Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => The Friendly Forum => Topic started by: Sam Adams on September 08, 2013, 11:14:13 am

Title: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Sam Adams on September 08, 2013, 11:14:13 am
  Good website that explains dirty electrical around us, over head wires, Wifi, smart meters, wind turbines. It explains the health effects, and symptoms.   Knowledge is power.  http://www.electricalpollution.com/windturbines.html          also  www.electricalpollution.com
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 08, 2013, 11:37:05 am
This may well be what's fueling the godawful insomnia I've had for the last 3 months, ever since I moved into the house and neighborhood I'm in. I can't seem to sleep for more than three hours at a time -- four and a half at the most, occasionally. I also experienced this about two years ago, in a different house, but it was much worse. At that time, I couldn't sleep for even an hour a night for almost two weeks. It was a horrible experience. Casting about for a cause, I discovered that all the power and phone lines came together to depart from the house right on the other side of the wall that my bed was up against. I moved my bed across the room, and was immediately able to sleep again. This issue is no joke!
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: greap on September 08, 2013, 11:57:16 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity

Quote
The majority of provocation trials to date have found that self-described sufferers of electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to distinguish between exposure to real and fake electromagnetic fields, and it is not recognized as a medical condition by the medical or scientific communities. Since a systematic review in 2005 showing no convincing scientific evidence for it being caused by electromagnetic fields, several double-blind experiments have been published, each of which has suggested that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure, as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields.

Knowledge is indeed power.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 08, 2013, 06:13:01 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity
Quote
The majority of provocation trials to date have found that self-described sufferers of electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to distinguish between exposure to real and fake electromagnetic fields, and it is not recognized as a medical condition by the medical or scientific communities. Since a systematic review in 2005 showing no convincing scientific evidence for it being caused by electromagnetic fields, several double-blind experiments have been published, each of which has suggested that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure, as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields.
Knowledge is indeed power.

Quite true.  Only certain frequencies of electromagnetic radiation have an impact on humans (or most life forms, for that matter).  Mostly high-frequency stuff.  Even the EM waves that we call "visible light" are only visible to us because of we have very specialized receptors for them.  And visible light is fairly high in frequency.  Things lower than that do not impinge on our lives other than by causing heating.  And it takes a high energy density to produce any meaningful heating - a typical microwave oven draws a thousand watts, and is only acting on a chamber around a cubic foot in size.  A WiFi access point draws milliwatts, and acts on a volume of tens of millions of cubic feet.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Sam Adams on September 08, 2013, 08:06:40 pm
  Actually, since our bodies are low frequency, the low frequency pollution reeks havoc on our bodies and interrupts us on our daily lives. Thats why maybe they make cells and smart meters and cell towers using low frequency.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: greap on September 08, 2013, 09:09:35 pm
 :o
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 08, 2013, 09:39:42 pm
I'm thinking:

1) I trust the World Health Organization about as far as I can throw Fat Albert.

2) Who's to say that some people aren't immune to this, and others highly susceptible?

3) I've heard that the human brain is the most sensitive receptor of electromagnetic energy in existence. (Or it may be DNA...)

...so as far as I'm concerned, the case is far from closed. I'll be keeping my eyes and ears open.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 08, 2013, 11:21:22 pm
Actually, since our bodies are low frequency, the low frequency pollution reeks havoc on our bodies and interrupts us on our daily lives. Thats why maybe they make cells and smart meters and cell towers using low frequency.

Human bodies are "low frequency?"  What, precisely, is the frequency of a human body?

Who's to say that some people aren't immune to this, and others highly susceptible?

Someone can be immune to a virus and another succeptible to the same virus, because being infected by a virus is a thing that happens to living organisms, so the degree of infection can vary.

Living organisms are not radio recievers, so they don't pick up electromagnetic fields at these frequencies.

I've heard that the human brain is the most sensitive receptor of electromagnetic energy in existence. (Or it may be DNA...)

Metal is far better at intercepting electromagnetic radiation than anything non-metallic, so no part of a human body is going to compare to even an arbitrary piece of metal like a coat hanger or somesuch, let alone be "the most sensitive receptor of electomagnetic energy in existence."

DNA is very succeptible to electromagnetic radiation.  In the UV and higher range.  Which is why ultraviolet light, x-rays, gamma rays, and such can give you cancer.  In order for electromagnetic radiation to be capable of causing molecular damage to DNA, it has to be capable of ionizing atoms within that molecule.  The specific atom to be ionized determines the minimum energy level (and, therefore, frequency) necessary to cause that ionization.  DNA only contains certain atoms, so we can easily figure out whether a given frequency can cause damage.  You have to be well into the ultraviolet range before you get to a frequency which can damage a DNA molecule.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 09, 2013, 08:15:36 am
Good thoughts, MaineShark. But don't be too convinced about the coathanger; there's a lot about the human body (not to mention physics in general...) that we don't know for sure.

Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: greap on September 09, 2013, 08:26:05 am
That's not the way science works.

I don't know that dragons don't exist, does that mean I simply presume that they do?
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Wolvenhaven on September 09, 2013, 09:13:11 am
Might want to go freak out about chemtrails next.  There's about as much logic and science in that.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Sam Adams on September 09, 2013, 09:38:55 am
 Bodies cells have atoms, which have electrons[sodium], and protons[potassium]. They all communicate with each other if you will, since they are electric. We aren,t antennas but electricity attaches other electric. Just like a north side of one magnet vs another one. This is how these matching low frequency waves can interfere with body function by changing the cells DNA make-up. Tesla studied these low frequencies and did transport electric without any wiring. Of course there are products that can polarize these radiation frequencies, I will have to find site.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: greap on September 09, 2013, 09:48:57 am
Bodies cells have atoms, which have electrons[sodium], and protons[potassium].

The quality of education in this country is terrifying. I assure you that electrons are not sodium and protons are not potassium, both are elements composed of a nucleus (itself composed of protons and neutrons) surrounded by an electron cloud.

They all communicate with each other if you will, since they are electric. We aren,t antennas but electricity attaches other electric. Just like a north side of one magnet vs another one. This is how these matching low frequency waves can interfere with body function by changing the cells DNA make-up. Tesla studied these low frequencies and did transport electric without any wiring. Of course there are products that can polarize these radiation frequencies, I will have to find site.

 ??? You would do well to take a physics class, you are rambling nonsense.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 09, 2013, 12:35:00 pm
Oh, I just can't stand to see people being beaten around with orthodox scientific dogma...

Regarding meteorites:

"Antoine Lavoisier, father of modern chemistry, told his fellow Academicians, 'Stones cannot fall from the sky, because there are no stones in the sky!'

Museums all over Europe had thrown out their cherished meteorite specimens with the rubbish as humiliating reminders of a superstitious past."

