OT: vaccine and natural immune response differences

"
The real measure is, if you're sick, in which country are you most likely to
get well? The U.S. tops that list.

?
An interestingly formulated claim, but where is it documented? "

Nowhere because it simply is not true. I agree with your disagreement. Let's put it this way, there was a time when billionaires came to the US for treatment but that is long past. The good countries, regardless of their position in the socialized medicine spectrum, have surpassed US facilities by quite a bit.

Most that is. We still got the Mayo clinic, but who all really goes there ? In general, if you are traveling abroad in the US and get into a car wreck, maybe you should fly home... or maybe not.

It varies. Consistency is not consistent. They KILL like 250,000 people a year here, and tat is the AMA's pown figure, spmething like 210,000 or something like that. this is mediacle mistakes folks, not people getting dragged in who were cut in half and shit. Not all with walking ebola. MISTAKES, wrong dosages, drugs, procedures.

Take that figure of 200,000 for round numbers and figure out where is acceptable. With 200,000, if there are 2,000,000 people in the hospital at any given ti e that is 10 %. Is there 20,000,000 in the hospital at any given time ? That would be 1 %. More to your liking ? That tou gotr in for any reason there is a one in a hundred chance you never get out ?

Prison is better.

There are all kinds of isconceptions. One of the biggest is that medical science has increased life expectancy. It has not. Less people get shot, electrocuted, fall off roofs or bridges, fall into cement mixers or volcanos and shit like that. Look at the old scientists and shit born in the 1700s, lived to be 82, 86, 91.

Infant mortality also slews the life expectancy, if you go by the average. Died at ZERO years old, that doesn't help up the number now does it ?

That is the pitfall of statistics, and used quite well by spin doctors. Like ther eis a robbery every ten seconds. Yeah, so is someone hit by lightning wearing only a bra and panties smoking an alligator. There are seven billion people on this planet, so a couple million doesn't mean shit. Really.

But as to the subject, I agree, acctually GETTING the disease is probably more beneficial to one's immune system, the only pitfall in some cases is of course the possibility of death. Your call. your immune system.

There are always things that cannot be anticipated. A few years ago I got really sick due to exposure to mold. Damnear kilttme. Seriously. Walking around like I was 100 years old and not in good shape for 100 either.

Mold exposure has such a varied symptom set that doctors usually miss it, and they did with me. My people and I found it in the environment. Under my bed. threw out the bed (which I got used, NEVER again) and I got better.

Doctors, researchers, all of them, guess what. They are not infallible. It is bad enough that in the US half of them are crooked or at least have an adenda which supports the position of their funders, but they also ake mistakes. Real mistakes are caught by peer review and people trying to repeat the experiments, but not always. If you fund a lab to prove your new drug cures (or treats) something, are you going to fund another labe to disprove it ?

What's more, there is NO PROOF whatsoever that any vaccine works because that would require a double blind study in which half the participants are given a placebo and exposed to a disease. this is considered unethical, how convenient for the vaccine akers eh ?

But we pretty much know how vaccines work and can trust them to some extent.. Mainly because if too many people die they will not sell as much of the vaccine.

You people in other places in the world will never understand how much the more intelligent among us distrusts this establishment here. They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and you don't get it on the news. WE KNOW, WE WERE HERE and saw the lies they told later.

This is what people do not understand about USians. And you never will unless you live it. Now I know how people in Russia felt back when the Soviets were in power.

Damn shame ain't it ? Freest country in the world, but you ned a license to take a shit.

Enough rant. Later.
 
In article <b3382cb7-9647-4a38-a094-70c991934cdd@googlegroups.com>,
jurb6006@gmail.com says...
This is what people do not understand about USians. And you never will unless you live it. Now I know how people in Russia felt back when the Soviets were in power.

Damn shame ain't it ? Freest country in the world, but you ned a license to take a shit.

Enough rant. Later.
Hey, don't give the politicians any ideas, I already pay for
sewage here :)

Jamie
 
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 6:54:33 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, 26 October 2014 10:10:08 UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, October 24, 2014 1:39:20 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 24 October 2014 14:16:14 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/23/2014 4:14 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 23 October 2014 19:52:48 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

snip

The US has vile mortality stats for an advanced industrial country. This hasn't got much to do with it's choice of vaccinations, and everything to do with the fact that it pretty much unique in not having universal health care, and still spends half as much more per head as the most extravagant of the universal health schemes.

