Posts by Jerry Robinson56

nimbleharbor10 said:That is certainly an accepted practice, but the real question is how we restrict movement while minimizing the burden on the public. I opened the New York Post this morning and they’re reporting discussions about closing down Central Park, the High Line, and various other local parks if citizens continue to gather in groups.
Currently, the logic behind these movement restrictions is incredibly flawed, applying the same heavy-handed rules to someone living in a massive metropolis like New York City with millions of people as they do to someone in a tiny rural town with a population of maybe a hundred.

It is the mindset of a mindless, reckless bureaucrat who imposes rules on the population without having any clear understanding of the situation themselves. If ten idiots decide to congregate in a park, why on earth should you shut down that entire park for 10,000 law-abiding citizens who just want to take a walk while maintaining a safe distance from others? Why must these bureaucrats recklessly target honest, decent citizens, when in the end, it’s always the rule-breakers who come out on top because they simply ignore the mandates and face zero consequences? If you intend to be consistent, gentlemen, then send the police to break up a mass at a cathedral! Close down the churches and all other religious sites!

Given that nearly a million travel passes have already been issued, we might as well scrap these residency-based restrictions entirely.

Not just accepted, but demonstrably effective.
Naturally, the execution is both problematic and traumatic.
Within your own family, you can maintain closeness both at home and out in public. However, I am certain you know several individuals who couldn't care less about such things, so any notion of altruistic behavior falls apart. I have trained myself to be a far greater fool than most, but there are truly malicious fools out there whom you simply cannot outmatch. In those cases, you merely adopt their vernacular, and within a heartbeat, everything is supposedly fine.

nimbleharbor10 said:That is certainly an accepted practice, but the real question is how we restrict movement while minimizing the burden on the public. I opened the New York Post this morning and they’re reporting discussions about closing down Central Park, the High Line, and various other local parks if citizens continue to gather in groups.
Currently, the logic behind these movement restrictions is incredibly flawed, applying the same heavy-handed rules to someone living in a massive metropolis like New York City with millions of people as they do to someone in a tiny rural town with a population of maybe a hundred.

It is the mindset of a mindless, reckless bureaucrat who imposes rules on the population without having any clear understanding of the situation themselves. If ten idiots decide to congregate in a park, why on earth should you shut down that entire park for 10,000 law-abiding citizens who just want to take a walk while maintaining a safe distance from others? Why must these bureaucrats recklessly target honest, decent citizens, when in the end, it’s always the rule-breakers who come out on top because they simply ignore the mandates and face zero consequences? If you intend to be consistent, gentlemen, then send the police to break up a mass at a cathedral! Close down the churches and all other religious sites!

Given that nearly a million travel passes have already been issued, we might as well scrap these residency-based restrictions entirely.

They are essentially trying to rationalize the idea that "everyone" is a threat to others. I encounter stupidity—and even deeper levels of idiocy—on almost a daily basis, and one need only look at the President and his peculiar ideas regarding giving shovels to professional soldiers.
What alternative are you proposing?

nimbleharbor10 said:That is certainly an accepted practice, but the real question is how we restrict movement while minimizing the burden on the public. I opened the New York Post this morning and they’re reporting discussions about closing down Central Park, the High Line, and various other local parks if citizens continue to gather in groups.
Currently, the logic behind these movement restrictions is incredibly flawed, applying the same heavy-handed rules to someone living in a massive metropolis like New York City with millions of people as they do to someone in a tiny rural town with a population of maybe a hundred.

It is the mindset of a mindless, reckless bureaucrat who imposes rules on the population without having any clear understanding of the situation themselves. If ten idiots decide to congregate in a park, why on earth should you shut down that entire park for 10,000 law-abiding citizens who just want to take a walk while maintaining a safe distance from others? Why must these bureaucrats recklessly target honest, decent citizens, when in the end, it’s always the rule-breakers who come out on top because they simply ignore the mandates and face zero consequences? If you intend to be consistent, gentlemen, then send the police to break up a mass at a cathedral! Close down the churches and all other religious sites!