Regarding electicity:

"When the nineteenth century's greatest experimental physicist, Michael Faraday, announced that he had found a new source of energy simply by moving a magnet in a coil of wire, many educated people found the claim impossible to believe and looked on the young man as a charlatan."

The point? Be reluctant to accept anything as a "certainty", even if it comes from "scientists" or "experts". Much of what we "know" today will be disproven tomorrow. And some of what our "knowing" condemns as "impossible" and "absurd" will be proven correct.

Let me recommend, for your edification and consideration, a book called Alternative Science by Richard Milton. It's about "a worrying but well-documents social trend; a trend toward a normalized world view based on a singular model that is derived entirely from the reductionist western scientific viewpoint, and the marginalization and suppression of any form of scientific dissent or alternative world view."

Minds are like parachutes; they work best when open.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 09, 2013, 12:38:39 pm
And on the subject of what goes on at the cellular level... do any of you know what primary cell perception is?

(Added hint: don't read this as sarcasm. I'm literally curious to know if anyone else partaking in the discussion has come across this concept.)
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: greap on September 09, 2013, 02:34:44 pm
Do you know what empiricism is?
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 09, 2013, 03:38:50 pm
Of course I do! :) I'm a sesquipedalian autodidact!
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Sam Adams on September 09, 2013, 05:50:39 pm
Bodies cells have atoms, which have electrons[sodium], and protons[potassium].

The quality of education in this country is terrifying. I assure you that electrons are not sodium and protons are not potassium, both are elements composed of a nucleus (itself composed of protons and neutrons) surrounded by an electron cloud.

They all communicate with each other if you will, since they are electric. We aren,t antennas but electricity attaches other electric. Just like a north side of one magnet vs another one. This is how these matching low frequency waves can interfere with body function by changing the cells DNA make-up. Tesla studied these low frequencies and did transport electric without any wiring. Of course there are products that can polarize these radiation frequencies, I will have to find site.

 ??? You would do well to take a physics class, you are rambling nonsense.                   Greap, I,m sorry I misquoted a fact or 2 here, you have taken Full advantage of it. I thought you enjoyed Americans and our country, vs where came from[snob dry hill].  Its obvious I haven,t received the level of education you have, but I continue my education on a daily bases, unlike some over educated folks. The other difference I see, is being naive and close minded and believing everything you read and hear. We live in a rapidly changing world and there are thousands of lies and frequencies being thrown at you everyday, its up to you to filter out what makes sense and filter out the lies that you have been taught in College, including Science. At least Americans haven,t allowed their country to be renamed and run by a Union, then again, I think I,m wrong again. But greap, 25% of the info you have studied and learned is false or made-up, out right lies, or corrupted.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 09, 2013, 08:20:01 pm
Renamed and run by a Union? The United States of America is a Union.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Sam Adams on September 09, 2013, 08:34:51 pm
Renamed and run by a Union? The United States of America is a Union.
                      Run by a union for sure, and corporations, Large Bankers, International elite, UN, IMF, Queen[ but many people don,t believe this], Federal Reserve, Bilderbergs. But America was created to be A Constitutional Republic.  A Republic of Individual State Nations.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: greap on September 09, 2013, 08:41:11 pm
(http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Nathan-Fillion-Loss-For-Words-Reaction-Gif.gif)
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 10, 2013, 02:22:20 pm
The US is a constitutional republic, and none of what your referencing changes that.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 10, 2013, 05:36:43 pm
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the point of all those things is exactly to change it. And they have been changing it.

If they hadn't... well, then there wouldn't be any need for a Free State Project, would there?
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 11, 2013, 12:51:35 pm
No. The point of none of those things was to change us from a constitutional republic.
Failure to abide and hold dear the constitution changes us from a constitutional republic.
But you'll find each of those instances to be a desire of the majority, with a failure of the minority to act.

Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Sam Adams on September 11, 2013, 02:47:22 pm
No. The point of none of those things was to change us from a constitutional republic.
Failure to abide and hold dear the constitution changes us from a constitutional republic.
But you'll find each of those instances to be a desire of the majority, with a failure of the minority to act.


John, we have to realize that we have been duped since the Civil war, with lies of states rights vs federal govt big rights and regulations. I think we were also lied to in the Revolutionary war also, just a false flag maybe? People tend to BELIEVE their ceasar govt and not suspect that every word they say is 100% false, and that they are totally manipulating us and US. Listening to the rushes and fox who support the industrial military complex which feeds the sic federal reserve and the IMF and do the bidding of the un and the growth of the nwo, warps peoples thinking. Just like germany and Russia and China, we are being transformed from a republic into a Commie state, even if u don,t believe it. Crash the federal reserve note and topple dcs debt, then something can be fixed, with some short term pain for folks who aren,t prepared. Under bushes 1999 voters count fraud, they changed your vote to a digital vote counted by software that bushes dad owns the company. We don,t have a vote thats counted, unless you run for office. Don,t blame the majority or the minority, put the blame where it belongs. We live in very dangerous times, realize it. SAM ADAMS
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 11, 2013, 04:28:19 pm
The Federal Reserve doesn't violate the constitutional republic; and the history of banking in the US would be the start to your education on this issue.

As for the 'electronic voting'; in my district its paper ballot. I think you may mean the 'electronic counting'; and no one has shown it to be false.

There are specific issues that violate the constitutional republic. For instance, Rand Paul has entered Amendment 1742 to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations act (S.1243) to fix one of these. Watch this Amendment and you'll witness the opposition for the federal government to be reined in to its constitutional authority.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 11, 2013, 07:56:18 pm
So what it seems you're saying, Mercier, is that

no one in high places is colluding to change our Republic

the change is simply the end result of many coincidental specific mistakes.

Is that a basically correct summation?

(For anyone watching, I expect him to seize on any specific word or phrase that he can and run off on a tangent to avoid giving a direct answer to a simple question.)
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 12, 2013, 08:28:58 am
Of course they are colluding. I gave you an amendment to watch that removes some of the collusion.
What your failing to understand is that collusion is desired by the majority, and no one works to stop it.

But to change from a constitutional republic, you need a constitutional violation or extra-constitutional act.
Acting within the  constitutional authority granted doesn't do that.

You do understand the difference?



Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Luck on September 13, 2013, 07:21:55 am
Quote
Greap said: You would do well to take a physics class, you are rambling nonsense.
Miles Mathis at http://milesmathis.com shows that conventional physics has been rambling nonsense for over a century. And he shows a lot of hints as to what reality is much closer to.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 13, 2013, 08:45:10 am
Quote
Greap said: You would do well to take a physics class, you are rambling nonsense.
Miles Mathis at http://milesmathis.com shows that conventional physics has been rambling nonsense for over a century. And he shows a lot of hints as to what reality is much closer to.

I just skimmed through that, and every single "problem" with physics which he offers up, is really just an example of him not even vaguely understanding physics.

