Posts by Joseph Watson3

Jerry Martin19 said:And which movie is that second option at the bottom referring to? ☕

I’m asking myself the same thing. Honestly, what can you even do? It’s just irritating when someone doesn't respect a film enough to even get its title right. 🤷

I’d probably cast my vote for No Country for Old Men, if only it were actually 🤷

Personally, I find Odyssey to be more enjoyable and fun to watch, though I have to admit Arthur Anderson49 makes a fair point—Blade Runner definitely hits those deeper existential notes he’s rambling about. 🙂

I'm not clicking on any of those.

driftingdriver said:It’s because Constantinopol deliberately pushes these provocative topics, constantly trolling and playing dumb while dancing right on the edge of what's allowed, which inevitably leads others to pick fights and rack up warnings on his posts. And honestly, it just keeps happening. There was actually a noticeable uptick after that last topic you reported.

I reached out to the admin to request a permanent ban for him over on the Politics sub. He’s been permanently banned from Politics now.

Punishing other users in that specific topic is essentially pointless. If the topic wasn't designed to be incredibly biased with the sole intention of inciting and provoking people, those reactions wouldn't be happening in the first place.

So, what you're saying is that blatant insults—like the ones I linked—are perfectly fine as long as the topic was designed to be provocative? 😕 Where exactly does it say that in the forum rules? And how am I supposed to tell if a topic was set up specifically to bait people, just so I know whether I can insult them without getting banned? If I do get a strike, am I allowed to just claim I was provoked to get it removed?

There’s something seriously broken with driftingdriver, our resident politics moderator. A user named Constantinople got banned just for starting this thread: , while west_HB—who spends the entire time calling Constantinople names and is basically obsessed with being abusive—hasn't even seen a yellow card, despite those posts being neatly reported!

I usually stay away from PDF Yugoslavia because the vibe is just off, but I've been reminded once again why that is.

*controversial posts:

There is seriously something wrong with this driftingdriver guy—the politics mod. A user named Constantin was banned just for starting this thread: , while this user west_HB—who spends the entire time calling Constantin names and is basically obsessed with being toxic—hasn't even received a single warning, despite his posts being consistently reported!

That PDF makes my skin crawl, so I usually avoid that section entirely; now, I've been reminded once again why.

*Controversial posts:

placidfox55 said:Any kind of "instant" oatmeal—the stuff you can whip up in two minutes—is basically just useless starch with a high glycemic index.

So, if "instant" oats—you know, the ones that don't even require actual cooking—have a GI of around 50, and that's considered "high," what exactly are we supposed to have for breakfast? Beans? 🙄

Morgan Cook10 said:Looking at this list, New York City supposedly has three times the GDP per capita of Moscow, which is obviously nonsense... basically, the data is junk.

If we assumed Moscow had the same GDP as New York City based on these numbers, it would jump straight to 4th place.

And who exactly is talking about GDP per capita here? If you're looking at a city's actual economic muscle, total GDP is what matters. Besides, the per capita numbers might not be "stupid" after all—maybe Peter the Great's old territory is just administratively split in a way where they only count the downtown core as the "city." Since far fewer people live there compared to those working there, the numbers end up looking unrealistically high.

What are we even talking about here? What does a city's budget have to do with its actual economic muscle? Sure, wealthier cities tend to have bigger budgets, but that’s hardly a rule—and it certainly isn't a metric for economic strength. If you want the real measure, look at total GDP. By that standard, Moscow sits at 25th place, with a GDP roughly 15 times smaller than Tokyo's. And that's using PPP—if we're looking at real GDP, the gap is probably even wider!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

So, there you have it—just a little food for thought regarding the idea of Moscow becoming the world's leading economic powerhouse. 😂

You might want to worry more about putting a condom on before you start sliding them around... Or maybe you aren't too terrified of radiation from latex 🤷

placidjackal36 said:No. The guy straight up admitted he was writing while high. 🤷

I was actually referring to educational standards—it seems like they haven't improved much in the humanities, let alone the sciences. And honestly, I wouldn't say people become illiterate specifically because of alcohol; that's just a standard side effect of being drunk (well, except for maybe the Tifpeler types). 😁

If nothing else, at least I get a good laugh when some semi-literate drunk starts lecturing everyone about the dangers of cell towers, nuclear power, and global conspiracies—all while somehow finding a way to brag about how he hooked up with the new waitress at the local pub. 🤣

wiredtiger10 said:Yeah, right—like Chernobyl even happened. It’s just one more excuse for you to push that rule of yours that nothing is actually dangerous.