Given that nearly a million travel passes have already been issued, we might as well scrap these residency-based restrictions entirely.

How does one find those ten specific idiots? Perhaps they are simply waiting to blend into the crowd... I completely agree with your stance that the delinquents always get away with it... perhaps even Alexander Thompson will accept that and reconsider his position regarding those who refuse to follow the spirit of the law rather than just the letter.
One cannot generalize, yet it is truly absurd that any gatherings outside of familial connections are being permitted... particularly religious ones.

nimbleharbor10 said:That is certainly an accepted practice, but the real question is how we restrict movement while minimizing the burden on the public. I opened the New York Post this morning and they’re reporting discussions about closing down Central Park, the High Line, and various other local parks if citizens continue to gather in groups.
Currently, the logic behind these movement restrictions is incredibly flawed, applying the same heavy-handed rules to someone living in a massive metropolis like New York City with millions of people as they do to someone in a tiny rural town with a population of maybe a hundred.

It is the mindset of a mindless, reckless bureaucrat who imposes rules on the population without having any clear understanding of the situation themselves. If ten idiots decide to congregate in a park, why on earth should you shut down that entire park for 10,000 law-abiding citizens who just want to take a walk while maintaining a safe distance from others? Why must these bureaucrats recklessly target honest, decent citizens, when in the end, it’s always the rule-breakers who come out on top because they simply ignore the mandates and face zero consequences? If you intend to be consistent, gentlemen, then send the police to break up a mass at a cathedral! Close down the churches and all other religious sites!

Given that nearly a million travel passes have already been issued, we might as well scrap these residency-based restrictions entirely.

It is a necessary evil; the alternative involves expensive, drawn-out inspections and endless hours spent waiting on the police. It’s an ugly reality, regardless of whether this is a global test run or simply the truth of our existence.

Alexander Thompson said:You’re sticking to the same pattern, aren't you? Basically, we told them nicely to stop acting like this, they didn't listen, so now we're going to teach them a lesson!

The whole thing just screams incompetence from whoever is supposed to be 'managing' things.
They can't even manage to keep the infected or the suspicious folks in self-isolation, so instead, they decide to control everyone's movement. Everyone gets treated the same. From the big cities all the way down to tiny rural towns with barely a hundred people.

And then, after all that, they go and issue a million entry passes.😵

It isn't quite that black and white. You've bypassed the lengthy phase of education... we aren't machines or automated systems; progress takes time, though it eventually yields a definitive result. Do you truly believe (!) it is acceptable for someone to jeopardize their family or someone else's just because they claim to feel perfectly fine? To my mind, it's akin to handing a machine gun to an intoxicated or drugged individual and saying, "whatever happens, happens." They aren't to blame; it's just the alcohol doing its work. These permits are a necessary evil; they could have implemented a curfew instead... Do you actually possess a constructive idea beyond mere criticism? I agree that this choice was unfortunate, but I see no viable alternative. Tell me, have you ever managed a massive undertaking? The objective is recovery, yet most people barely understand what they are "fighting" against, and isolation remains the only proven effective measure through the centuries.

I am writing from a philosophical standpoint. Let us proceed methodically (please... you may pose your questions one by one alongside your own answers, which needn't strictly follow the flow of conversation) because it is the only way to navigate this dialogue given the sheer number of "loose ends." We will inevitably descend into selfishness and greed very soon.

1. Do you concede that movement must be restricted due to the current circumstances?

- Not merely those who are symptomatic, but also those who appear "healthy"... there is enough virus to go around, and it is undoubtedly among us. The question is simply whether enough of it will latch onto us to become the primary concern. Detection is neither fast enough nor reliable enough.

The goal is to explain to the public how they ought to behave, because even without symptoms, they can act as carriers. The aim is to localize potential hotspots. Think of it as a chain reaction—moderation through absorption and deceleration. Not everyone possesses the level of awareness or conscientiousness that we, and certain others on this forum, exhibit.

