According to ESPN, he took a shoulder to the chest and went into cardiac arrest...

[au4life_rz]

Very easily, actually. But it wouldn’t matter.


No, it’s an informal fallacy. Further, your dearth of knowledge about biology is the only reason you think it’s possible that the vaccines may spontaneously cause new, unforeseen medical problems.

"Spontaneously cause new, unforeseen medical problems"??? I don't recall ever saying that, though the potential for unforeseen twists, turns and issues certainly always exist with new technologies of any significant complexity. It's quite sad that you and others don't realize basic things like this, yet you claim to be a scientist, (God help us....).

 

[Little_General]

"Spontaneously cause new, unforeseen medical problems"??? I don't recall ever saying that

Right, because you believe a vast coverup exists and the vaccines are actually causing young athletes to suddenly “drop dead”. I was doing you a favor by positioning you as only believing the marginally less stupid idea that the vaccines might cause some harm in the future that we are not currently aware is a possibility.

It's quite sad that you and others don't realize basic things like this, yet you claim to be a scientist, (God help us....).

The only sad thing in this exchange is your total lack of awareness of how out of your depth you are.

 

[Little_General]

@au4life_rz

Nassim Taleb has some good news for you:

 

[aubie1993]

I was thinking it might have been the result of combined autopsy reports IF the heart stays in the same position which I’m not sure if it does. Any MDs here feel free to opine

The issue is not physical position of the heart. the issue is timing the strike at a certain part of the electrical routine of the heart. I believe it’s sometime in the upstroke of the t-wave on ekg. You would not be able to tell anything at all on autopsy if you died from this (apart from maybe a chest contusion)—the physical heart would look no different. This is entirely an issue with the electrical portion of the heart. It would most likely have to be studied in real time under ekg monitoring to figure out the exact mechanism and timing in the electrical rhythms.

edit: I was actually not far off. A brief search led to this article that states it was described after observing large rabbits (and applying said strike to their chest).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15672341/

(I guess the Covid vaccine got those 1932 rabbits, too.)

 

[au4life_rz]

@au4life_rz

Nassim Taleb has some good news for you:

View embedded media

😔 😔😢 No my man. That's called dismissing it. It's almost as bad as the guy who replied to me in the original thread asking if Hank Gaithers fell dead from the vaccine.

In my humble opinion, we should at least evaluate the purported data HONESTLY and with appropriate due diligence, (but only if we value TRUTH, honesty and potentially saving lives over prideful partisan whizzing matches).

 

[Little_General]

In my humble opinion, we should at least evaluate the purported data HONESTLY and with appropriate due diligence

You’re welcome to go receive formal training that qualifies you to do just that. I did.

 

[au4life_rz]

You’re welcome to go receive formal training that qualifies you to do just that. I did.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm already qualified, and very good at evaluating data in said manner. Unfortunately, while training is GREAT, everyone that has training and is "qualified" to varying degrees and opinion levels, isn't actually good, or leading edge at their jobs.

I've worked with dozens and dozens of PhD's over my career, and many are rather pedestrian, good people who attained such noteworthy academic achievement through intense desire and/or dedication. But still, most are NOT true high wattage difference makers.

Whenever someone has to TELL you about their PhD, because it's not readily reflected in the perspicacity and keenness of their words, actions, opinions and overall body of work, it's a clear sign that they aren't as "qualified", knowledgeable or especially, wise, as they mistakenly believe they are. I believe in walking softly, and carry a "big stick" where true wisdom is hopefully demonstrated in actions, as opposed to only being inferred from paper accomplishments and words alone.

In short, out here and in any debate, you don't get default credit for the number of letters behind your name. The proof has to be in the pudding. This is a statement that I believe we can all agree on.

 

[Little_General]

Thanks for the offer, but I'm already qualified,

What are your qualifications?

In short

Haha

 

[au4life_rz]

What are your qualifications?


Haha

Hopefully, my qualifications are obvious in my actions and the words that I humbly offer.

Two sentences is indeed short, by any reasonable standard.

 

[Little_General]

Hopefully, my qualifications are obvious in my actions and the words that I humbly offer.

They aren’t. So what are your qualifications?

 

[Mr John Gault]

You’re conflating issues.