US mortality stats actually aren't vile at all--we're in there at the top
of the pack on outcomes. Proponents of socialism argue with ridiculous
meta-metrics that mix in cultural, demographic, and life-style issues.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

The US comes in at 42 on life expectancy at birth

Life expectancy is the mother of all meta-measures.

The U.S.' life-expectancy at birth is higher than Denmark and just barely
under the EU as a whole. If we were slimmer, didn't let teenagers drive,
and didn't subsidize teenagers to have babies, we'd do even better.

Using LE@B as a proxy for medical care means you'd blame medical systems
for murders, accidents, casualties of war, smoking, demographics, and
people who over-eat.

Since simple life-style choices can easily add (or subtract) ten years,
ascribing small differences in life expectancy to lack of medical care--
while ignoring demographics and lifestyle--is bankrupt.

To illustrate, Australian aborigines live a decade shorter than white folks..

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/indigenous-gap-is-not-closing-getting-worse-in-some-cases-20140910-10extj.html

Is your socialized medical system merely rotten, or is it (according to populist
thinkers here) only working for the wealthy, or is it overtly racist?

Canada, with its socialized system, has a similar gap to Australia's:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-645-x/2010001/life-expectancy-esperance-vie-eng.htm

The U.S.' demographics include 13% of the population having stats similar to
your aboriginals, 20% of the population not born in America, and a lot of
people who simply don't take ordinary care of themselves.

It's not medical care, it's demographics.

Cheers,
James Arthur
 
On 10/23/2014 4:37 AM, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/22/2014 3:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:32:45 PM UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

Vaccines are an unhealthy choice for the majority of people, and
the proper way to be healthy is a good diet and low
stress.

Sadly, natural infections can trump a good diet and low stress. They
can be defeated by appropriate

vaccination, and if a majority get vaccinated, you've got herd
immunity, and the infections don't

spread far enough to get to the unvaccinated.

Not sure who is saying what, but herd vaccination means fewer people are
infected, but the fewer people who still get sick would be better
protected by having received the vaccine. So "herd vaccination" is a
myth in that you are not at all protected, you are playing a numbers
game. Sort of like Russian roulette.


Hi,

OT in an OT thread, but what do you think of this research showing
mitochondria have synchronized vibrations within individual cells and
also as well over whole areas of tissue?

http://phys.org/news/2014-10-cell-biology-focus-decades-old-mitochondrial.html

I don't see any significance to it. What do you see?

--

Rick
 
In article <m2mc7e$fpk$1@dont-email.me>, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
Sadly, natural infections can trump a good diet and low stress. They
can be defeated by appropriate

vaccination, and if a majority get vaccinated, you've got herd
immunity, and the infections don't

spread far enough to get to the unvaccinated.

Not sure who is saying what, but herd vaccination means fewer people are
infected, but the fewer people who still get sick would be better
protected by having received the vaccine. So "herd vaccination" is a
myth in that you are not at all protected, you are playing a numbers
game. Sort of like Russian roulette.

Yup. Those who do not get vaccinated at all, are depending on enough
other people being vaccinated to "shorten the chain of infection", so
that person-to-person disease propagation stops before it reaches the
unvaccinated person.

As you say, if you bet on this and lose - if the person next to you is
infectious, and you aren't vaccinated, and you catch the bug - then
you're just as likely to get just as sick as if *nobody* had been
vaccinated at all.

In general, for the sorts of diseases we're talking about, the
morbidity due to actual disease is *far* worse than the morbidity due
to vaccine side effects. Measles, for example, can have fatality
rates running from 0.3% (U.S., outbreaks between 1987 and 2000) to 28%
(in some third-world countries with poor health care). It's no joke.
The rate of life-threatening reactions to measles vaccine is far, far
below this (one study in Cuba quotes a rate of less than one per
million vaccinations). [Figures quoted from the Great Font of Dubious
Knowledge a.k. Wikipedia.]

Even short of death, there can be serious complications, and they're
not uncommon. One of my brothers developed otitis media (inner ear
inflammation) as a child, quite possibly after measles infection (we
were both pre-vaccine) and he spent years suffering from ear aches,
tubes in his eardrums, and hearing problems.

So, those who choose not to be vaccinated are gaining an advantage
(less possible side effects from the vaccine), but running a risk.
It's a gamble. And, it's a gamble which pays off best if *nobody*
else does the same thing they are doing. If *everybody* does what the
vaccine-avoider does, then the strategy breaks down, and we're back in
the era of (e.g.) rampant childhood infections. In communities where
*lots* of people bet that *nobody* is going to catch a highly-
contageous illness such as measles (90% transmission rate to the
non-immune!)... bad things tend to happen.