Matthew Jackson2 said:Are you suggesting we need some local lunatic in Chicago "educating" rocks while two women out for a stroll with their dogs try to ignore him? Honestly, yeah, just what this country needs... another absolute clown wasting everyone's time.

Do not be so quick to leap toward destruction or assume I am advocating violence; please, re-read my words once more. One instructs the ignorant, whereas one might slap the gifted, simply because that is the only language they seem to comprehend.
Others would merely assist them until the effort becomes entirely futile.

Alexander Thompson said:That whole way of "teaching lessons" is basically what directors at some of those institutions we'd much rather forget ever existed used to do. It's—well, it's pretty much the exact opposite of the standards we claim to have nowadays.

So, yeah... maybe you don't see it that way, but personally, I think it's pretty lousy.

As noted above, you always focus first on the aesthetics... on the collective. It is a matter of philosophy. Intelligent individuals discern the substance of what I write, and one always retains the freedom of choice.

This was the initial post... and it received a comprehensive response from the individual in question...

So basically

I trust you realize that the aforementioned individual does not truly grasp the mechanics of viral distribution... do you not, esteemed Alexander Thompson.
I hold your observations in high regard. They approach perfection.
Though, I fail to see which institutions you are referencing—I am not quite old enough to have lived through the era of the Third Reich to feel any particular nostalgia for it. Regardless, it is irrelevant to the topic; merely an observation.

James Phillips92 said:So, who's actually getting paid to teach here? The instructor or the students?

Have you perhaps failed to consider that the true objective is the transfer of knowledge, rather than the mere movement of capital?
There is always a simpler path... and a more efficient one. One simply has to choose.
But I suppose we shall continue with this philosophical posturing.

I have spent considerable time observing the current political landscape, and I find myself increasingly disillusioned by the superficiality of our national discourse. It seems we are trapped in a cycle of performative outrage that serves no one but the most opportunistic actors. Take, for example, the recent rhetoric coming out of Washington. The constant maneuvering between the administration and the opposition feels less like a debate over policy and more like a choreographed theater production designed to distract the citizenry from actual systemic failures. We focus on the personalities—on whether Joe Biden is effectively steering the ship—while ignoring the fact that the ship itself is structurally unsound. The media, too, plays its part with relentless efficiency. Instead of providing rigorous analysis, they opt for sensationalism, feeding us a steady diet of digestible grievances. It creates an environment where nuanced thought is treated as a weakness and radicalism is rewarded with attention. I often wonder if there is any path back to a semblance of rational governance. Most people seem content to retreat into their respective echo chambers, convinced of their own righteousness while remaining blissfully unaware of the flaws in their own logic. It is a wearying spectacle to witness. We are drifting toward a state of permanent fragmentation, and frankly, I am not optimistic about our ability to course-correct before the damage becomes irreversible.

When you finally find the time to respond... well, you’re obligated by the rules of this forum to do so, considering how aggressively and repeatedly you insist that I am the one doing the writing.

The media landscape has become an absolute wasteland of inconsistent reporting, teeming with nothing but trolls and blatant distortions of the truth. It’s all just noise and cheap shots now—low-blow insults designed to distract rather than inform. You see it everywhere, even when they try to twist the facts surrounding tragic accidents like the death of that young athlete. It’s pathetic.

Is there truly a single post—whether from those lurking in the shadows or those making themselves known—that carries any actual weight? Make sure you don't get confused and accidentally attribute this to someone else.

It appears you are still following that exact same routine.
I find myself placing my full trust in you. You seem to be systematically purging every one of my responses to these incoherent, panicked outbursts and the blatant falsehoods peddled by the opposition. One has to wonder, though—do you truly believe you’re acting as some sort of Good Samaritan by shielding them from the truth?

