Is this a democracy now ?

Do we get to vote on which posts go and which stay, or are the choices of A, B or C purely rhetoric ?

I vote b), but then that's not surprising since Carantoc's opinion's are usually somewhere in the middle (and therefore always correct).

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
Beetroot. Tastes better pickled.

Nothing tastes better pickled, that is a proven fact by a mate of mine who has a friend (He is CT certified) who specializes in pickling peppers.
I think his name is Peter Piper.

Are we back on the rails yet???????

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
No, argument from first-hand knowledge, research, and reality. Specifically, I was referring to an incident here where the people with a PhD, a highly relevant degree and years of experience were people I know extremely well, and where those factors certainly didn't apply. Despite that, the lame "sheeple" cry came up from the arrogant ignorant CT whackos here.

More generally, CT whackos keep on bringing up the bias claim about the vast majority of experts without giving any evidence for their claim. Take the Covid issue; big oil companies are losing tens of billions of dollars from the reduced use of fossil fuels since Covid hit. The FTSE, Dow Jones and other market indices crashed. If the majority expert advice was so easily affected by under-the-table financial "renumeration" then why would the big oil companies and others not be paying enough of those experts to advise against lockdowns?

It's illogical when people raise motivations without (a) giving any actual evidence to show that they are affecting the majority of expert advice and (b) admitting that they can affect both sides of the argument. Top CT whackos get views, they get re-tweets, and they could get as much or more financial reward than it's alleged the experts could get - so why ignore that side of the issue?

If you're not actually going to show proper evidence for your claims, you're not really arguing logically at all and therefore shouldn't complain about the way others argue.

You're doing the bait and switch again: making general claims then narrowing your definition. I'm sure your buddy is a stand-up guy, but are you going to vouch for every single person with a PhD etc?

Bait and switch again. We're talking about PhD holders, not oil companies.

And again. I'm suggesting that there's bias out there among PhD holders etc, you've switched to claim that I'm studying the majority of them are biased. It's not the same argument, and that's not what I said.

Oh easy. Wakefield. As I only need to prove there is bias and willful corruption out there among PhD holders etc, I'm done.

You now need to prove that there isn't bias and corruption amongst your preferred sources... Good luck with that -- you've set yourself up to prove a negative.

Lets stick with science and not rely on "authoritive sources".

By the way, who are you including in your catch-all "the CT" on here?

Nice to be able to reply this time... Hope it will be considered cordial enough, as was the spirit it was intended in.

Select to expand quote

GreenPat said.
It held together longer than I expected. Now, do we:
a) lock it
b) just delete it
c) see if it can get back on the rails

I'm not liking the chances of C, I don't think the rails were really there to start with.

lol, just delete it now and save yourself the time,
you know where its gunna go once the antigov., CT crew start posting . well, already gone.

Select to expand quote

lotofwind said..
Nothing tastes better pickled, that is a proven fact by a mate of mine who has a friend (He is CT certified) who specializes in pickling peppers.
I think his name is Peter Piper.

Are we back on the rails yet???????

Utter nonsense. You have zero proof of that.

Peter Piper had no expertise in pickling peppers. There is zero evidence he even ever did any pickling himself.

Can you prove he had a PhD in Pickling Science or Pepper Studies ? ..... No , I didn't think so.


It is only alleged that Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers. And even then there are more questions, as to where this peck is and how many pickled peppers there actually were, than answers.

If you don't want to tie yourself up in pickles Lotowind, you need to stop believing this hearsay and fairytale nonsense.

Peter Piper picked a peck?
The real question is, how many peppers to a standard peck? 2 gallons?
and can the peck measurement be used on other things beside peppers?
I went fishing today and caught a peck of snapper?
I just skulled a peck of beer?

In other news today, after a loooong running theme of no nuclear anything in aus, turns out we're getting nuke powered subs now. Is this the start of a nuclear aus? Thanks Mr Biden.

Knucklier defence? That should keep the Navy's pecker up

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
Hypersonic anti ship missle need one hour to rich any place on Earth

It's a submarine.