There's another sense in which the term "herd immunity" has been
used, by the way. When "live, attenuated" poliovirus is used as a
vaccine (e.g. the Sabin vaccine), it causes a sub-acute infection in
those who take it... and the kids shed live vaccine virus in their
poop for some time after vaccination. This can lead to others in
their community "catching" the attenuated virus, and being immunized
themselves. This effect accounts for a nontrivial amount of the
protective benefit of polio vaccine in poorer communities.

It comes with its own cost, though - the attenuated virus can
back-mutate into a form which causes disease. A significant number of
outbreaks of vaccine-derived disease-causing poliovirus have occurred
throughout the world, and this has caused most countries to switch
over to using only a "killed" poliovirus vaccine which cannot cause
infectious disease.
 
On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 12:59:20 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 6:54:33 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, 26 October 2014 10:10:08 UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, October 24, 2014 1:39:20 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 24 October 2014 14:16:14 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/23/2014 4:14 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 23 October 2014 19:52:48 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

snip

The US has vile mortality stats for an advanced industrial country. This hasn't got much to do with it's choice of vaccinations, and everything to do with the fact that it pretty much unique in not having universal health care, and still spends half as much more per head as the most extravagant of the universal health schemes.

US mortality stats actually aren't vile at all--we're in there at the top
of the pack on outcomes. Proponents of socialism argue with ridiculous
meta-metrics that mix in cultural, demographic, and life-style issues..

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

The US comes in at 42 on life expectancy at birth

Life expectancy is the mother of all meta-measures.

The U.S.' life-expectancy at birth is higher than Denmark and just barely
under the EU as a whole. If we were slimmer, didn't let teenagers drive,
and didn't subsidize teenagers to have babies, we'd do even better.

But you don't.

Using LE@B as a proxy for medical care means you'd blame medical systems
for murders, accidents, casualties of war, smoking, demographics, and
people who over-eat.

All true to a limited extent, but murders, war and accidents don't kill all that many people in advanced industrial countries. Smoking and obesity are public health questions. "Demographics" is a little vague in this context.

Since simple life-style choices can easily add (or subtract) ten years,
ascribing small differences in life expectancy to lack of medical care--
while ignoring demographics and lifestyle--is bankrupt.

Better informed, and better-educated people make better life-style choices.
That's definitely a public health issue where the US skimps.

To illustrate, Australian aborigines live a decade shorter than white folks.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/indigenous-gap-is-not-closing-getting-worse-in-some-cases-20140910-10extj.html

Is your socialized medical system merely rotten, or is it (according to populist thinkers here) only working for the wealthy, or is it overtly racist?

You'd have to ask my younger brother. He never did finish his Ph.D. on the subject, but he did enough work to get asked to lecture on it from time to time. My - very limited - understanding of the question suggests that the aboriginal population is more susceptible to diabetes than modern Europeans (whose ancestors got thinned out around the time of the agricultural revolution).

This isn't the only problem - relatively few aboriginals get the full benefit of the Australian education system, so their incomes are low, their housing poor, and their diet unhealthy.

https://www.unisa.edu.au/Global/Health/Sansom/Documents/What%20works%20in%20Indigenous%20health%20reform.pdf

includes a reference 36 which my brother does seem to have managed to publish.

Canada, with its socialized system, has a similar gap to Australia's:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-645-x/2010001/life-expectancy-esperance-vie-eng.htm

The U.S.' demographics include 13% of the population having stats similar to
your aboriginals, 20% of the population not born in America, and a lot of
people who simply don't take ordinary care of themselves.

It's not medical care, it's demographics.

By and large immigrants don't come from places with an old stone age culture. Polynesians, who had a new stone age culture until relatively recently, do rather better.

The US and Canada have been "civilising" their aboriginal populations for a lot longer than Australia, so claiming them as a demographic excuse lacks credibility - one more of you endless string of straw men.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:57:42 PM UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/22/2014 7:32 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:46:01 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:

Maybe in your hopelessly distorted world. The paper says no such thing. What's going on here is that you're a vaccine parasite, you don't believe they work and/or they cause harm. So you dig up some literature you can't begin to comprehend and misinterpret it to support your idiocy.

That's one way to look at it. I prefer to think I made an assumption
that has a chance of being correct, but to each his own!