Here is a politician in Australia presenting monthly cardiac event data he acquired from the SA Health Freedom of information act. Might be a crazy person but he looks normal. Point is we should welcome concerns and questions, I personally have seen issues and have lots of questions that I believe should be studied and resolved.
Link

 

[Little_General]

Here is a politician in Australia presenting monthly cardiac event data he acquired from the SA Health Freedom of information act. Might be a crazy person but he looks normal. Point is we should welcome concerns and questions, I personally have seen issues and have lots of questions that I believe should be studied and resolved.
Link

Do you really think no one has studied the link between cardiovascular health and COVID/COVID vaccination?

 

[Mr John Gault]

Do you really think no one has studied the link between cardiovascular health and COVID/COVID vaccination?

I am yet to see a thorough, double-blinded study that shows post vaccine/covid, cardiovascular MRI measurements for heart inflammation. Do you have a study and a source?
But I agree with you, there has to be some studies completed (finally), this is exactly why some European countries are starting to ban certain covid vaccines for certain age groups. This is recent and just now happening because the data from these studies is finally being released. I would love to see the data the Netherlands sighted to restrict certain ages from receiving covid vaccine.
It doesn't help when Pfizer initially was not going to release all their data for 75 years, this does not help to invoke confidence within the public.
So no, all the studies that need to be completed and all the data from needed studies have not been released. Questions, like hope..is always a good thing.

 

[Little_General]

I am yet to see a thorough, double-blinded study that shows post vaccine/covid, cardiovascular MRI measurements for heart inflammation. Do you have a study and a source?

Perhaps you're not familiar with how RCT studies are done, but this would be practically impossible to do. Good data (and a LOT of it) already demonstrates that COVID-induced myocarditis/pericarditis are significantly worse on average than vaccine-induced.

But I agree with you, there has to be some studies completed (finally), this is exactly why some European countries are starting to ban certain covid vaccines for certain age groups. This is recent and just now happening because the data from these studies is finally being released. I would love to see the data the Netherlands sighted to restrict certain ages from receiving covid vaccine.

No countries aren't "starting to ban" certain vaccines for certain age groups. Sweden paused the use of Moderna for people under 30 back in October of 2021 due to the data we all already know about (ie, increased risk of myocarditis/pericarditis due to high immunogenicity from the Moderna shot).

It doesn't help when Pfizer initially was not going to release all their data for 75 years, this does not help to invoke confidence within the public.

This is factually incorrect. The FDA, not Pfizer, said that it would take 75 years for an FOIA request to be completed on the documents put together by Pfizer during their clinical trials of the vaccine. That vaccine, by the way, passed clinical trials meeting the same safety and efficacy standards that every other vaccine must meet.

So no, all the studies that need to be completed and all the data from needed studies have not been released. Questions, like hope..is always a good thing.

All the data necessary to determine whether the benefits outweigh the risks for the vaccines exists, whether you choose to believe it or not.

 

[au4life_rz]

I am yet to see a thorough, double-blinded study that shows post vaccine/covid, cardiovascular MRI measurements for heart inflammation. Do you have a study and a source?
But I agree with you, there has to be some studies completed (finally), this is exactly why some European countries are starting to ban certain covid vaccines for certain age groups. This is recent and just now happening because the data from these studies is finally being released. I would love to see the data the Netherlands sighted to restrict certain ages from receiving covid vaccine.
It doesn't help when Pfizer initially was not going to release all their data for 75 years, this does not help to invoke confidence within the public.
So no, all the studies that need to be completed and all the data from needed studies have not been released. Questions, like hope..is always a good thing.

There is a reason that pretty much EVERY solid peer reviewed study, only supports the Covid agenda. Once the leading agencies and authorities established that they would attack, cancel and ruin the careers of any scientist, doctors or researchers who released anything that did not blindly and strongly support the established agenda, it because pretty much impossible to get any qualified "peers" who would participate in a review.

That is why the pro-vaxx gang run around boldly asking everyone to "show me a valid study". They know that the Orwellian censorship ensured that pretty much none would exist. We went through this for over 2 years, where a few of us would point out the obvious flaws and manipulation/deceit in the published and peer-reviewed pro-vaccine studies, then point out likely scenarios that might occur down the road, that none of the published experts were mentioning. A few of those things predicted have since come true.