Select to expand quote

Subsonic said..
In other news today, after a loooong running theme of no nuclear anything in aus, turns out we're getting nuke powered subs now. Is this the start of a nuclear aus? Thanks Mr Biden.

Good start really to rid of 90 bln.

Now ask yourself a question.

What is expected survival time of our nuclear submarine in the hypothetical conflict?

About your I hour am guessing.
Extremely lucky will be half a day. Hypersonic anti ship missles need one hour to rich any place on Earth. Nowadays position of every adversary submarine is displayed on big screen in military center, regardless if is sailing or sitting on the bottom of ocean or under Arctic ice.

Obviously we could give them the same money the ask us for and get something useful in exchange. Tractors, bobcats, fire fighting helicopters , posi track to clean Australian bushes before fire season, even electric Tesla's you could have plenty for 90 bln.

That move could remind us Nazi megalomania with Bismarck warship that becomes nothing more then target to sink asap
Now there is another question. Who wish to sail on those underwater coffins knowing that have zero chance of survival.?

Biden referred to ScoMo as "the guy downunder" and everyone starts thinking Biden is senile and forgot ScoMo's name.

I suspect was Biden was actually referring to the position ScoMo adopts when kissing US arse.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Macroscien said..
Hypersonic anti ship missle need one hour to rich any place on Earth

It's a submarine.

yep, You need 1 hour to rich any place you point your finger on the globe and another 1 minute to dive 500 meters deep with your torpedo.

jamestown.org/program/chinas-hypersonic-missiles-methods-and-motives/#:~:text=Hypersonic%20missiles%20are%20emerging%20as,sound%20after%20separation%20from%20launcher

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System

obviously you could set one of those also to shadow each on of our submarines indefinitely, follow everywhere indefinitely.

Select to expand quote

lotofwind said..
...I just skulled a peck of beer?

I thought a peck was 16 pints.

Kinda explains most of what you post.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
Biden referred to ScoMo as "the guy downunder" and everyone starts thinking Biden is senile and forgot ScoMo's name.

I suspect was Biden was actually referring to the position ScoMo adopts when kissing US arse.

Actually I admire Biden so much.
Get 2 trillion dollars and rush to build infrastructure in his own county.
everything from bridges , roads , water and energy , manufacturing plants.
The most cynical in PM Johnson speech is joy of all those money now flowing to shipyard workers in UK, plenty of jobs in
ruined by Brexit economy.
I still offer to give UK those 90 bln they ask and maybe get something usefull for public here.Any material goods? machinery, industrial plants?
Mini Morrris cars or jags?
Anything that we could use for our benefit at all.
Actually you could have huge difficulty to advice what in real goods we could import from UK for 90bln dollars beside bitcoins and military assets/targets, Beatles records? We could do even small quiz and ask:
What would you buy for Australia from UK having 90 bln dollars to spend?BTW. initial 90bln means that will cost us at least 350 including overruns and next so for servicing.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Chris 249 said..
No, argument from first-hand knowledge, research, and reality. Specifically, I was referring to an incident here where the people with a PhD, a highly relevant degree and years of experience were people I know extremely well, and where those factors certainly didn't apply. Despite that, the lame "sheeple" cry came up from the arrogant ignorant CT whackos here.

More generally, CT whackos keep on bringing up the bias claim about the vast majority of experts without giving any evidence for their claim. Take the Covid issue; big oil companies are losing tens of billions of dollars from the reduced use of fossil fuels since Covid hit. The FTSE, Dow Jones and other market indices crashed. If the majority expert advice was so easily affected by under-the-table financial "renumeration" then why would the big oil companies and others not be paying enough of those experts to advise against lockdowns?

It's illogical when people raise motivations without (a) giving any actual evidence to show that they are affecting the majority of expert advice and (b) admitting that they can affect both sides of the argument. Top CT whackos get views, they get re-tweets, and they could get as much or more financial reward than it's alleged the experts could get - so why ignore that side of the issue?

If you're not actually going to show proper evidence for your claims, you're not really arguing logically at all and therefore shouldn't complain about the way others argue.