Of course you prefer to think that you've "made an assumption" rather than "made a mistake". Sadly for you reputation, the latter statement happens to be correct. If you can't see that, you've got a problem that needs fixing.. Your "assumption" has zero chance of being correct, and a 100% chance of being seen as self-deluded wishful thinking.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On 10/25/2014 4:04 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, 26 October 2014 08:47:03 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/24/2014 4:34 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 24 October 2014 20:12:37 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/24/2014 1:27 AM, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/23/2014 10:39 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 24 October 2014 14:16:14 UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

snip

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, and seem to think that calling something "unnatural" is enough to prove it undesirable.

I have noticed before your thought process lacks a certain capacity for
lateral thinking which is required to take the leap of faith outside the
vaccine dogma in this case and see the potential system wide differences
between vaccines and a natural immune response!

What you are describing is gullible ignorance. Academic training is designed to reduce one's vulnerability to this kind of intellectual error.

One example of a difference you have neglected to consider is the
process of inflammation, usually this is considered an undesirable
thing to have, but temporary inflammation caused by a mild infection
will most likely have long term benefits in the body in different
ways potentially.

Inflammation increase blood flow to the infected region, moving more white blood cells through it. This is the short term advantage. I don't know of

any long term advantage - beyond allowing the extra while blood cells
to clear the infection faster - and it's fairly clear that you don't either.
The vaccine will not produce this same immune
response as it is a simulated infection and there is not the same
level of inflammation present.

Why would you want it? Vaccination is designed to generate a larger population of while blood cells specialised to reaction to a particular protein,

without making the patient ill.
You seem to subscribe to the no pain - no gain philosophy which lacks intellectual support.

snipped contentless speculation

Hi,

This expert seems to think the flu vaccine and also the dogma around it
should be up for debate:

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3037

http://www.realfarmacy.com/johns-hopkins-scientist-reveals-shocking-report-flu-vaccines/

cheers,
Jamie
 
On 10/27/2014 11:47 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:57:42 PM UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/22/2014 7:32 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:46:01 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:

Maybe in your hopelessly distorted world. The paper says no such thing. What's going on here is that you're a vaccine

parasite, you don't believe they work and/or they cause harm. So you
dig up some literature you can't begin to comprehend

and misinterpret it to support your idiocy.
That's one way to look at it. I prefer to think I made an assumption
that has a chance of being correct, but to each his own!

Of course you prefer to think that you've "made an assumption" rather than "made a mistake". Sadly for you reputation, the

latter statement happens to be correct. If you can't see that, you've
got a problem that needs fixing. Your "assumption"

has zero chance of being correct, and a 100% chance of being seen as
self-deluded wishful thinking.

Hi,

It doesn't matter to me how my assumption appears to you, after I've
explained my reasoning I am content with it's logic, and as I posted
in another subthread, vaccines effectiveness are still up for debate:

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3037

http://www.realfarmacy.com/johns-hopkins-scientist-reveals-shocking-report-flu-vaccines/

The real mistaken assumption is to follow the dogma, that has
a low chance of being correct.

cheers,
Jamie
 
On 10/28/2014 12:05 AM, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/27/2014 11:47 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:57:42 PM UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/22/2014 7:32 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:46:01 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:

Maybe in your hopelessly distorted world. The paper says no such
thing. What's going on here is that you're a vaccine

parasite, you don't believe they work and/or they cause harm. So you
dig up some literature you can't begin to comprehend

and misinterpret it to support your idiocy.

That's one way to look at it. I prefer to think I made an assumption
that has a chance of being correct, but to each his own!

Of course you prefer to think that you've "made an assumption" rather
than "made a mistake". Sadly for you reputation, the

latter statement happens to be correct. If you can't see that, you've
got a problem that needs fixing. Your "assumption"

has zero chance of being correct, and a 100% chance of being seen as
self-deluded wishful thinking.



Hi,

It doesn't matter to me how my assumption appears to you, after I've
explained my reasoning I am content with it's logic, and as I posted
in another subthread, vaccines effectiveness are still up for debate:

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3037

http://www.realfarmacy.com/johns-hopkins-scientist-reveals-shocking-report-flu-vaccines/


The real mistaken assumption is to follow the dogma, that has
a low chance of being correct.

cheers,
Jamie

Here is a good quote from that article in the British Medical Journal:

"Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although
proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the
policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’
claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been
claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated."