For example:
Quote
We are told that atmospheric muons are experiencing time dilation in order to reach sea level detection. But special relativity tells us that all objects in relative motion experience both time dilation and length contraction. The length contraction in SR is derived from the x or distance contraction, and they are proportional. Meaning, the whole x-dimension must be contracting, not just the “length” of the muon. Which means that a time-dilated particle must seem to be going a shorter distance than expected, not a longer distance. How can current theory ignore the length contraction?

This just demonstrates total lack of comprehension.  It is a "length" contraction - specifically, it occurs along the axis of travel.  And it is an apparent contraction, the same as the time dilation.  This is relativity, so the speeds involved and the time and length differences are all relative values.  If I travel away from you at great speed in a rocket, and then return at great speed, I will have experienced less time than you did.  But you aren't some sort of absolute reference - you exist relative to me, relative to the planet, relative to the solar system, relative to the Milky Way, etc.  If I convince a friend to join me in my trip, travelling parallel to my path in his own rocket ship, we'll each have experienced less time than you did, but we'll have experienced the same amount of time as each other, because we travelled at the same speed for the same duration.

Lorentz contraction states that an object travelling at very high speeds relative to a particular observer will appear to that observer to be shorter along its axis of travel.  An observer riding the object would see himself as stationary, and the first observer as moving, and would see that observer contracted, while seeing himself normally.  The contraction does not impact the muon's speed, because the muon does not "see" the contraction - from the muon's "point of view," it is perfectly normal, and the rest of the universe is distorted.

Mathis is engaging in some of the most basic failures that anyone can make when attempting to understand physics.  Particularly, attempting to establish an "absolute" reference, instead of accepting that everything in the universe moves relative to everything else.  His position is equivalent to those who tried to claim that the Earth was the center of the universe, because they couldn't stand the idea that they were not the center of it all.

He claims that orbital mechanics cannot work because, "...this velocity is the tangential velocity. It is not the orbital velocity..." which is a nonsensical statement - the orbital velocity of an object is its tangential velocity.  He claims that the orbital velocity is a changing vector because the orbiter moves around the object it is orbiting, as a product of the centripedal force and the gravitational force.  But he has apparently never taken that product, or he would have found out that it is always tangential to the orbit, thus rendering his "complaint" completely moot.

Or tries to claim that photons must have mass, because e=mc^2 - ignoring the fact that entire point of that equation is to define an energy-mass equivalence.  If an atomic bomb goes off, some of the mass of the material is converted to energy - quite a lot of energy, since the square of the speed of light is a huge number.  The mass is gone, and now there's more energy around.  The photons have no mass, precisely because they are energy.  If photons had mass, then Einstein's famous equation would not work, but Mathis is attempting to claim the opposite, because he is ignorant of what the equation actually means (as seen from his attempt to apply the kinetic energy equation to the same subject, as if kinetic energy and nuclear energy were the same thing).

The stuff about the moon is so ludicrous that I can't even write about it without laughing out loud.  Tidal force is one of the simplest things to explain, and doesn't even require an understanding of relativity, but he manages to get completely turned around on that one.

And let's not get started on all the times he complains that "physics is wrong" about something, and cites the description of that thing on Wikipedia as the source text that he intends to deconstruct.  Wikipedia is not "physics."  Wikipedia is a bunch of articles written by amateurs, where the goal is accessibility rather than accuracy.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 13, 2013, 12:17:24 pm
Ah, ok.

Yes, actually, I'm very aware of the majority's unintentional complicity. It's a circular problem, to be sure. I'm more bothered, though, by the actions of the minority, because their complicity is intentional.

An example of the circularity and weight of responsibility would be:
In order to have a functioning constitutional republic, the people need to participate in the processes of government -- "of the people, by the people".
But in order to participate, the people need to be educated in the processes of government and need to be motivated to do so, by their understanding of how participation benefits them.
So the ones whose complicity is intentional set up the U.S. Department of Education (socialist) to make sure that that the rest don't receive knowledge of governmental processes in the normal course of their education, and put their money and influence to work in the (highly centralized) mass media to make sure that the rest grow up focused on consumption and entertainment rather than anything important and meaningful, like the processes of the government under which one lives.

Sure, when it comes right down to it, each one is responsible for himself. But it is a fact that we humans are highly susceptible to psychological conditioning.

So who bears more responsibility for this sorry state of affairs in which the human race finds itself? The majority who unknowingly allow it, or the minority who deliberately create it? My heart says the latter.

As for constitutional authority... Yes, I understand what your words mean; but, if you think that the Constitution has provided authority to do what they have done, then I can only think that your understanding of that document and mine are fundamentally different.

I will just note that wise adjudicators throughout history have repudiated the notion that any body of written laws can ultimately be relied upon. That is why the tradition of unwritten, "common" law was maintained despite our transition from British subjects to American people.

The problem of "law" is a very deep one.

---

MaineShark: thanks for that! (LOL) Reading that post was like watching Muhammed Ali beat up Buckwheat. I love when another one of those fill-the-Internet-with-nonsense people gets (intellectually) gored!

I'd ask for a match between you and Tet next, but he's an android (http://flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/android.htm). (Come on, tell me he's not! It's not an insult; it's an observation.)

Now I'm off to reverse-engineer a brilliant piece of software written by a Russian who apparently thought a few incoherent paragraphs were adequate documentation for it. (Grrr!) See ya l8r, alligators...
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 13, 2013, 03:35:16 pm
The DOE wasn't set-up for the purpose your suggesting.
Lack of knowledge about the functioning of government is general ignorance (that we all have to some degree), this can be because a lack of the subject being brought up or the failure of the individual to pay attention to it.

If the minority had been paying attention; it might have done more to prevent the development of a Department with questionably constitutional grounds.

In NH, it was pretty simple. Present it to the People as a means to keep property taxes down, and don't mention that it will be paid for with other taxation/borrowing and never mention the constitution.

I see it all the time for programs that are developed. That Paul Amendment trying to end one such program. And the most important of the four Paul Amendments, because I suspect that it will be attacked from all sides.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 14, 2013, 10:13:44 am
I freely admit to not knowing anything very specific about the historical event that was the setting up of the Department of Education, therefore you may be right about my being wrong about the motivations behind it.

However, it is a program of socialism, something better left in more private hands. Whether by design or by later corruption, its effect is as I've described. For example, I went to a public high school with relatively high standards, and political education consisted of a single semester course, which was an elective. <sarcasm>I can surely see how learning geometric proofs and algebraic equations are so much more important to the average person's life that several years of them are mandatory but a half-year of 'Government' isn't.</sarcasm>

Do you seriously hold everyone up to the expectation that they will fight against every stream of consciousness which has been grooved into their minds by their environment and figure out the contrary truth? After all, the planet hasn't ever, to our knowledge, seen such an enlightened majority. I think that's an unrealistic expectation in the current social environment. I once thought that way myself, but eventually realized it was just an ego-driven attitude. Those who are in the dark need someone to provide them light, not for someone to curse their blindness and say, "Well, just stumble around and hurt yourself, then, stupid!"
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 14, 2013, 05:18:53 pm
I expect that most will stand up to only those violations of the constitutional republic that concerns them.
But they will also support violations of the constitutional republic that concerns them.