You're doing the bait and switch again: making general claims then narrowing your definition. I'm sure your buddy is a stand-up guy, but are you going to vouch for every single person with a PhD etc?

Bait and switch again. We're talking about PhD holders, not oil companies.

And again. I'm suggesting that there's bias out there among PhD holders etc, you've switched to claim that I'm studying the majority of them are biased. It's not the same argument, and that's not what I said.

Oh easy. Wakefield. As I only need to prove there is bias and willful corruption out there among PhD holders etc, I'm done.

You now need to prove that there isn't bias and corruption amongst your preferred sources... Good luck with that -- you've set yourself up to prove a negative.

Lets stick with science and not rely on "authoritive sources".

By the way, who are you including in your catch-all "the CT" on here?

No, that was not a bait and switch. Read the post you referred to. It does NOT make a general claim. Here's a clue; I clearly wrote "a" in the post you referred to. "A" is a singular, in English. A post that refers to a singular is NOT a general claim.

Yes, having started with a specific claim I widened it in a later post, making that clear by starting the par with the phrase "more generally". So what? This is a conversation of sorts; there's nothing underhanded about moving from showing that a specific claim is bull****, to showing that a wider claim may also be bull****. I've never denied that some PhD holders could be biased, but read the post; it specifically refers to the "majority" or "vast majority" of academics.

When someone clearly refers to a MAJORITY of people not being affected by bias in the way alleged, showing one biased person doesn't disprove the claim. What you are inferring is that because some academics are biased, everyone who believes any academic has to find evidence that they are not biased. That's similar to saying that because one Queenslander who sails has bashed his partner, you and every other Queenslander who sails has to prove they didn't bash their partner.

No, I do not have to prove that there's no bias in my sources, any more than I have to prove that you, Seabreeze's owners, your grandmother, Father Christmas or anyone else is unbiased. The onus of proof doesn't work that way. It's simple - if you make the claim, you prove the claim. If you claim that bias is affecting the consensus, prove it. YOU are the one claiming that the scientific consensus is biased. YOU are the person who has to prove your claims.

I'm not going to name those who I believe are CT believers here, although I will say that generally I believe that you're reasonable and not among the CT loonies.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Subsonic said..
In other news today, after a loooong running theme of no nuclear anything in aus, turns out we're getting nuke powered subs now. Is this the start of a nuclear aus? Thanks Mr Biden.

Good start really to rid of 90 bln.

Now ask yourself a question.

What is expected survival time of our nuclear submarine in the hypothetical conflict?

About your I hour am guessing.
Extremely lucky will be half a day. Hypersonic anti ship missles need one hour to rich any place on Earth. Nowadays position of every adversary submarine is displayed on big screen in military center, regardless if is sailing or sitting on the bottom of ocean or under Arctic ice.

Obviously we could give them the same money the ask us for and get something useful in exchange. Tractors, bobcats, fire fighting helicopters , posi track to clean Australian bushes before fire season, even electric Tesla's you could have plenty for 90 bln.

That move could remind us Nazi megalomania with Bismarck warship that becomes nothing more then target to sink asap
Now there is another question. Who wish to sail on those underwater coffins knowing that have zero chance of survival.?

Prove your claims. Come on, show us the evidence that you have suddenly become an expert on ASW.

By the way, Bismarck was a lot more than a target to sink ASAP. It caused the British to keep several battleships (KGV, PoW, plus some Rs and possibly Malaya), three battlecruisers (Hood, Repulse, Renown), two carriers (Victorious and Ark Royal), several cruisers (Suffolk, Norfolk, Cumberland I think, Sheffield, etc) and several destroyer flotillas on alert, keeping them away from other tasks.

By the way, I'm not in favour of the decision to go for nukes as far as I can see it, although there are some interesting factors to be balanced. But having one's own opinions, and being aware of one's own limitations, is very different from being so up yourself that you reckon that you know everything about submarine and anti-submarine warfare.