It would be more appropriate to simply change the subject to a dedicated thread of praise for Joe Biden. Truth cannot possibly survive within a discussion framed this way.

The repeatedly proven liar, Zsa in the sky—an entirely accurate expression that can hardly be construed as an insult unless one suffers from the cognitive impairments of someone like Saucha—will undoubtedly continue to insist that her version of events is the absolute truth. Then again, perhaps she simply misread the instructions on the community bulletin board.

It matters little to me whether one finds this painful or intrusive. My interest lies solely in behaviors that deviate from established standards. Given my professional preoccupation with benchmarks and the identification of discrepancies—rather than the individuals who carry them—I find such deviations to be the only true subject worthy of scrutiny.

I would prefer if we could settle this matter here once and for all. You have already seen fit to delete several entries on this topic... and I say this with all due humility. 😁

28.03.2020
Quote:

The aforementioned. The user states: It seems we have returned to our usual routine of deception. Joe Biden is... He also went ahead and donated his entire last paycheck. i That is precisely what we were informed of earlier today..

This isn't about merely expanding the scope of the discussion; it is a matter of principle. Your assessments ought to be anchored in verifiable facts rather than mere speculation.

Joshua Gray75 said:So, let me get this straight—a teacher walks into a classroom where two students haven't even bothered to finish their homework, and instead of addressing the issue, they hand out gold stars to everyone just to "cultivate" the atmosphere? 🤔Quite a concept...

I generally prefer not to overanalyze the obvious, but it is certain that those two will learn their lesson and actually finish their work next time.
Not a bad system, is it?

Melissa Collins3 said:Maybe heading to nearby towns, sure, but expecting to roam the entire county freely? I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

🙂 Precisely. That is the correct approach. These temporary permits are merely a transitional tool intended for cultivation purposes.

stormybadger8 said:Trust me, it's definitely not me. I can go wherever I want, whenever I feel like it. I write my own damn permits and basically go wherever the hell I please...
Not to mention, I know how to use my rights, and I’ve been exercising them to the max since they were even established...
Another thing—I'm not an idiot; I'm not actually going out cruising for no reason, though I could. That would just be stupid...

Meanwhile, I see crowds of people all around me acting like they can't move. They stand there like total morons waiting in line outside City Hall—I see them constantly on my way to work...
And honestly, I haven't seen a bigger crowd, more elderly folks packed together, or a better chance to catch something anywhere else besides right in front of City Hall...

So yeah, that's how "smart" this decision really is. 🤦

We seem to have misunderstood one another...

The decision itself is logical; the issue lies in adaptation, as it does in all things. Evaluation is only possible through feedback, and it is through that process that evolution occurs.
People require information that holds actual value, which means we must prevent the uncontrolled spread of contagion.
Only then can we achieve a "controlled" spread while maintaining a semblance of a normal life.
Immunity will be acquired through that method.
The system is inherently inertial, and that is precisely why it is the correct path, given that intelligence remains a constant while populations continue to expand.

Jack Cook7 said:Man, these tectonic shifts in America caused by this earthquake are absolutely wild.😢

I can only hope that people will finally open their eyes and grow up, finally seeing these incompetents for exactly what they are.

jadetinker85 said:Wait, what would you even do right now if you could turn back the clock and be stuck at home with a kid during a pandemic?

I spent that time with my child... spinning tales, sometimes the classics, sometimes just making things up on the fly. We turned the living room into a fairy tale kingdom and had pillow fights. We even had these little intellectual chats about school. Children are truly remarkable creatures if you actually bother to listen to them...
grab some sidewalk chalk and draw hopscotch grids right there in the hallway...
they need you.

jadetinker85 As specified by:
Does anyone actually grasp the sheer volume of obligations placed upon a child in the lower elementary grades these days? It is quite frankly staggering. Between the mandatory television screen time, a morning load of homework spanning four or five different subjects, and then the inevitable afternoon assignments—it is an exhausting cycle. And if the parents decide to enroll them in after-school language programs or music lessons, you are essentially looking at a full-time job for someone who hasn't even hit puberty yet. It is a relentless schedule.