>
 
On 27/10/2014 21:07, rickman wrote:
On 10/23/2014 4:37 AM, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/22/2014 3:35 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:32:45 PM UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:

Vaccines are an unhealthy choice for the majority of people, and
the proper way to be healthy is a good diet and low
stress.

Sadly, natural infections can trump a good diet and low stress. They
can be defeated by appropriate
vaccination, and if a majority get vaccinated, you've got herd
immunity, and the infections don't
spread far enough to get to the unvaccinated.

Not sure who is saying what, but herd vaccination means fewer people are
infected, but the fewer people who still get sick would be better
protected by having received the vaccine. So "herd vaccination" is a
myth in that you are not at all protected, you are playing a numbers
game. Sort of like Russian roulette.

It has become a big problem in the UK with the MMR vaccine where a dodgy
medical paper published yonks ago convinced yummy mummys not to have
their children vaccinated for fear of autism. It has now come home to
roost with herd immunity seriously broken in some cities and major
outbreaks in affected schools forcing emergency mass immunisation.

Serious risk of complications like death or sterility can arise.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/mmr_prog_summary.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22037477

This is what happens when you get vaccine scares and the worried well
panic. Still it weeds out inferior gene lines - tough on their kids
though who get to suffer the full force of these diseases as teenagers.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:42:02 AM UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:
In article <281c1a09-1476-45bd-8a86-02ca0a7ba2d6@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:57:42 PM UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/22/2014 7:32 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:46:01 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:

Maybe in your hopelessly distorted world. The paper says no such thing. What's going on here is that you're a vaccine parasite, you don't believe they work and/or they cause harm. So you dig up some literature you can't begin to comprehend and misinterpret it to support your idiocy.

That's one way to look at it. I prefer to think I made an assumption
that has a chance of being correct, but to each his own!

Of course you prefer to think that you've "made an assumption" rather
than "made a mistake". Sadly for you reputation, the latter statement
happens to be correct. If you can't see that, you've got a problem that
needs fixing. Your "assumption" has zero chance of being correct, and a
100% chance of being seen as self-deluded wishful thinking.

You know how to make friends don't you? A real party hopper you are!

Most people are picky about the people who they regard as friends. I prefer to keep my distance from those who spout ill-supported nonsense. Your capacity for recognising ill-supported nonsense does not seem to be all that well developed, so you may be less discriminating.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
In article <281c1a09-1476-45bd-8a86-02ca0a7ba2d6@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:57:42 PM UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/22/2014 7:32 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:46:01 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:

Maybe in your hopelessly distorted world. The paper says no such thing. What's going on here is that you're a vaccine parasite, you don't believe they work and/or they cause harm. So you dig up some literature you can't begin to comprehend and misinterpret it to support your idiocy.

That's one way to look at it. I prefer to think I made an assumption
that has a chance of being correct, but to each his own!

Of course you prefer to think that you've "made an assumption" rather
than "made a mistake". Sadly for you reputation, the latter statement
happens to be correct. If you can't see that, you've got a problem that
needs fixing. Your "assumption" has zero chance of being correct, and a
100% chance of being seen as self-deluded wishful thinking.

You know how to make friends don't you? A real party hopper you are!


Jamie
 
In article <393d4349-f668-4e5b-94b4-f26bde14e564@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:42:02 AM UTC+11, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote:
In article <281c1a09-1476-45bd-8a86-02ca0a7ba2d6@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:57:42 PM UTC+11, Jamie M wrote:
On 10/22/2014 7:32 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 2:46:01 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:

Maybe in your hopelessly distorted world. The paper says no such thing. What's going on here is that you're a vaccine parasite, you don't believe they work and/or they cause harm. So you dig up some literature you can't begin to comprehend and misinterpret it to support your idiocy.

That's one way to look at it. I prefer to think I made an assumption
that has a chance of being correct, but to each his own!

Of course you prefer to think that you've "made an assumption" rather
than "made a mistake". Sadly for you reputation, the latter statement
happens to be correct. If you can't see that, you've got a problem that
needs fixing. Your "assumption" has zero chance of being correct, and a
100% chance of being seen as self-deluded wishful thinking.

You know how to make friends don't you? A real party hopper you are!

Most people are picky about the people who they regard as friends. I
prefer to keep my distance from those who spout ill-supported nonsense.
Your capacity for recognising ill-supported nonsense does not seem to be
all that well developed, so you may be less discriminating.

Or, I may not be one of your chosen party hopper friends!

Jamie
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top