So it only takes a very small minority to keep the balance, regardless of the majorities decision to ignore it.

Rand Paul entered four amendments to that bill, two might find little opposition, while two will find opposition, and only one is technically correcting a questionable act under the Constitution.

Removing Davis-Bacon for Transportation and HUD projects will probable get as much political opposition as removing funding for Transportation Alternative Programs. Davis-Bacon is bad from a libertarian sense, but its not a violation of the Constitution if the contracts are toward items empowered to the Congress. The TAP programs are questionable in that empowerment.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 14, 2013, 08:49:34 pm
Well, since it's proving impossible to draw you out on the subject of underlying principles... then I have a request. Could you give me a brief summary of what Sen. Paul's amendments to S. 1742 are about?

I tried looking them up earlier (and noticed the extreme opposition he's receiving to the TAP amendment -- mostly from state welfare junkies, it seems), but I literally don't have the time to delve into this in any detail at the moment.

If you don't mind doing that, I suggest starting a new thread for it, so as not to continue cluttering Mr. Adams' discussion of electrical pollution.

Thanks! (http://r11.imgfast.net/users/1113/22/31/72/smiles/424776184.gif)
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Sam Adams on September 15, 2013, 07:51:21 pm
 DJ, glad you mentioned Primary Cell Perception. Clive Backster, if I have his name right, former CIA polygraph founder and expert. he found that plants with attached electro, s attached feel pain and feelings. Electricity is within all living things, species and animals. Electricity is within living cells that communicate, but its low frequency just like our smart meters and cell phones and towers.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 15, 2013, 08:15:45 pm
DJ, glad you mentioned Primary Cell Perception. Clive Backster, if I have his name right, former CIA polygraph founder and expert. he found that plants with attached electro, s attached feel pain and feelings. Electricity is within all living things, species and animals. Electricity is within living cells that communicate, but its low frequency just like our smart meters and cell phones and towers.

Of course, no one else has ever been able to replicate his "experiments" with scientific controls.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 15, 2013, 08:40:52 pm
How do you know its the same frequency? And if it was, when you get a burst from any of it, why don't you convulse?
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 15, 2013, 08:49:45 pm
Well, since it's proving impossible to draw you out on the subject of underlying principles... then I have a request. Could you give me a brief summary of what Sen. Paul's amendments to S. 1742 are about?

I tried looking them up earlier (and noticed the extreme opposition he's receiving to the TAP amendment -- mostly from state welfare junkies, it seems), but I literally don't have the time to delve into this in any detail at the moment.

If you don't mind doing that, I suggest starting a new thread for it, so as not to continue cluttering Mr. Adams' discussion of electrical pollution.

Thanks! (http://r11.imgfast.net/users/1113/22/31/72/smiles/424776184.gif)
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=900

And lots of groups are on this one. Pretty much every major recreational trail association. Huge amounts of Democrat and Republican support.

Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 16, 2013, 01:42:13 am
MaineShark, have there been attempts to replicate his experiments? I'd love to know more about it.

Thanks for the link, Mercier. Checking it out...
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 16, 2013, 07:10:04 am
MaineShark, have there been attempts to replicate his experiments? I'd love to know more about it.

Yes.  Debunking that one is a standby in many colleges.

But if you want a reference that you can access easily, even Mythbusters took a shot at it.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Wolvenhaven on September 16, 2013, 05:07:27 pm
People have all sorts of legitimate symptoms to "electrical allergies" but it's all psychosomatic.  Stick them in a faraday cage and tell them they've got a [imaginary] transmitter pointed at them and they freak out; stick them in a normal room and claim it's a faraday cage and they're fine.  It's nothing but hocus pocus science, snakeoil has a better reputation.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 16, 2013, 07:27:37 pm
Well, thanks, but I'd prefer something a little more substantial than Mythbusters. Since this is something you seem to know about, I was hoping for a link to an authoritative source...?

(I don't have the time to look up everything, you know; I already live in fear that Ixquick will cut me off one of these days... I use it like every 15 seconds... :P )

 --- topic change ---

My, I'm garnering quite the list of people who only post when they have something bad to say about other people's ideas. And never provide any proof of their opinion, neither documented facts nor a good chain of logic. Guess how much time I waste worrying about unproven opinions? (Beyond the ten seconds it took to type the last three sentences... yeesh, you guys are so predictable.  ::) )
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 16, 2013, 08:12:26 pm
Well, thanks, but I'd prefer something a little more substantial than Mythbusters. Since this is something you seem to know about, I was hoping for a link to an authoritative source...?

Pick up a decent college textbook.  Not everything is linked on the Internet.

My, I'm garnering quite the list of people who only post when they have something bad to say about other people's ideas. And never provide any proof of their opinion, neither documented facts nor a good chain of logic. Guess how much time I waste worrying about unproven opinions?

You mean like the unproven opinions that there are such things as "electrical pollution" or "primary cell perception?"

Those are unproven opinions.  Have you or anyone else provided any evidence to support them?  No.  So who, precisely, is on your "list," eh?  Yourself?  "Sam Adams?"
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 16, 2013, 08:41:53 pm
Wow, that's a lot of hostility, there, Mr. Shark.

The only reply that I can give you is that I am a person who puts forth a LOT of effort to avoid holding incorrect ideas (to the extent that this is possible for a human being). I am skeptical of everything and constantly on guard against my own ego's tendency to bias. HOWEVER, as can be said of anyone, be it Einstein, Buddha, Jefferson, or Vos Savant, I have limits. When I run into them (always limits on time and energy, never on desire), I have to do what we all have to do at that point -- punt. That is what intuition is for. That is what common sense is for. That is what reputation is for (as in, the reputation my sources of information have with me, because I have and continue to periodically track their information back to primary sources, to see how honest they are being and how careful they are in their thinking).

A few days ago, on my own forum, I put up as the daily quote a phrase that had spontaneously occurred to me: "Always maintain a healthy skepticism -- of your own opinion."

Don't misunderstand the strength with which I'll defend my ideas. I remain willing to shed any idea -- my entire worldview, even -- at a moment's notice, if it is proven untrue. But the key word is proven. Would it make any sense, after putting so much effort and care into discerning the truth, to just drop everything I have learned as soon as someone tosses off a contrary opinion? No, sir, that would itself be an extreme form of gullibility.

I care about the Truth. Attacking that fact will not encourage pleasant discourse between us.