Oh, since you mentioned bushfire fighting, given that you effectively claimed to be Australia's biggest expert on fire fighting a while back, can I ask what brigade you're in? I mean, since you know exactly what people should be doing, surely you're giving the morons who actually get out there and get dirty the benefit of your superior intelligence, aren't you?

I just want to know when I may be able to meet you on the fire ground, or whether you are just sitting behind a keyboard and still telling the people who actually DO it how you know more about it than they do.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

lotofwind said..
...I just skulled a peck of beer?

I thought a peck was 16 pints.

Kinda explains most of what you post.

Usually aim for minimum of 20 pints before communicating with the CT nutbags
Man they live a depressing life always scared that the gov. is watching and following them.
Must be horrific living in fear 24hrs a day for no reason.

Shouldnt this be in HW

Select to expand quote

Subsonic said..
In other news today, after a loooong running theme of no nuclear anything in aus, turns out we're getting nuke powered subs now. Is this the start of a nuclear aus? Thanks Mr Biden.

This is the Labor/ Greens preferred option

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

Macroscien said..

Subsonic said..
In other news today, after a loooong running theme of no nuclear anything in aus, turns out we're getting nuke powered subs now. Is this the start of a nuclear aus? Thanks Mr Biden.

Good start really to rid of 90 bln.

Now ask yourself a question.

What is expected survival time of our nuclear submarine in the hypothetical conflict?

About your I hour am guessing.
Extremely lucky will be half a day. Hypersonic anti ship missles need one hour to rich any place on Earth. Nowadays position of every adversary submarine is displayed on big screen in military center, regardless if is sailing or sitting on the bottom of ocean or under Arctic ice.

Obviously we could give them the same money the ask us for and get something useful in exchange. Tractors, bobcats, fire fighting helicopters , posi track to clean Australian bushes before fire season, even electric Tesla's you could have plenty for 90 bln.

That move could remind us Nazi megalomania with Bismarck warship that becomes nothing more then target to sink asap
Now there is another question. Who wish to sail on those underwater coffins knowing that have zero chance of survival.?

Prove your claims. Come on, show us the evidence that you have suddenly become an expert on ASW.

By the way, Bismarck was a lot more than a target to sink ASAP. It caused the British to keep several battleships (KGV, PoW, plus some Rs and possibly Malaya), three battlecruisers (Hood, Repulse, Renown), two carriers (Victorious and Ark Royal), several cruisers (Suffolk, Norfolk, Cumberland I think, Sheffield, etc) and several destroyer flotillas on alert, keeping them away from other tasks.

By the way, I'm not in favour of the decision to go for nukes as far as I can see it, although there are some interesting factors to be balanced. But having one's own opinions, and being aware of one's own limitations, is very different from being so up yourself that you reckon that you know everything about submarine and anti-submarine warfare.

Oh, since you mentioned bushfire fighting, given that you effectively claimed to be Australia's biggest expert on fire fighting a while back, can I ask what brigade you're in? I mean, since you know exactly what people should be doing, surely you're giving the morons who actually get out there and get dirty the benefit of your superior intelligence, aren't you?

I just want to know when I may be able to meet you on the fire ground, or whether you are just sitting behind a keyboard and still telling the people who actually DO it how you know more about it than they do.

that is your problem,... lack of logical thinking ability and trust to experts that claim a such
We don't even needs to know exact facts about warfare.
Simple logic explain everything I said above.
But I am not going in this personal dispute with you, is completely pointless.
You are not going to present any logical contra argument.

Only one you have -that we did employ experts and decision makers that for sure know what they are doing.
Obviously they don't have a clue, as simple logic show us.

We could even perform simple comprehension test designed for you: Tell me why adversary can not sink our 12 submarines instantly , having all ability to do so in the case for military conflict?



Now lets imagine that Chinese bought 12 of those nuclear torpedo's to follow ours nuclear subs indefinitely, everywhere ,
each pack we 100 mT warhead. Would anybody really want to sit in our sub?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System

No, it's not a "problem" to respect other people. Only someone who suffered from a vast ego would imagine that they instantly know more about a particular subject than people who have spent their life in that field.