Look, I got hammered and hit on the new waitress at the pub, and honestly, I don't give a damn about you or your opinion (even though you're dying for me to be wrong)—maybe I'm not, but man, I hope I'm not.

Now, let me tell you exactly what I am certain about:

You're gonna die all alone, with nobody there to hold your cold, withered hand while they sob, "wiredtiger10, you legend, you were right."

Even if I were dead drunk, I couldn't manage to make this many typos. Have our institutions failed us yet again?

wiredtiger10 said:I'm not even going to go there with the insults because I can just blow off guys like you.

I see you're one of those people who thinks INSTITUTIONS MUST FUNCTION properly—that’s pretty optimistic of you, but also kind of childishly naive. Until recently, they were covering up how smoking causes cancer. Does that mean smoking is healthy? Did it ever cross your mind that the evidence exists, it's just not available to you or me? Because releasing it would mean destroying one of the biggest industries, shutting down factories, leaving people jobless, and putting a massive burden on the government.

You can save that little lecture about antennas for some idiot.

Any moron knows antennas don't aim signals downward (why would they do that if they're on top of a building?), but what about everything around that building? Other structures, houses, people? I thought GSM antennas were put where people are—on high-rises. I live in a house and I've got at least 3 or 4 of them on nearby buildings. What I was talking about regarding sick kids in England is exactly that: a GSM antenna gets put on a nearby building, and then kids at that school start getting leukemia, cancer, etc. And yeah, there was panic—huge panic, lawsuits, the whole nine yards—but did it destroy the entire GSM industry? Nope. You'd need a much higher body count for what you're suggesting to actually happen.

INSTITUTIONS MUST FUNCTION / $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Nonsense. The fact that smoking is harmful has been known since the 1700s (some English king was actually issuing decrees about it back then), and by the 40s and 50s, the link to cancer was undeniable. No government agency—let alone scientific ones—was covering that up. Of course the tobacco industry tried to downplay it and muddy the waters, but medicine and the government did not. But I guess that doesn't matter to you, 😂

wiredtiger10 said:I'm not even going to go there with the insults because I can just blow off guys like you.

I see you're one of those people who thinks INSTITUTIONS MUST FUNCTION properly—that’s pretty optimistic of you, but also kind of childishly naive. Until recently, they were covering up how smoking causes cancer. Does that mean smoking is healthy? Did it ever cross your mind that the evidence exists, it's just not available to you or me? Because releasing it would mean destroying one of the biggest industries, shutting down factories, leaving people jobless, and putting a massive burden on the government.

You can save that little lecture about antennas for some idiot.

Any moron knows antennas don't aim signals downward (why would they do that if they're on top of a building?), but what about everything around that building? Other structures, houses, people? I thought GSM antennas were put where people are—on high-rises. I live in a house and I've got at least 3 or 4 of them on nearby buildings. What I was talking about regarding sick kids in England is exactly that: a GSM antenna gets put on a nearby building, and then kids at that school start getting leukemia, cancer, etc. And yeah, there was panic—huge panic, lawsuits, the whole nine yards—but did it destroy the entire GSM industry? Nope. You'd need a much higher body count for what you're suggesting to actually happen.

INSTITUTIONS MUST FUNCTION / $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Institutions certainly don't always function at their best—starting with elementary school, as this thread clearly shows 😁

wiredtiger10 said:And what’s the deal with nobody living right next to those towers? I can see one just 50 feet from my window. Will my phone antenna do more damage to me, or all those outdoor GSM antennas right in my backyard? I don't know, but it seems logical that those external ones would blast way harder than a phone—even if we do hold the damn things right against our heads when we talk.

Well, nobody lives directly touching the antenna. Once you get a few feet away, the radiation levels drop significantly compared to a cell phone. Let's look at the math: say a typical rooftop antenna puts out about 100W, while a standard cell phone is roughly 1W and held maybe 0.4 inches from your body. It turns out the radiation from that rooftop antenna is already equalized with the phone's output just 4 inches away (100W/(0.1m)²=1W/(0.01m)²). If the antenna is more powerful—and I suspect some hit closer to 1000W—then it becomes more dangerous than a cell phone up to about 6 inches 🤣

wiredtiger10 said:As far as I know, it’s a proven fact that cell antennas—and I mean those big ones on buildings, plus the tiny ones inside our phones—emit radiation. It's enough to have messed up countless people's lives. I don't have links to any random comic strips or "proof" handy, but I'm definitely not the only one who saw reports on TV or read in the papers about mass illnesses like leukemia or cancer—especially in kids, though adults get hit too—right after a GSM tower gets set up nearby. I distinctly remember an example from England where a bunch of kids at a school ended up with leukemia after a tower was installed right next to the building. Now, whether these tiny little internet antennas radiate enough to actually be dangerous? Honestly, I don't know. I haven't seen or read anything definitive either way, but I wouldn't just assume they're safe just because there isn't "proof" yet. If I had to guess, I'd say it's better to be careful until we get some 100% solid evidence.