Anytime you want my sources, I'd be more than happy to share them. Eager, even. But it would help if you would inquire after them politely, rather than mid-sneer.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Sam Adams on September 16, 2013, 09:29:09 pm
People have all sorts of legitimate symptoms to "electrical allergies" but it's all psychosomatic.  Stick them in a faraday cage and tell them they've got a [imaginary] transmitter pointed at them and they freak out; stick them in a normal room and claim it's a faraday cage and they're fine.  It's nothing but hocus pocus science, snakeoil has a better reputation.
                               Ok, if you are incapable to do some research yourselves, and just want to jump on the negative uneducated band wagon, so help yourself. If your able to read and understand, I will attempt to direct you in a start.  Try,, Dr David Carpenter , former founding Dean of the Univ. at Albany School of Public Health..  Santa Cruz County Ca..  Public Health Dept--- Electrohypersensitivity  EHS.        Australian  Ass Professor of Neurosurgery  Vival G. Khurana..    EMF Safety Network of CA    emfsaftynetwork.org     Let me know, maybe I can read it to you aloud??? 
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 16, 2013, 10:12:13 pm
Wow, that's a lot of hostility, there, Mr. Shark.

Actually, no, there's no hostility at all.  Perhaps you are projecting?

The only reply that I can give you is that I am a person who puts forth a LOT of effort to avoid holding incorrect ideas (to the extent that this is possible for a human being). I am skeptical of everything and constantly on guard against my own ego's tendency to bias. HOWEVER, as can be said of anyone, be it Einstein, Buddha, Jefferson, or Vos Savant, I have limits. When I run into them (always limits on time and energy, never on desire), I have to do what we all have to do at that point -- punt. That is what intuition is for. That is what common sense is for. That is what reputation is for (as in, the reputation my sources of information have with me, because I have and continue to periodically track their information back to primary sources, to see how honest they are being and how careful they are in their thinking).

A few days ago, on my own forum, I put up as the daily quote a phrase that had spontaneously occurred to me: "Always maintain a healthy skepticism -- of your own opinion."

Don't misunderstand the strength with which I'll defend my ideas. I remain willing to shed any idea -- my entire worldview, even -- at a moment's notice, if it is proven untrue. But the key word is proven. Would it make any sense, after putting so much effort and care into discerning the truth, to just drop everything I have learned as soon as someone tosses off a contrary opinion? No, sir, that would itself be an extreme form of gullibility.

The ideas you are supporting here are not ones which can stand up to any sort of skepticism.  There is literally no evidence at all to support that "primary cell perception" notion.  None whatsoever.  So I have trouble accepting your claimed rigor as honest, because there's no possible way that a rigorous analysis can lead to that.

I care about the Truth. Attacking that fact will not encourage pleasant discourse between us.

Anytime you want my sources, I'd be more than happy to share them. Eager, even. But it would help if you would inquire after them politely, rather than mid-sneer.

Not really.  No one is responsible for proving your claims to be untrue.  You are responsible for proving them to be true.  That's how honest discourse works.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Wolvenhaven on September 17, 2013, 05:49:38 am
                             Ok, if you are incapable to do some research yourselves, and just want to jump on the negative uneducated band wagon, so help yourself. If your able to read and understand, I will attempt to direct you in a start.  Try,, Dr David Carpenter , former founding Dean of the Univ. at Albany School of Public Health..  Santa Cruz County Ca..  Public Health Dept--- Electrohypersensitivity  EHS.        Australian  Ass Professor of Neurosurgery  Vival G. Khurana..    EMF Safety Network of CA    emfsaftynetwork.org     Let me know, maybe I can read it to you aloud???  

There is absolutely zero reason for you to be personally attacking me because I don't adhere to a belief that you hold and that I call into question the validity of.  You point to one single study which has questionable research methods, and which no other researcher has been able to duplicate.  A quick search found 30+ studies which could not replicate any of the "findings" that electromagnetism in the non-ionizing range causes any repeatable, actual medical issues.  Here are a few:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/Radiation/HPARPDSeriesReports/HpaRpd010/

http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7546/886

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20195/abstract;jsessionid=D606B1D6DEDA05CB60D262E526884AE1.d03t03

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/67/2/224

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20536/abstract

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935108000601

But what do I know?  I just require a researcher to not only publish their findings, but have proof that others can repeat the study so that it can be verified by others instead of blindly accepting any crackpot ideas which someone claim is a theory and which fits my own personal beliefs.  And so far the score on that is looking pretty dim with only 3 studies that have been show as a "maybe, kind of, possibly" while there are 35 others which say no.  Your own lack of understanding and knowledge of basic science as show in previous posts in this thread is really not helping your case either; sodium is not an electron nor is potassium a proton, how exactly are you supposed to understand electromagnetism if you can't even understand that?
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Luck on September 17, 2013, 06:45:29 am
Shark's Weak Dismissals
Quote
Joe Shark said: Mathis is engaging in some of the most basic failures that anyone can make when attempting to understand physics.  Particularly, attempting to establish an "absolute" reference, instead of accepting that everything in the universe moves relative to everything else.  His position is equivalent to those who tried to claim that the Earth was the center of the universe, because they couldn't stand the idea that they were not the center of it all.

It's easy for supposed experts to dismiss alternative views with broad claims and get acceptance from the general public, because the education system programs them to accept "authorities" as absolute truth dispensers. And subordinate authorities, like the Shark, have the advantage over brilliant mavericks, because of this known brainwashing.

So all Joe had to do was make a few trivial statements about Mathis, which were unfounded (including the claim that Mathis is trying to deny relativity), but, since Joe's position has the backing of the mainstream, the statements are good enough to satisfy most readers, including one who ridiculously compared Mathis to Buckwheat. I have considerable knowledge of science and it's obvious to me from reading both Mathis' extensive science and math papers, that he's much more knowledgeable than over 99% of other scientists and mathematicians. He knows most of the details of nearly every major physics experiment that's known and he can explain many of the details much better than nearly anyone.

The mainstream's primary expertise is in advertising and PR (public relations) etc. There's very little expertise beyond that. PR is part of male culture, called bluffing. It takes much less energy to bluff, than to fight it out with opponents, so bluffing saves energy. But it doesn't lead to increased knowledge. The mainstream pretends that all scientists agree on nearly every major claim in physics, astronomy etc. But to claim that scientists agree is to disprove that conventional science is really scientific, because real science involves disagreements and not pretending to be all-knowledgeable. Science was taken over by the ruling class in the late 1800s and it has become increasingly controlled ever since then. Science is controlled largely by so-called peer review in journals, which thwart new ideas, and by grants from govt and private sources, which tend to pay only for desired scientific findings, like CO2 caused global warming.

In reality scientists understand very little and disagree with each other tremendously. A lot of physics is largely imagination, like black holes, the big bang, expanding universe, dark matter, dark energy, wormholes, neutron stars, the size and age of the known universe etc. There are major problems in nearly all of the sciences. Radioactive dating methods are unreliable, so the age of the Sun and Earth, the time of the dinosaurs, the age of the rock strata etc are generally unknown. It's been found that rock strata are able to form quickly from flooding. There's also excellent evidence of biological transmutation of elements, as shown in Louis Kervran's book.