It's all a sick game because those establishing the narrative count on no varying opinions, (no matter how solid, rational or qualified), will be allowed. If you have concerns at all, you will summarily be labeled an "anti-vaxxer" spewing "misinformation", and canceled. There are now laws in place so that doctors can have their licenses stripped in some states. Those types of moves pretty much ENSURES that there will be no peer reviewed study or objective thoughts countering the established Covid narrative.

 

[Little_General]

There is a reason that pretty much EVERY solid peer reviewed study, only supports the Covid agenda. Once the leading agencies and authorities established that they would attack, cancel and ruin the careers of any scientist, doctors or researchers who released anything that did not blindly and strongly support the established agenda, it because pretty much impossible to get any qualified "peers" who would participate in a review.

Complete and utter nonsense.

That is why the pro-vaxx gang run around boldly asking everyone to "show me a valid study". They know that the Orwellian censorship ensured that pretty much none would exist.

No, that's just your way of squaring the fact that your nonsense beliefs aren't actually justified by the evidence.

Again I'll ask... what are your qualifications?

 

[au4life_rz]

Complete and utter nonsense.


No, that's just your way of squaring the fact that your nonsense beliefs aren't actually justified by the evidence.

Again I'll ask... what are your qualifications?

They are readily apparent to any reasonably intelligent persons, in the freaking pudding that posted here every day. Thank God, you don't have to agree, but we'll continue crushing your weak arguments to blindly support and cowtow to the Covid agenda.

If you happen to say something that makes sense, I'll support it, but if you are myopic, delusional and blindly supporting while using confirmation bias, it WILL continue to get called out.

 

[Little_General]

They are readily apparent to any reasonably intelligent persons, in the freaking pudding that posted here every day.

No, they aren’t. If you’d rather not share them, that’s fine, but that’s a goofy reason.

Thank God, you don't have to agree, but we'll continue crushing your weak arguments to blindly support and cowtow to the Covid agenda.

The next time that happens will be the first.

 

[au4life_rz]

When the view opposes established scientific evidence, it’s disinformation by definition.

So Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein and countless other bleeding edge innovators and geniuses who held views that opposed "established scientific evidence" were spewing "misinformation" in your mind? Got it. That explains a lot.

 

[au4life_rz]

No, they aren’t. If you’d rather not share them, that’s fine, but that’s a goofy reason.


The next time that happens will be the first.

LOL! That's what you don't get. Every time we post and attempt to offer a cogent argument, we are sharing our true credentials.

Those who only defer to paper credentials are almost always people who are NOT able make good points and reflect their "qualifications" in their actual actions and statements etc. The proof should always be in the pudding, and if you come out here, you've got to put up, or shut up as opposed to merely pointing to letters behind your name.

 

[Little_General]

LOL! That's what you don't get. Every time we post and attempt to offer a cogent argument, we are sharing our true credentials.

No, I fully understand that’s the argument you’re trying to make. It’s just very evident to anyone with a brain why you’re trying to make it. If we’re operating only on the content of message board posts to decide whether someone is qualified to interpret scientific data, though, you clearly fail here, too.

For example, just a couple of pages ago, I had to explain to you the implications of one of the con-artists you’re content to defend (Peter McCullough) citing a retracted research article. Here, for reference:

Didn't Dr. McCollough point out that the study was flawed, yet he was attacked, canceled, and fired, then much later after everything had died down, the initiator of the study retracted it, essentially proving that the study had problems??? Did I understand the sequence incorrectly???

Abso-fuking-lutely not.

Again, here is what happened:

McCullough then highlighted a peer-reviewed study by Ronald N. Kostoff which concluded “that you are about five times as likely to die of the vaccine, then you are to take your risks with COVID-19 and die of COVID-19 [for those 65 and older].”​

“No wonder people aren’t taking the vaccine,” he said.​

“There was no age group were [the odds of taking the vaccine] were favorable. It was actually worse in those over age 65. It was worse for [the most vulnerable] over 65.”​

Therefore, McCullough emphasized, people who intentionally chose not to get the vaccine and were later hospitalized with COVID had “actually made a smarter choice.”​

“Their gut instinct was the right instinct, yet they have been castigated for not taking the vaccine,” he said.​

And the paper he was touting was retracted by the journal. He didn't "point out that the study was flawed", you dunce. He was pushing it.

