Share this comment
Please sue that stalker into a courtroom. Flip the script on her by showing that SHE is the person killing people. Organize your platoon of experts to testify. Bring in a mathematician—maybe someone with an impressive Erdós number—if you don't have one already to bury the defense with numbers, statistics, graphs, and equations. It doesn'…
Please sue that stalker into a courtroom. Flip the script on her by showing that SHE is the person killing people. Organize your platoon of experts to testify. Bring in a mathematician—maybe someone with an impressive Erdós number—if you don't have one already to bury the defense with numbers, statistics, graphs, and equations. It doesn't matter that the pandemicists may relent long before your case goes to trial. The Covid-19 hustle is the big scandal of our times, and the pandemicists will be attacking people for years to come to smother discussion and awareness of what they've done. A prominent trial could blow away a lot of their smoke and fog, and maybe get a bad doctor out of doctoring for a few years of remedial cognitive therapy.
But see also what Betsy McDonel Herr wrote a few comments before this one. There's something smelly about so-called fact checking.
Let your "concerned young doctor" prescribe ivermectin as a prophylactic or (gasp!) therapy for an infected patient. Then we will learn something important about your claim, "$0 from anybody".
You missed the point, then you threw a red herring off the trail.
It's probably true that your thinking about democracy isn't much better. Consider, for example, the problem of how to establish a democracy democratically. Must one do that through voting or not through voting? If democratically through voting, the founding fanatics will need a government to organize a plebiscite and to impose the results, but this organizing government itself isn't necessarily democratic. (Was it established by plebiscite?) This method of establishing democracy leads to the problem of infinite regress.
If, on the other hand, democracy is established democratically without voting, then we have no good arguement for picking democratic politicians by voting. And why call the affair democracy other than to avoid a word like anthropocracy? (A demos is a district.) We ought to learn, however, why the knaves of democracy pretend to care so much about voting. The dupes, of course, care about voting because it's in the nature of farm animals to believe just about anything a charming priest tells them.
Now, if you're an American, read Article VII of your Constitution carefully. Its one clause pretends to state the law about "Ratification" and "Eatablishment" before both ratification and establishment. Yet there there it is anyway, ready to do its work on the thoughts of natural born suckers, chumps, and useful idiots.