EM and Electric Pollution
There is plenty of evidence that electric and EM fields are dangerous in many cases. A Swedish study in 2002 studied cancer rates in Sweden and in the U.S. and found that radio waves from nearby radio stations increased cancer locally. When radio stations went out of business, local cancer rates went down. Microwaves used for cell phone communication have a bit shorter wavelengths than radio waves, but they can have similar dangers. When cell phones are held to the ear, the microwaves heat up the area and penetrate into the brain, as is shown in infrared imaging. They penetrate most deeply into children's brains. It's best to use speakers with cell phones, or other ways to keep them away from the head. I believe they also reduce sperm counts in males, when held on a belt or in a pocket.

Do you trust incompetent government to regulate industry and science to protect the public?
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 17, 2013, 07:27:55 am
It's easy for supposed experts to dismiss alternative views with broad claims and get acceptance from the general public, because the education system programs them to accept "authorities" as absolute truth dispensers. And subordinate authorities, like the Shark, have the advantage over brilliant mavericks, because of this known brainwashing.

You're claiming that someone who is the scientific equivalent of a flat-earther is a "brilliant maverick?"

So all Joe had to do was make a few trivial statements about Mathis, which were unfounded (including the claim that Mathis is trying to deny relativity), but, since Joe's position has the backing of the mainstream, the statements are good enough to satisfy most readers, including one who ridiculously compared Mathis to Buckwheat. I have considerable knowledge of science and it's obvious to me from reading both Mathis' extensive science and math papers, that he's much more knowledgeable than over 99% of other scientists and mathematicians. He knows most of the details of nearly every major physics experiment that's known and he can explain many of the details much better than nearly anyone.

The only thing Mathis demonstrates is an ability to use and misinterpret Wikipedia articles.  It doesn't take actualy knowledge, when you can fake it by quoting Wikipedia.

...because real science involves disagreements and not pretending to be all-knowledgeable.

Unless it's Mathis who is pretending to be all-knowledgeable?

There's also excellent evidence of biological transmutation of elements, as shown in Louis Kervran's book.

Um. no.

A Swedish study in 2002 studied cancer rates in Sweden and in the U.S. and found that radio waves from nearby radio stations increased cancer locally. When radio stations went out of business, local cancer rates went down.

Which study was that?  If you're going to make a claim, cite your source.

Microwaves used for cell phone communication have a bit shorter wavelengths than radio waves, but they can have similar dangers. When cell phones are held to the ear, the microwaves heat up the area and penetrate into the brain, as is shown in infrared imaging.

Infrared imaging?  Of brains?  IR doesn't image to any significant depth, so are we to presume that these were folks whose skulls had been removed and who were walking around with exposed brains?
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 17, 2013, 09:54:06 am
MaineShark: thank you for providing me with a concrete example of someone who hears, but doesn't listen.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 17, 2013, 04:16:13 pm
MaineShark: thank you for providing me with a concrete example of someone who hears, but doesn't listen.

Didn't we already talk about projection?
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Sam Adams on September 17, 2013, 04:26:03 pm
          I normally don,t do personal attacks, say like crack pot ideas, or hocus pocus science, snake oil has a better reputation?  I also don,t rely on government institution for advise, but since you want more evidence and do rely on the gov and their granted science, here is some. WHO places RF radiation on B2 list of carcinogens, May 31 2011, which includes smart meters. Read or research Dr. Johanssons                              Parliament of European: Governments: Reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields May 27th 2011          FCC limits were set 1999 for safety standards not to exceed 1/100th radio electromagnetic radiation. Thats a reading of 1 on a RF reader meter.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 17, 2013, 07:45:46 pm
I also don,t rely on government institution for advise, but since you want more evidence and do rely on the gov and their granted science, here is some. WHO places RF radiation on B2 list of carcinogens, May 31 2011, which includes smart meters. Read or research Dr. Johanssons                              Parliament of European: Governments: Reduce exposure to electromagnetic fields May 27th 2011          FCC limits were set 1999 for safety standards not to exceed 1/100th radio electromagnetic radiation. Thats a reading of 1 on a RF reader meter.

Sounds like a good reason to disbelieve such nonsense.

It's really just an excuse for a power grab, like "Global Warming" - all such claims have originated with government "scientists."  So if you don't believe in following the government's advice, then why are you promoting the whole "electromagnetic radiation is harmful" ploy that they created?
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Sam Adams on September 17, 2013, 08:41:50 pm


Sounds like a good reason to disbelieve such nonsense.

It's really just an excuse for a power grab, like "Global Warming" - all such claims have originated with government "scientists."  So if you don't believe in following the government's advice, then why are you promoting the whole "electromagnetic radiation is harmful" ploy that they created?
[/quote]                                                                      Its the US thats pushing the RF readers devices, along with monsanto,s hybird seeds[gene spliced], monsantos round-up, high fructose corn syrup in the majority of our foods, where these products are illegal in most foreign countries.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: John Edward Mercier on September 18, 2013, 12:19:59 pm
Why is it only 'electrical pollution' when its something that you don't agree with?
Why isn't the computer your typing on the source of the electrical pollution?
What about the wiring in your home?

Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Wolvenhaven on September 18, 2013, 02:50:30 pm
Why is it only 'electrical pollution' when its something that you don't agree with?
Why isn't the computer your typing on the source of the electrical pollution?
What about the wiring in your home?

Because it's a made-up issue; reeks of the whole chemtrails nonsense.  Either that or we don't understand because we don't have our tinfoil hats on tight enough.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 18, 2013, 03:12:35 pm
Either that or we don't understand because we don't have our tinfoil hats on tight enough.

Tinfoil hats are a conspiracy to amplify mind-control signals: http://web.archive.org/web/20100708230258/http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Luck on September 18, 2013, 08:16:51 pm
Productive vs Non-productive Discussion
Much of the discussion here is hardly useful, except for entertainment or sadomasochism. What are the requirements for informative productive discussion? Sharing links to informative papers pro or con any issue is probably productive.

Name-calling is immature, non-productive and unscientific, except for entertainment etc.

Society has a scientific method for finding truth, but it is not carried out well and there are major flaws in its current use.

For a republican form of government, where representatives are elected to represent the interests of the people, the people and the representatives need to be reminded that representatives must represent the needs of all of the people, not just those who voted for them. They also need to be reminded that the people have the right and probably the duty to express their grievances, which the representatives should take into account to help them determine how to represent them better.