It's fairly simple. People with PhDs, people who control bushfire fighting and people who command ASW warfare (to use some of those you have insulted) have spent about 20,000 to 50,000 hours working in their fields. They are NOT perfect, and I have NEVER claimed they are. However, intelligent people who have spent their lives studying issues are almost always going to know more about that field than someone who has not worked in the field, has never studied it in depth, and is just sitting behind and computer with an ego so big that they imagine that they are so much smarter that they can instantly spot where the pros are wrong.

The logical contrary argument is that you have not shown a single piece of proof for your claim that "Nowadays position of every adversary submarine is displayed on big screen in military center, regardless if is sailing or sitting on the bottom of ocean or under Arctic ice." Show us what allows countries to find a submarine 200m under the sea.

You stated it AS A FACT. Prove your claim. It's that simple.

You are simply lying, yet again, when you claim that my only argument is that experts know what they are doing. My claim is that you have not shown any evidence for your claims. You have not shown any evidence that the Chinese, for example, can simply buy 12 torpedoes and "follow them indefinitely anywhere". You haven't shown the capacity of their passive or active sonar, you haven't shown how they can loiter outside any potential sub base, you haven't shown how they will just follow our subs, you haven't shown how they will respond to our ASW forces, you haven't shown what our potential allies submarines will do, you haven't shown anything that shows that you have any knowledge of the issues.

By the way, those Russian torpedoes are (1) owned by Russia not China (2) are launched from specialist submarines that China doesn't have (3) are very rare items; (4) are considered a weapon of last resort, NOT something to use on a minor nation's subs; (5) would probably attract nuclear weapons on China, if used; (6) would probably be targeted at US SSBNs rather than Australian subs with no ICBMs; (7) can't follow anything "infinitely anywhere".

If you don't understand that a torpedo with a range of 10,000km (at very low speeds for most of it) cannot follow a nuclear sub "infinitely anywhere" then your knowledge of simple reality is as poor as your knowledge of the Bismarck incident.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

Kamikuza said..

Chris 249 said..
No, argument from first-hand knowledge, research, and reality. Specifically, I was referring to an incident here where the people with a PhD, a highly relevant degree and years of experience were people I know extremely well, and where those factors certainly didn't apply. Despite that, the lame "sheeple" cry came up from the arrogant ignorant CT whackos here.

More generally, CT whackos keep on bringing up the bias claim about the vast majority of experts without giving any evidence for their claim. Take the Covid issue; big oil companies are losing tens of billions of dollars from the reduced use of fossil fuels since Covid hit. The FTSE, Dow Jones and other market indices crashed. If the majority expert advice was so easily affected by under-the-table financial "renumeration" then why would the big oil companies and others not be paying enough of those experts to advise against lockdowns?

It's illogical when people raise motivations without (a) giving any actual evidence to show that they are affecting the majority of expert advice and (b) admitting that they can affect both sides of the argument. Top CT whackos get views, they get re-tweets, and they could get as much or more financial reward than it's alleged the experts could get - so why ignore that side of the issue?

If you're not actually going to show proper evidence for your claims, you're not really arguing logically at all and therefore shouldn't complain about the way others argue.

You're doing the bait and switch again: making general claims then narrowing your definition. I'm sure your buddy is a stand-up guy, but are you going to vouch for every single person with a PhD etc?

Bait and switch again. We're talking about PhD holders, not oil companies.

And again. I'm suggesting that there's bias out there among PhD holders etc, you've switched to claim that I'm studying the majority of them are biased. It's not the same argument, and that's not what I said.

Oh easy. Wakefield. As I only need to prove there is bias and willful corruption out there among PhD holders etc, I'm done.

You now need to prove that there isn't bias and corruption amongst your preferred sources... Good luck with that -- you've set yourself up to prove a negative.

Lets stick with science and not rely on "authoritive sources".

By the way, who are you including in your catch-all "the CT" on here?

No, that was not a bait and switch. Read the post you referred to. It does NOT make a general claim. Here's a clue; I clearly wrote "a" in the post you referred to. "A" is a singular, in English. A post that refers to a singular is NOT a general claim.

