They had a co-morbidity that the virus just pushed them over the edge. Happens with viral infections right(it does)......... So we would expect similar excess deaths every year when cold and flu season hits would we not? Or...perhaps it is because of this particular virus that these people died. IT is a BS postulation imo. An extra 150K(ball park here) just do not die every year due to viral infections....if so there would be no real excess deaths right now would there.

BTW...using this logic, most cancer deaths would not be from cancer. The original tumor for which a person diagnosed rarely is the cause of death. Usually it is secondary metastasis that get people. It is a result of the co-morbidity of the first tumor.

Is it your position that all these increased deaths have nothing to do with the virus? That it is all blown it of proportion?

Thanks Bart, appreciate your knowledge and opinion in this area. I posted this because to my untrained scientific mind it looks "interesting," as I stated. To my untrained scientific mind, what you're saying seems logical as well. Debate is good...cancellation/censorship isn't. I'm sure you agree.

It would be great to hear from others with your background and/or understanding, in the interest of open discourse.

You don't want open discourse, tech. You NEVER have. If you did, you wouldn't run away and hide every time someone asked a question you didn't want to answer, because it levels your position. It's why you call me a "lawyer wanna be". As if using logic to find the best idea is somehow a bad thing.

You didn't answer Bart's question, bolded above. You want discourse? Great. Answer his question, and we'll discuss your answer.

He just lost interest…

After one single solitary question from Bart? Yeah, Ok. Wow, what discourse.

It's perfectly fine to lose interest in a conversation, or a poster....in this case, your's truly.

But to claim that he wants discourse, yet runs to the exit every time someone asks a question of tech, asking to clarify a position?

That's not discourse. And that's not someone who's here to share viewpoints. And again: that's fine. But don't claim a desire for viewpoints...when the reality is, the desire is for the SAME viewpoints. Others need not apply.

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 11:16 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:52 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:50 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:46 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:01 am Interesting stats from the "UK nurse trainer " ... post FOIA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw

So we have to believe that all those people with co-morbidities would have just died anyhow? They had a co-morbidity that the virus just pushed them over the edge. Happens with viral infections right(it does)......... So we would expect similar excess deaths every year when cold and flu season hits would we not? Or...perhaps it is because of this particular virus that these people died. IT is a BS postulation imo. An extra 150K(ball park here) just do not die every year due to viral infections....if so there would be no real excess deaths right now would there.

BTW...using this logic, most cancer deaths would not be from cancer. The original tumor for which a person diagnosed rarely is the cause of death. Usually it is secondary metastasis that get people. It is a result of the co-morbidity of the first tumor.

Is it your position that all these increased deaths have nothing to do with the virus? That it is all blown it of proportion?

Thanks Bart, appreciate your knowledge and opinion in this area. I posted this because to my untrained scientific mind it looks "interesting," as I stated. To my untrained scientific mind, what you're saying seems logical as well. Debate is good...cancellation/censorship isn't. I'm sure you agree.

It would be great to hear from others with your background and/or understanding, in the interest of open discourse.

You don't want open discourse, tech. You NEVER have. If you did, you wouldn't run away and hide every time someone asked a question you didn't want to answer, because it levels your position. It's why you call me a "lawyer wanna be". As if using logic to find the best idea is somehow a bad thing.

You didn't answer Bart's question, bolded above. You want discourse? Great. Answer his question, and we'll discuss your answer.

He just lost interest…

After one single solitary question from Bart? Yeah, Ok. Wow, what discourse.

It's perfectly fine to lose interest in a conversation, or a poster....in this case, your's truly.

But to claim that he wants discourse, yet runs to the exit every time someone asks a question of tech, asking to clarify a position?

That's not discourse. And that's not someone who's here to share viewpoints. And again: that's fine. But don't claim a desire for viewpoints...when the reality is, the desire is for the SAME viewpoints. Others need not apply.

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:46 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:01 am Interesting stats from the "UK nurse trainer " ... post FOIA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw

So we have to believe that all those people with co-morbidities would have just died anyhow? They had a co-morbidity that the virus just pushed them over the edge. Happens with viral infections right(it does)......... So we would expect similar excess deaths every year when cold and flu season hits would we not? Or...perhaps it is because of this particular virus that these people died. IT is a BS postulation imo. An extra 150K(ball park here) just do not die every year due to viral infections....if so there would be no real excess deaths right now would there.