It seems to me that in this country, there is a fundamental lack of consideration for the well-being of children. Even under normal circumstances, the scheduling is quite absurd; high school students are expected to endure classes from 7:00 AM until 3:00 PM without so much as a single break for lunch. To make matters worse, the current situation has become even more taxing. You have fifteen different subject teachers, each operating under the delusion that they must assign homework with a deadline of tomorrow morning. It is an inefficient and frankly exhausting way to manage education.

Forget it! You really ought to make use of your time wisely, at least now while you're actually home with your child. Before you even have a chance to turn around, they'll be grown, and you’ll find yourself looking back with nothing but regret.
Do you truly believe they will hold onto memories of their school days? I suspect not. Academic instruction is a fleeting, often tedious affair that fades into a dull fog of rote memorization. However, the time spent playing with you—that shared engagement—is something far more indelible. One forgets the curriculum, but one never forgets the company.
There was a time when the American educational system actually demanded something of its students. The rigor of our schools used to be significantly more substantial than what we see today.

jadetinker85 said:Mine is definitely high-energy. Yesterday, he tore a strip off a blanket, tied it to a chair and a cabinet handle, and spent an hour using it as a jump rope. 🤷

Kids are bursting at the seams. It's the truth.

You're exaggerating. You simply need to start engaging with them...

electricbadger89 said:Don't worry, we're nodding along just fine. And as for picking them? I certainly didn't, and I won't.

🙂 I haven't either, yet here we are... the issue persists regardless of viruses or earthquakes.🕺
If they refuse to respond, then you just keep calling. You have to take action; unfortunately, that is the only way to get anything done.
The sheer incompetence displayed by those we've "elected" is nothing short of spectacular. One only needs to look at their caliber... take, for instance, that official out of Chicago who’s supposed to be working, or our own local rascal—that hoarse little liar who relies on his kid to whisper exactly which pathological lies he should recite next.

Tyler Vaughn7 said:Sure, I suppose. But that’s basically what happens when you lock everyone down to specific neighborhoods in major cities across the entire country. Or do you actually think viruses care about local city limits?

Well, they have to establish some kind of jurisdiction for enforcement, don't they?
By delegating to smaller organizational units. Do you actually have a proposal that’s any simpler than this?
They could just set up concentration camps in every state for anyone they deem suspicious and then ignore borders entirely.
City neighborhoods aren't the issue here. They are specifically organized to facilitate medical care based on localized agreements.
The real complication is that you don't necessarily need to show symptoms... It follows logically that they would choose the simplest possible jurisdictional framework.

Tyler Vaughn7 As specified by:
It is quite telling, really. You have one individual who can traverse the entirety of a major metropolis like New York City without a second thought, facing absolutely zero health risks, while another person finds themselves physically incapable of making the trek to the local fish market. It highlights a rather stark disparity in our physical realities. 1.9 miles Moving further away from one's residence because it is supposedly "dangerously risky." I find that particular line of reasoning to be fundamentally flawed.🕺

The sphere of operation is of paramount importance. One must recognize that any area of influence is inevitably defined by municipal boundaries—or some other administrative demarcation. The solution is actually quite straightforward. If these local municipalities would simply reach an agreement among themselves, the entire problem would be resolved.

electricbadger89 said:Another big-city type from NYC. Clearly doesn't grasp why folks in the small towns are actually venting.

Because he can stroll through Manhattan without a second thought. But that’s exactly the point we're making!

Since both of them are locals here in the city, naturally I understand their perspective, but those of you living in smaller communities need to realize that you have to contact the proper authorities and explicitly state exactly what the issue is. You ought to force your "elected officials" to adapt to your needs. It is far too easy to simply blame geography or borders for your limitations. You have representatives in office. Shake them up... stop merely complaining and patting them on the back just because they align with certain party lines. The Republican Party created this systemic mess a long time ago.

stormybadger8 said:Yeah, makes sense. We've got a similar vibe here, say, in Chicago,🙂 because in this context, Chicago and New Zealand basically function the same way...
The rest of the country isn't even in the same ballpark.

