5G

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > 5G > Page 2

Page 2 of 2

24-01-2022 00:57
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	There are 2 sides to the 5g frequency issue - the frequency transmitted and the frequency received. It is true that erroneous frequencies could possibly be transmitted and also that an unintended frequency could be received. Either could give an erroneous reading on the radar altimeter. There are 2 sides to the altimeter issue - the above sea level altitude and the above ground level altitude. Human errors can be made.
24-01-2022 01:14
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	keepit wrote: There are 2 sides to the 5g frequency issue - the frequency transmitted and the frequency received. It is true that erroneous frequencies could possibly be transmitted and also that an unintended frequency could be received. Either could give an erroneous reading on the radar altimeter. There are 2 sides to the altimeter issue - the above sea level altitude and the above ground level altitude. Human errors can be made. Do you think the error is going to be just a few feet? There are backups and redundancy. Not to mention the pilot can look out the window occasionally, when the numbers on the dash don't match up. How did pilots fly, before instruments? And as they added more tools, they had a few failures... Instruments are tools. Incompetent pilots make mistakes.
24-01-2022 01:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: There are 2 sides to the 5g frequency issue - the frequency transmitted and the frequency received. Transmitting and receiving are on the same frequency. keepit wrote: It is true that erroneous frequencies could possibly be transmitted and also that an unintended frequency could be received. No other frequency. keepit wrote: Either could give an erroneous reading on the radar altimeter. Now you are talking about radar altimeters instead of WIFI. Try to stay on topic. Radar altimeters transmit and receive their echo on the same frequency. keepit wrote: There are 2 sides to the altimeter issue There is no altimeter issue. keepit wrote: the above sea level altitude and the above ground level altitude. Radar altimeters only read AGL. keepit wrote: Human errors can be made. No human intervention. Go tighten your C-clamp. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 24-01-2022 01:51
24-01-2022 02:41
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	itn, Consider the qm issue. The transmitter could transmit an unintended frequency which could lead to an error in agl altitude or the receiver could erroneously receive an intended but still wrongful frequency, due to an error in the receiver, leading to an erroneous agl altitude. Murphy's law. Apparently someone at the FAA thinks there could be disastrous possibilities. Human error in setting the pressure altimeter or an error in deciding which one to believe. Edited on 24-01-2022 02:45
24-01-2022 02:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	HarveyH55 wrote: keepit wrote: There are 2 sides to the 5g frequency issue - the frequency transmitted and the frequency received. It is true that erroneous frequencies could possibly be transmitted and also that an unintended frequency could be received. Either could give an erroneous reading on the radar altimeter. There are 2 sides to the altimeter issue - the above sea level altitude and the above ground level altitude. Human errors can be made. Do you think the error is going to be just a few feet? He's making shit up. HarveyH55 wrote: There are backups and redundancy. True, especially the good ole' window. HarveyH55 wrote: Not to mention the pilot can look out the window occasionally, The best altimeter there is, when you're concerned about the ground. HarveyH55 wrote: when the numbers on the dash don't match up. Any pilot doing his crosscheck on the instruments while he flies will catch this. HarveyH55 wrote: How did pilots fly, before instruments? Looking out the window (or out the cockpit). Some real bugs in your teeth flying on open cockpit planes! (Yup. People still make 'em and fly 'em). HarveyH55 wrote: And as they added more tools, they had a few failures... Instruments are tools. And any instrument can break without notice at any time. HarveyH55 wrote: Incompetent pilots make mistakes. It's what keeps mechanics and insurance people in business! It is countless the amount of stuff I've had to fix on airplanes because the pilot was an idiot. You know those stupid drivers on the road? They're in the air, too. Some of them work for airlines. * Like the Aeroflot captain that made FOUR approaches into SeaTac airport and wound up over Kent, over Burien, (both several MILES off course) and once accidentally tried to make the approach into nearby Boeing field, before FINALLY finding a hole large enough in the clouds to make a visual approach the fourth time. He blamed his localizer. It was in perfect working order. * Like the airline captain that tried to shoot an instrument approach to an airport in South America that had no instrument approach! (It was being repaired at the time, all pilots had been notified.) He wound up flying into a mountain, killing everyone instantly. Perfect meteorological conditions...in other words clear and a unlimited visibility. Winds were calm. The airport was open because the visual conditions. All other airlines had no trouble making a visual approach and landing. * Like the captain that experienced some hesitation in the trim system, so rather than land the thing (he was already within reach of his destination), he starts to try to debug the trim system by exercising it WITH PASSENGERS ON BOARD instead of landing!! The result certainly made the news...you remember...the bit with the jackscrew in the trim system failing? That plane lost control completely, even entering an inverted flat spin before breaking up in mid-air and crashing into the sea. The guy is NOT a mechanic. Experimental test flights by mechanics (that are also pilots) CANNOT HAVE PASSENGERS. He should have just landed the plane and reported the funky behavior of the trim system. The passengers would've lived, and he would've too. Stupid tragedy and pilot error. * Like the guy that tried to do inside loops around the center span of the Tacoma Narrows bridge. He crashed into Puget Sound, killing himself. * Like the guy that tried to descend into Meteor Crater in Arizona to fly banked turns around the inside of the crater. He didn't have enough power to get back out again. Just round and round and round until...outta gas. He killed himself on the rim of the crater. That wreck stayed of there for quite awhile, since it was so hard to reach. It was eventually removed piece by piece. The NTSB records are full of 'em. Most are twits in small planes. Some are airline accidents (usually foreign pilots) of pilots doing something stupid. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