Let’s just be honest for a moment. You are not a scientist. You are not a scientific researcher. You’re not qualified to correctly interpret scientific data. And that’s okay. People submit themselves to years and years of hard work to earn that. You didn’t. I’m sure you’re good at other things, though. Whatever it is that you do in real life, I’m sure you’re better at it than me. This isn’t it, though.

 

[au4life_rz]

No, I fully understand that’s the argument you’re trying to make. It’s just very evident to anyone with a brain why you’re trying to make it. If we’re operating only on the content of message board posts to decide whether someone is qualified to interpret scientific data, though, you clearly fail here, too.

For example, just a couple of pages ago, I had to explain to you the implications of one of the con-artists you’re content to defend (Peter McCullough) citing a retracted research article. Here, for reference:
....

Sigh...., that was simply me asking for clarification on the sequence of events. It had NOTHING to do with interpreting scientific data, (just SMH).

If you can't interpret simple English language, (and you frequently misread and/or only muster ostensible, surface level analysis), it's not likely that you're a good scientist, if that's what you're trying to claim. There is not very much proof in the pudding that you produce. End of story, 'Nuff said. That was simply me asking for clarification on the sequence of events

Whenever I see someone desperately trying to shift focus away from the topic of discussion, (i.e. deflection), or from the actual field/court of play/debate, it's a sure fire indication that they realize they are bested, and they are trying to squirm their way out of defeat. If I were not making points that you can't refute, we wouldn't be having this deflective, red herring of a conversation.

 

[au4life_rz]

.......Let’s just be honest for a moment. You are not a scientist. You are not a scientific researcher. You’re not qualified to correctly interpret scientific data. And that’s okay. People submit themselves to years and years of hard work to earn that. You didn’t. I’m sure you’re good at other things, though. Whatever it is that you do in real life, I’m sure you’re better at it than me. This isn’t it, though.

You tried it, but you'll get nothing from me. The truth is that you don't know diddly about what I do, or what I've done, or what I'm qualified to do. You are wildly thrashing about, trying to find any undotted "i", or other material you can use for deflection. You will remain ignorant, guessing, but bottom line, when you offer an opinion out here, you'd better come correct, or you'll get wrecked. You can't put out bulk of the bell curve crap, and slide behind your alleged paper credentials, (and anyone can make up fake credentials, but you can't fake true intelligence, character and substance).

It's a lot easier if you would just recognize that you're not always going to be the smartest person in the room the way you imagine you are in your conceited mindset. That's likely the way you want it to be, but alas, it's simply not the case. We will ALL be wrong from time to time, and if you were a stand up guy with integrity and humility, you would simply admit it when your opponent makes a good point, or debunks a position that you hold by proving that you are wrong. After all of the petulance and deflection, you're going to have to come right back to the field of play, and deliver, or continue getting your weak serves crushed.

 

[Little_General]

Sigh...., that was simply me asking for clarification on the sequence of events. It had NOTHING to do with interpreting scientific data, (just SMH).

If you can't interpret simple English language, (and you frequently misread and/or only muster ostensible, surface level analysis), it's not likely that you're a good scientist, if that's what you're trying to claim. There is not very much proof in the pudding that you produce. End of story, 'Nuff said. That was simply me asking for clarification on the sequence of events

Whenever I see someone desperately trying to shift focus away from the topic of discussion, (i.e. deflection), or from the actual field/court of play/debate, it's a sure fire indication that they realize they are bested, and they are trying to squirm their way out of defeat. If I were not making points that you can't refute, we wouldn't be having this deflective, red herring of a conversation.

You aren’t capable of making a clear and concise argument, apparently. If you want to debate a specific point or issue, then bring one up. But that’s going to be difficult for you to do because then you won’t be able to wiggle your way out of it when the data tells the real story.

 

[Little_General]

The truth is that you don't know diddly about what I do, or what I've done, or what I'm qualified to do.

That’s correct. And that’s why I asked you. But your lack of answer tells me what I need to know.

 

[au4life_rz]

That’s correct. And that’s why I asked you. But your lack of answer tells me what I need to know.

Great. So I see you are coming around to what I was saying from the beginning of this silly and desperate side bar. You are wrong on one thing though. You'll never see me flaunting, or trying to buoy a weak argument up on paper credentials. That is uber pathetic.

Our answers should always tell others, everything that they need to know, (and I'm glad that you agree on this all-important point).