Concerns-Based Discussion
A promising method of productive discussion in local groups is for all sides to express their main concerns on any issue and to listen to all such concerns. Then, when the concerns are understood, all can mention any ideas that might satisfy all of the main concerns. The best of such ideas can then be adopted by the group. I've been experimenting with this process for a couple of years, but I don't have much expertise as yet. I believe, though, that failing to elicit parties' main concerns is what makes many discussions unproductive. And there are those who benefit from keeping the people divided against each other. They can benefit by manipulating a small percentage of the divided people so as to get a majority vote from one side or the other. That's what's been happening in politics for at least several decades, esp. at the national level. The major campaign contributors are thus able to get one side elected for a while, then the other side, all to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of nearly everyone else.

In this particular discussion of electrical pollution, it's apparent that one side is concerned about suppressed information about this and other matters, while the other side is concerned about baseless warnings. Then there are also the concerns some have about getting their entertainment or sadomasochistic needs met, but it seems those concerns are already being satisfied anyway. So, if I'm right about what the two main sides' concerns are on this matter, does anyone want to suggest a proposal that might satisfy both sides?

Solutions?
My own idea is that we can provide links to good papers on this matter, whether pro or con. Then our readers and ourselves can check out those links, if interested. And, if we want to make them sound more interesting, so people check them out, we can give some summary info about the linked items.

Questions about Rights
What about the issue of microwave and radio wave pollution? Most of us probably believe that we have a right not to have our properties or ourselves polluted significantly by others. So, whether it's true or not that such EM waves are actually dangerous to health, don't people have the right not to have their properties or bodies invaded by unwanted waves, aside from natural waves? Or does everyone who wants to pollute others with such waves have the right to aim as much intensity of waves at anyone or their property that they feel like?





Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 18, 2013, 08:53:18 pm
Questions about Rights
What about the issue of microwave and radio wave pollution? Most of us probably believe that we have a right not to have our properties or ourselves polluted significantly by others.

And therein lies the real issue.  It's not "those who are concerned about suppressed information" versus "those who are concerned about baseless warnings."

It's "those who want to pretend that this is an issue so that they can falsely claim trespass" versus "those who state that the proof of trespass must come from the individual making the claim."

Your transparent attempt to re-name the groups with such obvious bias (one is worried about something serious, like information suppression, and the other just trivially doesn't like having too many warnings) is "immature, non-productive and unscientific," to use your own phrasing.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 19, 2013, 03:52:31 am
Wolfenhaven, since you seem to have swallowed so much of the mainstream line of bull put forth by the establishment, why are you even here? Are you a paid shill, or do you really believe your own nonsense? (Maybe he's a sock puppet...?)

MaineShark, you seem to have a very good grasp of the issue of "rights". But you don't seem to question too much beyond that. If you're a shill, you're definitely in a higher pay grade than Wolfie.

You're definitely a d**k. I just mentioned primary cell perception, and you went off and implied I'm a loony. Not only is it not very nice, but it shows how much you ASSUME. I didn't say I believed in it, I didn't promote it or try to sell anyone on it, I just asked if anyone else had heard of it. So with a mind that jumps to conclusions so quickly, how "rigorous" can your thinking be, eh?

AND your passive-aggressive "can't call me out for what I'm doing" routine doesn't fool me. I know hostility when I see it. Lie to someone else.

AND that "projecting" bit is old and played-out. That's just the grown-up facade on "I'm rubber, you're glue."

Yes, I'm hostile. Now. And I own it, I don't need to project squat on you.

AND I don't give a tin shit if this is the "Friendly Forum" or not. You started the ugliness. You want to be an asshole to me, I'm going to stand my ground and hold a mirror up in front of you. Anywhere, any time.

You can be whatever flavor of myopic and mean-spirited you want; you have that right; but don't point it in my direction, buddy. You've got not a toe to stand on to judge my thinking process.

I hope you spill your Kool-Aid in your keyboard.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Wolvenhaven on September 19, 2013, 05:30:37 am
Oh no, you found us out, we're going to have to go tell the boss MaineShark, he's not going to be happy with us.

If by nonsense you mean skepticism then yes I believe it, but then again everything I've tried actually discussing with has been shot down as "bullshit" when everything you've sourced has been "irrefutable", makes it quite difficult to hold an intelligent conversation when you hold such a double standard.  You've yet to prove anything, merely used weak and fallacious arguments to try to invalidate anything you don't agree with.  I admit to falling back on insults first, because it was useless to try and remain civil when nothing I said was being considered intelligently and merely being dismissed out of hand by people who have no interest in actually considering their position.

I give up, trying to discuss or argue with you guys is just as bad as trying to argue with a statist, only instead of blinding accepting everything the government says, you blindly accept everything said against the government.  Any random person could go create a website about how the sky is actually green and magenta but the government is using high frequency sonar to make the ions change the color to blue and you'd eat it up.

It's impossible to discuss advanced science with people who don't even know the basics; when your foundation is flawed there's no way you're going to understand the ceiling.  So have fun enjoying your self-imposed medical issues from electromagnetism, I'm going to go enjoy life instead.

More power to you MaineShark if you want to continue this, I don't have the patience for it.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 19, 2013, 06:35:36 am
You're definitely a d**k. I just mentioned primary cell perception, and you went off and implied I'm a loony.

Quote it.  Where did I say that?

Not only is it not very nice, but it shows how much you ASSUME. I didn't say I believed in it, I didn't promote it or try to sell anyone on it, I just asked if anyone else had heard of it. So with a mind that jumps to conclusions so quickly, how "rigorous" can your thinking be, eh?

Quote it.  Where did I say that?

AND your passive-aggressive "can't call me out for what I'm doing" routine doesn't fool me. I know hostility when I see it. Lie to someone else.

AND that "projecting" bit is old and played-out. That's just the grown-up facade on "I'm rubber, you're glue."

Yes, I'm hostile. Now. And I own it, I don't need to project squat on you.

Thanks for proving my point.  You need a target for your hostility, so you project others as being hostile, in order to use them as targets.

AND I don't give a tin shit if this is the "Friendly Forum" or not. You started the ugliness. You want to be an asshole to me, I'm going to stand my ground and hold a mirror up in front of you. Anywhere, any time.

Really?  Again, quote it.  Where did I "start the ugliness," exactly?  Quote the post.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Luck on September 19, 2013, 03:27:09 pm
Joe MaineShark said:
Quote
And therein lies the real issue.  It's not "those who are concerned about suppressed information" versus "those who are concerned about baseless warnings."

- It's "those who want to pretend that this is an issue so that they can falsely claim trespass" versus "those who state that the proof of trespass must come from the individual making the claim."

- Your transparent attempt to re-name the groups with such obvious bias (one is worried about something serious, like information suppression, and the other just trivially doesn't like having too many warnings) is "immature, non-productive and unscientific," to use your own phrasing.

Joe, did you not notice that I asked if that was your concern? I had the impression that was your concern on this issue, but I didn't say that I know for certain that that's your concern. I asked because I realized that my impression could easily be wrong.