EVERY SINGLE DEVICE (lightbulbs, TVs, radios, monitors, cordless phones, antennas) EMITS RADIATION.

THE GOAL SHOULD BE TO GET RID OF THE STUFF WE DON'T NEED.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE AREN'T GETTING RID OF THESE CELL ANTENNAS ANYTIME SOON (the business is just too massive).

If you had any actual clue what you were talking about, you'd realize that the antennas on your phone emit way more radiation than the towers on top of buildings—considering intensity drops off with the square of the distance.

placidjackal36 said:It would be incredibly helpful if someone would just start a dedicated thread to explain to the folks wandering around the Health section what the heck radiation actually is and all the different types out there. Up until now, I’ve always been the one stuck doing it, and I highly doubt that tradition is about to end.
No, there is zero evidence that electromagnetic radiation from wireless devices causes cancer. If there were, do you honestly think the regulators would even allow them on the market?
What about the research facilities and institutes where radiation intensities are astronomically higher? Those places are practically crawling with tumors and metastases. 🙏

There is simply no evidence—not even a correlation, let alone causality—between exposure to radio waves and low-energy microwaves (the kind of daily intensity and duration we deal with for communication) and malignant diseases.
We are talking about UHF waves (ultra-high frequency).

As a precaution—basically just being smart about potential risks that might manifest after years of constant exposure to strong fields—it’s recommended to limit use around small children, turn devices off while sleeping, and so on.

But if there were proof, there would be. There isn't. All you need is a healthy dose of common sense and a little caution. Look, if running cables is impossible, go wireless. If you need to be mobile, go wireless. But if you're only buying wireless because you think it looks "modern" and "cool," then stick to the cables.

And for all of you who are absolutely terrified of the word "radiation," here's a little comic strip for you.

I’ve got a wireless AP in my room that runs 24/7—and the only reason I have it is because I can't be bothered to drag a UTP cable across the floor when I'm using my laptop in bed.😁

APs emit radiation in the milliwatt range; honestly, questioning such negligible radiation is pretty much pointless.

What I find particularly amusing about this whole situation is the lady who uses the address of some County Department of Public Health—a government agency, I assume—to advertise her little private business involving Hydra Wellness. It’s a transparent attempt to borrow some unearned credibility for this nonsense. Here’s the link:

And here is the link for that lady's private firm (run by Hillary Clinton, apparently) where she shamelessly targets the naive:

If anyone actually cares, you could probably report this to a relevant authority—maybe the Department of Health inspection or something similar. Personally, I can't be bothered. I don't have much patience for people who somehow managed to skip over basic electrolysis in middle school and are now out there peddling this kind of garbage. 🙂

They’re probably talking about drip coffee—it’s so weak you could pretty much chug two liters without any real issues. I wouldn't call it Turkish coffee or even an espresso; if they were drinking that much of the strong stuff, we’d be looking at actual caffeine poisoning.

As for being "addicted" to coffee? Please. That’s nonsense. It's a mild habit that 99% of people kick in three or four days once they push through a little headache.

Keith Nguyen7 said:The only catch is most of those scientists have names like Zing Jang, Muhammad, or Apa, even if they weren't born on that continent.

Actually, most of them were born right here in the United States and are Jews. And while it's true some carry names like "Jang"—fair point there—you don't see "Apa" very often, and I doubt you'd ever run into a "Mohamed" in that crowd.😉

goldentrucker17 said:Exactly! Bush is also at the helm of a superpower that makes up 5% of the world's population but accounts for a staggering 25% of global pollution. Plus, he’s the president of the only major power alongside China that refused to sign the Kyoto protocol.
Then you've got a leader responsible for countless aggressive wars fought far beyond his own borders, which is why he's so widely disliked globally.
And yet, you have the nerve to draw any comparison between him and the absolute moral authority that the late Pope was. 🙄

You also conveniently left out the fact that this nation drives about 25%—if not more—of global science, industry, medicine, and food production. They probably hold half of all the Nobel Prize winners, too. It’s pretty easy for various underdeveloped or lagging nations to claim they aren't polluting anything when they aren't actually producing anything or contributing a damn thing to global knowledge.