BTW...using this logic, most cancer deaths would not be from cancer. The original tumor for which a person diagnosed rarely is the cause of death. Usually it is secondary metastasis that get people. It is a result of the co-morbidity of the first tumor.

Is it your position that all these increased deaths have nothing to do with the virus? That it is all blown it of proportion?

Thanks Bart, appreciate your knowledge and opinion in this area. I posted this because to my untrained scientific mind it looks "interesting," as I stated. To my untrained scientific mind, what you're saying seems logical as well. Debate is good...cancellation/censorship isn't. I'm sure you agree.

It would be great to hear from others with your background and/or understanding, in the interest of open discourse. Unfortunately we'll probably only get the usual condescension/ridicule from the usual characters on this board.

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 11:32 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:46 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:01 am Interesting stats from the "UK nurse trainer " ... post FOIA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw

So we have to believe that all those people with co-morbidities would have just died anyhow? They had a co-morbidity that the virus just pushed them over the edge. Happens with viral infections right(it does)......... So we would expect similar excess deaths every year when cold and flu season hits would we not? Or...perhaps it is because of this particular virus that these people died. IT is a BS postulation imo. An extra 150K(ball park here) just do not die every year due to viral infections....if so there would be no real excess deaths right now would there.

BTW...using this logic, most cancer deaths would not be from cancer. The original tumor for which a person diagnosed rarely is the cause of death. Usually it is secondary metastasis that get people. It is a result of the co-morbidity of the first tumor.

Is it your position that all these increased deaths have nothing to do with the virus? That it is all blown it of proportion?

Thanks Bart, appreciate your knowledge and opinion in this area. I posted this because to my untrained scientific mind it looks "interesting," as I stated. To my untrained scientific mind, what you're saying seems logical as well. Debate is good...cancellation/censorship isn't. I'm sure you agree.

It would be great to hear from others with your background and/or understanding, in the interest of open discourse. Unfortunately we'll probably only get the usual condescension/ridicule from the usual characters on this board.

I guess I just do not see the logic in this position. I see it as alogical. For instance if you look up the most common cause of death of type 1 or 2 diabetics it is coronary disease/heart attack and cancer. There is no place in there that says it is multiple organ failure or septic shock, which is a common cause of COVID-19 death. If a viral infection leads to increased death with a group with a co-morbidity that is still a result of a viral infection that, until recently, was non existent.

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 11:21 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 11:16 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:52 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:50 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:46 am

Bart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:12 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:01 am Interesting stats from the "UK nurse trainer " ... post FOIA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw

So we have to believe that all those people with co-morbidities would have just died anyhow? They had a co-morbidity that the virus just pushed them over the edge. Happens with viral infections right(it does)......... So we would expect similar excess deaths every year when cold and flu season hits would we not? Or...perhaps it is because of this particular virus that these people died. IT is a BS postulation imo. An extra 150K(ball park here) just do not die every year due to viral infections....if so there would be no real excess deaths right now would there.

BTW...using this logic, most cancer deaths would not be from cancer. The original tumor for which a person diagnosed rarely is the cause of death. Usually it is secondary metastasis that get people. It is a result of the co-morbidity of the first tumor.

Is it your position that all these increased deaths have nothing to do with the virus? That it is all blown it of proportion?

Thanks Bart, appreciate your knowledge and opinion in this area. I posted this because to my untrained scientific mind it looks "interesting," as I stated. To my untrained scientific mind, what you're saying seems logical as well. Debate is good...cancellation/censorship isn't. I'm sure you agree.

It would be great to hear from others with your background and/or understanding, in the interest of open discourse.

You don't want open discourse, tech. You NEVER have. If you did, you wouldn't run away and hide every time someone asked a question you didn't want to answer, because it levels your position. It's why you call me a "lawyer wanna be". As if using logic to find the best idea is somehow a bad thing.

You didn't answer Bart's question, bolded above. You want discourse? Great. Answer his question, and we'll discuss your answer.

He just lost interest…

After one single solitary question from Bart? Yeah, Ok. Wow, what discourse.

It's perfectly fine to lose interest in a conversation, or a poster....in this case, your's truly.

But to claim that he wants discourse, yet runs to the exit every time someone asks a question of tech, asking to clarify a position?

That's not discourse. And that's not someone who's here to share viewpoints. And again: that's fine. But don't claim a desire for viewpoints...when the reality is, the desire is for the SAME viewpoints. Others need not apply.

I made my position quite clear to Bart. I don't know enough to answer his question... but I did address it. Perhaps you need better reading comprehension.