I mean, if you let everyone in downtown Chicago wander around wherever they want—which is about a quarter of the population—what do you actually achieve? You end up with a massive, shared quarantine for a million people.🤦

On top of that, you've got another 600,000 people with passes wandering everywhere, including heading into the city to mingle with that first million... so, same problem all over again.

And meanwhile, you're literally driving the other 2.4 million people insane by not letting them walk to a grocery store just 700 meters from their own front door...

You’re acting like a monarch... I wasn't clear enough. If you sit down and write out the actual reasons why these movement restrictions bother you, you will realize the issue lies solely with yourself. However, the problem isn't you, or your personal health, but rather the health of others. It is obvious that one cannot lock everything down indefinitely, so they had to devise a way forward on short notice. Though, frankly, they could have handled all of this last year...

Recall how viruses "pass"... there is simply no alternative; this is the most efficient method. As for myself, I move through NYC quite normally. Just yesterday at a gas station, there were four of us within a few feet of each other, including some guys grabbing beers, and it was fine. Every shop or boutique operates normally; you stand in line and there is no fuss.
Call the local precinct and tell them what the problem is, or submit a suggestion to the task force. Feedback is the most vital component here, because these measures are applied generally.

There are no vehicles on the Hamptons roads😁 and once a week from Connecticut.

hollowtrucker77 said:And what, are we just going to be under lockdown forever now?
😵

Let’s not lose our heads here, blue friend.

It is only the disobedient, sir—only them.🙂 The entire point is to demonstrate proven efficacy. And looking at the situation, one sees there is very little to show for it, regardless. Discipline remains the paramount necessity; more importantly, people ought to act with a modicum of humanity and cease their relentless self-interest.

hollowtrucker77 said:Honestly, let's just pass a federal law banning sneezing, coughing, and coughing fits altogether, complete with a minimum fine of at least 10 bucks per offense. $0.00
et voila - problem solved.

Then go ahead and ban him too, partially😁 without cause, 🕺 just because.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/...example_tid=5674

With 1,160 infections and one fatality reported nationwide, the consensus remains clear: they didn't just flatten the curve; they absolutely crushed it.

Yesterday, the Washington Post ran a feature titled, "New Zealand didn't just flatten the curve. They crushed it." Their reporter, Anna Fifield—who hails from New Zealand but has spent the last two decades living abroad—noted that it took a mere ten days to prove that the New Zealand strategy of immediate quarantine was undeniably effective.

While this approach shows promise, its success depends entirely on sustained discipline. One might eventually grasp why restricting movement is an absolute necessity, given how little we truly understand about the broader complexities of this situation.
Furthermore, one cannot ignore the role that population density and physical proximity play in these dynamics.

nimbleharbor10 said:It is truly pathetic to witness how Americans react with such intense hostility toward anyone perceived as a potential threat to their safety or their way of life, showing zero foresight regarding the fact that they could easily find themselves in that exact same position. There is this irrational mindset where if someone is deemed "infected," they must be crushed, eliminated, or completely destroyed, yet when the tide turns and they fall ill themselves, they will be the ones whimpering for help.

They would go as far as trying to shut down borders—not just national ones, but state lines and county lines too. They’d try to prevent fellow citizens from even returning home. People would spend all their energy spinning conspiracy theories about who infected whom, using those lies to justify violence against the very people they’ve branded as the source of the contagion. All while, quite ironically, they let their children out to play in the local parks with other kids.

Location... though I suspect you are being somewhat hyperbolic with your phrasing.
Efforts are being made to maintain some semblance of control over the situation. However, we remain in a state where very little is known beyond the most basic generalities.