 

[Little_General]

Great, so I see you are coming around to what I was saying from the beginning of this silly and desperate side bar.

My answers should always tell you all you need to know, (and I'm glad that you agree on this all-important point).

The last thing you should hope for in this domain of inquiry is that your words show your qualifications.

 

[WDTE]

Also, whose opinion on the medical impacts of the new vaccines do you feel are more qualified? Yours, or those of subject matter experts such as Dr. Peter McCullough's or Dr. Malone's???

A quack, sorry, I meant quick update on Dr McCullough. He's now advocating medicine that has 0 medical oversight or trials of any kind, and he's pushing them alongside Alex Jones. Medicine without any trials is bad right? Or is it good now?

 

[Little_General]

A quack, sorry, I meant quick update on Dr McCullough. He's now advocating medicine that has 0 medical oversight or trials of any kind, and he's pushing them alongside Alex Jones. Medicine without any trials is bad right? Or is it good now?

View embedded media

Oh, Peter McCullough is now unabashedly promoting snake oil? What a shocking turn of events. Who could have possibly have foreseen this?

For example, just a couple of pages ago, I had to explain to you the implications of one of the con artists you’re content to defend (Peter McCullough) citing a retracted research article.

 

[AUB03]

 

[au4life_rz]

A quack, sorry, I meant quick update on Dr McCullough. He's now advocating medicine that has 0 medical oversight or trials of any kind, and he's pushing them alongside Alex Jones. Medicine without any trials is bad right? Or is it good now?

View embedded media

1. Are you familiar with Dr. McCollough's C.V.?
   • Has he ever authored any peer reviewed studies and/or been published? If so, how many has he had?
   • How long in his lengthy career has he been considered a "quack"? Was his cautionary approach to the new Covid vaccines the first time he was labeled a quack??? 👀 Was he considered a VERY solid and well respected doctor prior to that???
2. Is your second question regarding taking on disproportionate medical risk rhetorical??? I've spoken quite a bit on that topic and I have a well established position on the board, (i.e. my humble two cents), regarding whether we should irresponsibly take on non-justifiable medical risk when it comes to new medical treatments and techniques.

It would be MUCH more appropriate to ask you and the others who practice and advocate short-sighted analysis, if unwarranted medical risk is suddenly bad now that McCollough is supposedly advocating it. (and BTW, he's potentially a hypocrite if he is. I'll have to research it and inform myself to see what's going on).

 

[AUB03]

Medicine without any trials is bad right?

- what were the finding on long-term effects of the vaccine?

 

[WDTE]

1. Are you familiar with Dr. McCollough's C.V.?
   • Has he ever authored any peer reviewed studies and/or been published? If so, how many has he had?
   • How long in his lengthy career has he been considered a "quack"? Was his cautionary approach to the new Covid vaccines the first time he was labeled a quack??? 👀 Was he considered a VERY solid and well respected doctor prior to that???
2. Is your second question regarding taking on disproportionate medical risk rhetorical??? I've spoken quite a bit on that topic and I have a well established position on the board, (i.e. my humble two cents), regarding whether we should irresponsibly take on non-justifiable medical risk when it comes to new medical treatments and techniques.

It would be MUCH more appropriate to ask you and the others who practice and advocate short-sighted analysis, if unwarranted medical risk is suddenly bad now that McCollough is supposedly advocating it. (and BTW, he's potentially a hypocrite if he is. I'll have to research it and inform myself to see what's going on).

I'm obviously not reading all that nonsense. I only posted it because you've said time and time again that medicine needs years of trials and the doctor you're using as evidence is selling medicine on infowars which have gone through 0 trials. This is not a discussion. This is me laughing at you

 

[au4life_rz]

I'm obviously not reading all that nonsense. I only posted it because you've said time and time again that medicine needs years of trials and the doctor you're using as evidence is selling medicine on infowars which have gone through 0 trials. This is not a discussion. This is me laughing at you

LOL!!! So, you want to have an intelligent discussion, but you can't take the time to read 2 or 3 relatively short paragraphs??? Or, did you read it, and felt that your arguments were thoroughly refuted, but you don't have enough integrity to simply say that you were wrong. Your reaction is quite telling, (and you're laughing...)? This is exactly why you and the other few aren't taken seriously, and have lost all respect on serious topics.

There's no hope of learning or growing if you take this awful approach. We're all wrong at times, and we can all learn from one another, but only if we are mature, humble and honest with ourselves and each other.