Yes, having started with a specific claim I widened it. So what? This is a conversation of sorts; there's nothing underhanded about moving from showing that a specific claim is bull****, to showing that a wider claim may also be bull****. I've never denied that some PhD holders could be biased, but read the post; it specifically refers to the "majority" or "vast majority" of academics.

No, I do not have to prove that there's no bias in my sources, any more than I have to prove that you, Seabreeze's owners, your grandmother, Father Christmas or anyone else is unbiased. YOU are the one claiming that the scientific consensus is biased. YOU are the person who has to prove your claims.

What you are inferring is that because some academics are biased, everyone who believes any academic has to find evidence that they are not biased. That's similar to saying that because one Queenslander who sails has bashed his partner, you and every other Queenslander who sails has to prove they didn't bash their partner.

The onus of proof doesn't work that way. It's simple - if you make the claim, you prove the claim. If you claim that bias is affecting the consensus, prove it.

I'm not going to name those who I believe are CT believers here, although I will say that generally I believe that you're reasonable and not among the CT loonies.

It seems to me that I interpreted your posts as general statements about the absolute trustworthiness of *all* academics, when you had a specific example in mind. Makes tracking your points difficult when you jump from general to specific and back, which I interpreted as goal-post moving or bait-and-switch.

So basically we appear to agree that there is a level of bad-actor bias or motivations present in academia, to a degree that probably doesn't include even the vast majority. Everyone's biased, after all.

My claim was simply that having a PhD or years of experience etc, and so claiming unquestionable authority, is no guarantee of impartialness or integrity ... which was intentionally easy to prove so my burden of proof has been fulfilled nothing else needs to be inferred.

If your claim is that CT nutters claim something or all academics are unbiased, then it actually is your burden to prove that. Switching the burden to me when I say nah-uh isn't how burden of proof works. But if you claim you didn't claim that, then there's nothing further to be said

As for scientific consensus, I prefer a definition that's formed on the basis of reproducibility and repeatability of the science itself, rather than the individuals involved, because the majority could be wrong -- it's happened before. That's not related to my point about bias or any nefariousness though.

Thanks. I try to be reasonable and scientific, but when the liars and crooks stand up on the world stage and demand fealty, and the science they're supposedly following contradicts them... yeah I'm biased against that. I don't like generalizations either, you might have noticed

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
No, it's not a "problem" to respect other people. Only someone who suffered from a vast ego would imagine that they instantly know more about a particular subject than people who have spent their life in that field.

The logical contrary argument is that you have not shown a single piece of proof for your claim that "Nowadays position of every adversary submarine is displayed on big screen in military center, regardless if is sailing or sitting on the bottom of ocean or under Arctic ice." Show us what allows countries to find a submarine 200m under the sea.

You stated it AS A FACT. Prove your claim. It's that simple.

You are simply lying, yet again, when you claim that my only argument is that experts know what they are doing. My claim is that you have not shown any evidence for your claims. You have not shown any evidence that the Chinese, for example, can simply buy 12 torpedoes and "follow them indefinitely anywhere". You haven't shown the capacity of their passive or active sonar, you haven't shown how they can loiter outside any potential sub base, you haven't shown how they will just follow our subs, you haven't shown how they will respond to our ASW forces, you haven't shown what our potential allies submarines will do, you haven't shown anything that shows that you have any knowledge of the issues.

By the way, those Russian torpedoes are (1) owned by Russia not China (2) are launched from specialist submarines that China doesn't have (3) are very rare items; (4) are considered a weapon of last resort, NOT something to use on a minor nation's subs; (5) would probably attract nuclear weapons on China, if used; (6) would probably be targeted at US SSBNs rather than Australian subs with no ICBMs; (7) can't follow anything "infinitely anywhere".

If you don't understand that a torpedo with a range of 10,000km (at very low speeds for most of it) cannot follow a nuclear sub "infinitely anywhere" then your knowledge of simple reality is as poor as your knowledge of the Bismarck incident.