Aside from favoring productive communication, I also have a concern about being misrepresented. Your statement seems to be an effort to portray me as a liar. Do you admit that your apparent impression that I'm a liar could be a wrong impression?

Since this discussion doesn't seem to be getting much if any more productive since I last posted, do any of you folks have suggested guidelines for everyone to agree to for how this discussion could be more productive? I think it might be more so if you would state your main concerns, since you say what I asked about is not your main concern.

Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 19, 2013, 09:06:00 pm
Joe, did you not notice that I asked if that was your concern? I had the impression that was your concern on this issue, but I didn't say that I know for certain that that's your concern. I asked because I realized that my impression could easily be wrong.

No, I didn't notice that at all.  Because you didn't ask that.  You stated "it's apparent that...," which is an assertion, not a question.

Aside from favoring productive communication, I also have a concern about being misrepresented. Your statement seems to be an effort to portray me as a liar. Do you admit that your apparent impression that I'm a liar could be a wrong impression?

I don't "portray" you as a liar.  I stated directly that your behavior is dishonest.  Lying is one specific form of dishonesty.  You are engaging in other forms, such as the example I gave where you use loaded descriptions to prejudice the discussion.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Luck on September 20, 2013, 07:30:37 am
Joe Shark calls me a liar and pretends to be able to read my mind to know my intentions and meanings, when, in reality, he's grossly deceived by his own impressions of my writing and probably other people's writings as well. Shark is apparently very inaccurately judgmental in many cases. See quotes farther below.

I admit it's apparent that I use some words in ways that may be misunderstood. When I say "apparent" I mean something APPEARS to be the case. In one online dictionary there are two definitions of "Appear", the second one being: seem; give the impression of being. So by "apparent", I mean "seeming", rather than obvious or definite.

Another online source says:
Apparent means obvious, but — and this is confusing — it can also mean something that seems to be true but isn't definite.

So this misunderstanding has made me see that I may need to start replacing the word "apparent" with "seeming" etc, since I prefer to minimize misunderstanding. Shark isn't responsible for my failure to use clear language, but I do fault him for mean-spiritedness, self-righteousness and jumping to wrong conclusions about my and probably other people's motives, intentions etc.

I don't expect Shark to acknowledge his own apparent errors, and I don't care to expend energy on beating an apparently dead horse, so I'll refrain from further discussion with him, unless he has an apparent change of heart in the distant future.

Quote
Quote from: Luck on September 19, 2013, 03:27:09 pm
Joe, did you not notice that I asked if that was your concern? I had the impression that was your concern on this issue, but I didn't say that I know for certain that that's your concern. I asked because I realized that my impression could easily be wrong.

Reply by Shark: No, I didn't notice that at all.  Because you didn't ask that.  You stated "it's apparent that...," which is an assertion, not a question.

Quote from: Luck on September 19, 2013, 03:27:09 pm
Aside from favoring productive communication, I also have a concern about being misrepresented. Your statement seems to be an effort to portray me as a liar. Do you admit that your apparent impression that I'm a liar could be a wrong impression?

Reply by Shark: I "portray" you as a liar.  I stated directly that your behavior is dishonest.  Lying is one specific form of dishonesty.  You are engaging in other forms, such as the example I gave where you use loaded descriptions to prejudice the discussion.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 20, 2013, 07:46:22 am
Joe Shark calls me a liar and pretends to be able to read my mind to know my intentions and meanings, when, in reality, he's grossly deceived by his own impressions of my writing and probably other people's writings as well. Shark is apparently very inaccurately judgmental in many cases. See quotes farther below.

I admit it's apparent that I use some words in ways that may be misunderstood. When I say "apparent" I mean something APPEARS to be the case. In one online dictionary there are two definitions of "Appear", the second one being: seem; give the impression of being. So by "apparent", I mean "seeming", rather than obvious or definite.

Another online source says:
Apparent means obvious, but — and this is confusing — it can also mean something that seems to be true but isn't definite.

So this misunderstanding has made me see that I may need to start replacing the word "apparent" with "seeming" etc, since I prefer to minimize misunderstanding. Shark isn't responsible for my failure to use clear language, but I do fault him for mean-spiritedness, self-righteousness and jumping to wrong conclusions about my and probably other people's motives, intentions etc.

I don't expect Shark to acknowledge his own apparent errors, and I don't care to expend energy on beating an apparently dead horse, so I'll refrain from further discussion with him, unless he has an apparent change of heart in the distant future.

Your tone in that previous post makes it crystal clear how you intended to use the word.  And the gross mis-statements of the positions of the "sides" removes all doubt - no one could produce such obvious sweetness-and-light for one description and such an obvious accusation of triviality for the other, except by an intentional act of dishonesty.    Your reply here just compounds it by refusing to accept responsibility.  It would be like breaking into someone's house and stealing their TV and, when caught halfway out the smashed window, accusing the owner of misinterpreting your intentions - "oh, someone else stole this, and I caught them, so I was actually breaking in to return it!" - no rational person would believe that story.  And no rational person is going to believe your claim that you were just misunderstood - the evidence provided by your distorted description of the discussion is too strong to ignore.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: Sam Adams on September 22, 2013, 09:04:21 pm
       I am disgusted with the results of this subject. Science has turned to insults and exaggerations.  wolen or whatever and sharke have proven their intellect or lack of. They only attack the messenger, never the message, sounds like 9/11? wow, that can,t be true about the sharke???   msm will agree with the 2 of them. disgusting??
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 23, 2013, 06:21:50 am
They only attack the messenger, never the message...

Really?  As I noted to djsmith... quote it.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 24, 2013, 11:50:44 pm
(http://r11.imgfast.net/users/1113/22/31/72/smiles/277638789.gif) "Quote it! Quote it!" says the guy who, rather than making direct statements, implies and insinuates -- so that later he can say "Quote it! Quote it!" and act all innocent'n'stuff.

No one with two brain cells to rub together is fooled by that, you know.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: MaineShark on September 25, 2013, 07:12:39 am
(http://r11.imgfast.net/users/1113/22/31/72/smiles/277638789.gif) "Quote it! Quote it!" says the guy who, rather than making direct statements, implies and insinuates -- so that later he can say "Quote it! Quote it!" and act all innocent'n'stuff.

No one with two brain cells to rub together is fooled by that, you know.

Oh, so now you're backpedaling and saying I only "implied" it, when before you said that you couldn't possibly be projecting, because I had outright said these things.

So, since you now admit that it's all solely based upon your interpretation, we're back to square one, which is where you are projecting your own issues onto the conversation, claiming behavior by others which flat-out does not exist.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: KBCraig on September 25, 2013, 11:24:45 pm
       I am disgusted with the results of this subject. Science has turned to insults and exaggerations. 

It's because of mind-altering chemtrails.
Title: Re: Electrical Pollution
Post by: d.j.smith on September 26, 2013, 12:59:09 am
Oh, Sharky. You so fuuunnny.