Fact Check:

• I've never said that "medicine needs years of trials
• I don't use McCollough "as evidence"

 

[WDTE]

LOL!!! So, you want to have an intelligent discussion, but you can't take the time to read 2 or 3 relatively short paragraphs??? Or, did you read it, and felt that your arguments were thoroughly refuted, but you don't have enough integrity to simply say that you were wrong. Your reaction is quite telling, (and you're laughing...)? This is exactly why you and the other few aren't taken seriously, and have lost all respect on serious topics.

There's no hope of learning or growing if you take this awful approach. We're all wrong at times, and we can all learn from one another, but only if we are mature, humble and honest with ourselves and each other.

Fact Check:

• I've never said that "medicine needs years of trials
• I don't use McCollough "as evidence"

No. You are mistaken. I do not want to have what you presume to be an intelligent discussion with anyone who follows infowars or the nonsensical medical crap they peddle. I want to laugh at you, so that's what I'm doing. You hitched your wagon to a looney bin resident and now we get to laugh at you as you try to jump of and pretend you were never along for the ride

 

[au4life_rz]

No. You are mistaken. I do not want to have what you presume to be an intelligent discussion with anyone who follows infowars or the nonsensical medical crap they peddle. I want to laugh at you, so that's what I'm doing. You hitched your wagon to a looney bin resident and now we get to laugh at you as you try to jump of and pretend you were never along for the ride

I don't follow infowars, (which I'm almost completely unfamiliar with), and I believe you definitely know that. I've never hitched my wagon to Peter McCollough or any other, so please stop with the weak, dishonest strawmen.

It's unfortunate that you choose this childish approach, and unfortunately, most of our interactions have turned out just like this one. War Eagle, and have a good one. Nighty-night.

 

[WDTE]

I don't follow infowars, (which I'm almost completely unfamiliar with), and I believe you definitely know that. I've never hitched my wagon to Peter McCollough or any other, so please stop with the weak, dishonest strawmen.

It's unfortunate that you choose this childish approach, and unfortunately, most of our interactions have turned out just like this one. War Eagle, and have a good one. Nighty-night.

Cool. I'll just repost this below then

Also, whose opinion on the medical impacts of the new vaccines do you feel are more qualified? Yours, or those of subject matter experts such as Dr. Peter McCullough's or Dr. Malone's???

 

[au4life_rz]

Cool. I'll just repost this below then

Please. Just let it go. You're only digging the hole deeper. Your entire contribution the entire time of the pandemic debates was that "We should trust doctors over laymen". Yet, here you are hypocritically demonstrating the opposite.

If we had ANY matter concerning medicine, or the new/novel Covid vaccine, considering your posting history and track record, who should we listen to? You, or Dr. McCollough or Dr. Malone??? The anesthesiologist has now made a visit. Long, deep nighty-night to you.

 

[WDTE]

Please. Just let it go. You're only digging the hole deeper. Your entire contribution the entire time of the pandemic debates was that "We should trust doctors over laymen". Yet, here you are hypocritically demonstrating the opposite.

If we had ANY matter concerning medicine, or the new/novel Covid vaccine, considering your posting history and track record, who should we listen to? You, or Dr. McCollough or Dr. Malone??? The anesthesiologist has now made a visit. Long, deep nighty-night to you.

I can assure that if you're advocating getting medical advice from infowars, you sir have gone COMPLETELY off the deep end. If there's one thing I can leave you with,please, for the sake of anyone who cares about you, do not listen to Alex Jones or anyone giving medical advice on his show. This is me giving you the best advice anyone has ever given you. Godspeed

 

[au4life_rz]

I can assure that if you're advocating getting medical advice from infowars, you sir have gone COMPLETELY off the deep end. If there's one thing I can leave you with,please, for the sake of anyone who cares about you, do not listen to Alex Jones or anyone giving medical advice on his show. This is me giving you the best advice anyone has ever given you. Godspeed

I have NEVER advocated getting medical advice from infowars, and to my knowledge I've NEVER visited the site. I didn't even know what it was, but I can infer from your posts what it is. Soooo, you have swung and missed yet again, (or worse, you're just outright lying in an attempt to discredit me). Why do people behave like this? To keep the focus where it should be. I'll repost the salient exchange.