Chinese actually gaining surprisingly the greatest experience in small portable nuclear reactors. Suppose to power Gobi desert villages.
But one may draw some suspicions how and where some of those reactor can be used.
Can not tell anything in details because ASIO will wipe blank our SB server and kill all witnesses here.So I don't tell you where you could put such small portable nuclear reactors and how to use it to propel vessel under water... Possibly they don't even need 12 to target all our main cities...that just happen all to be on the sea bank located.100Mt per each our city that is Pear Harbor that one may should worry about. In such context - the fact if we even have some of those submarines or not becomes irrelevant.One correction required,.
Obviously nobody believe ( beside Tooth Fairy Believers ) that our nuclear subs will be toothless. They all will be equipped with ICBM obviously and nobody can verify, they are not. Obviously they will be hiding at NZ waters because obviously everybody know the NZ prohibit all nuclear ships, so nobody could expect them to be there. Poor Kiwi had no mean to verify where are subs are hidden.

wow. 9/11 conspiracy's, corona virus conspiracy's and now nuclear sub.
This thread has everything a CT NW nutter dreams about in one thread.....
Its getting even worse than twitter, fox news and rumble all rolled into one.
I heard twitter and rumble are now following seabreeze to find out the latest scientific evaluations by the table of seabreeze knowledge. lol

In before the inevitable delete

Select to expand quote

lotofwind said..
wow. 9/11 conspiracy's, corona virus conspiracy's and now nuclear sub.
This thread has everything a CT nutter dreams about in one thread.....
Its getting even worse than twitter, fox news and rumble all rolled into one.
I heard twitter and rumble are now following seabreeze to find out the latest scientific evaluations by the table of seabreeze knowledge. lol

I am not sure who is not reading SB but some of our officials decision makers should do and learn some basics in logical thinking...
o irony something here that we created as most ridiculous conspiracy and idiotic scenarios may be absolute truth our strategic planners indeed. I still hope that is all about money siphoned, where it floats from down under to the surface above of that flat planet. nobody is so na?ve to even consider military conflict...

Select to expand quote

lotofwind said..
wow. 9/11 conspiracy's, corona virus conspiracy's and now nuclear sub.
This thread has everything a CT NW nutter dreams about in one thread.....
Its getting even worse than twitter, fox news and rumble all rolled into one.
I heard twitter and rumble are now following seabreeze to find out the latest scientific evaluations by the table of seabreeze knowledge. lol

In before the inevitable delete

It's even got the "everyone else is a CT nutter" conspiracy theorist.

I agree, I can see the strings and shadows on the so called first moon landing.
And have seen for myself the edge of the flat earth.
Have read all about the nuremnutterburg code that is happening again right now,
all you sheeeeeeple have know idea, wake up and and see what I can see after the pizza with mushrooms I found growing in my backyard have shown me.

Select to expand quote

lotofwind said..
I agree, I can see the strings and shadows on the so called first moon landing.
And have seen for myself the edge of the flat earth.
Have read all about the nuremnutterburg code that is happening again right now,
all you sheeeeeeple have know idea, wake up and and see what I can see after the pizza with mushrooms I found growing in my backyard have shown me.

Medical professionals advise against eating random fungi, you know...

But you dont trust medical science as they have all been paid off remember.
Yes, you win, its all about gov. control, Im scared now too. I agree with you , no matter what country you really live in. lol

But the wind keeps blowing and the swell keeps coming, happy days, I'll worry about it when that stops. And when that happens, I'll go to twitter to spread my propaganda, not a windsports forum.

Select to expand quote

lotofwind said..
But you dont trust medical science as they have all been paid off remember.
Yes, you win, its all about gov. control, Im scared now too. I agree with you , no matter what country you really live in. lol

But the wind keeps blowing and the swell keeps coming, happy days, I'll worry about it when that stops. And when that happens, I'll go to twitter to spread my propaganda, not a windsports forum.

I never actually said *that*, did I.

What I *did* say is there have been "medical science" -- people with a PhD and years of experience in relevant fields -- who have been paid off ie. Wakefield.

You're just making stuff up. Like a CT nutter but go ahead with the mushrooms, your body your choice.