24-01-2022 02:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: itn, Consider the qm issue. [quote]keepit wrote: The transmitter could transmit an unintended frequency which could lead to an error in agl altitude or the receiver could erroneously receive an intended but still wrongful frequency, due to an error in the receiver, leading to an erroneous agl altitude. Murphy's law. Apparently someone at the FAA thinks there could be disastrous possibilities. Radar altimeters transmit and receive on the same frequency. It is not the frequency used for 5G. Go tighten your C-clamp. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2022 03:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	keepit wrote:ibd, I usually try to have a point. I just wish that you would actually succeed once in a while. keepit wrote: It's just that you often miss the point. I can't somehow miss a point that isn't there. Attached image:
24-01-2022 03:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	keepit wrote:There are 2 sides to the 5g frequency issue 5G is not a frequency and this is not a frequency issue. Apparently it doesn't matter how many times you are told this since you aren't smart enough to learn. keepit wrote: It is true that erroneous frequencies *could* possibly be transmitted and also that an unintended frequency *could be* received. Either *could* give an erroneous reading on the radar altimeter. All of your ambiguous irrelevance is ignored. Start speaking in science. What will happen. What specifically causes what? Your first words should be your point. What follows should support your point with science. keepit wrote:There are 2 sides to the altimeter issue - the above sea level altitude and the above ground level altitude. Human errors can be made. The thread is "5G" ... not "Potential Human Errors." You would help matters by just starting your own thread to discuss potential human errors. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-01-2022 03:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Here's what's going on: Radar altimeters have been kicking around for quite a while. Like any radar, they use the same frequency to transmit a short burst (called a 'ping', a hangover from the old submarine sonar), then switch to receiver mode to listen for an echo. The TR (transmit/receive) switch is automatic. BTW, the 'ping' command on the internet has the same history in it's name! Since these devices are addendums to the basic equipment required in a cockpit (a sensitive barometric altimeter which is not even a radio being one of them if the flight is under instrument rules), the FAA has approved such altimeters for use in aircraft as an addition beyond the barometric altimeter requirement without much more thought than just verifying that it's accuracy is similar +-25ft. Pilots are required to fly accurate to +-100ft of their assigned altitude when on instrument rules. (Most private pilots can't approach this kind of accuracy...I've seen 'em wander around a good +-1000 ft!) When these altimeters were first approved, receiver selectivity was never clearly specified. This rating on a radio determines the ability of that radio to reject signals that are near, but not on, the assigned frequency. The FAA and the FCC did know of these devices when they approved the new frequencies for implementing 5G. The FAA never did anything about it since (typical). A couple of airlines, not knowing whether their radar altimeters (remember this is an additional altimeter that's optional) were selective enough, since the FAA never really required that specification from the manufactures of these devices. The FCC didn't care because this is about the receiver portion, not the transmitter portion of the radar altimeter circuit. So the airlines made a stink. THEY are the ones that came up with the potential 'risks'. Their purpose was to force the FAA's hand into requiring this specification on radar altimeter receiver selectivity. The problem is not the 5G protocol. It is actually been claimed around the use of the C band 5G, being deployed in major cities. 5G towers using C band are already turned on. There is been no actual disturbance noted in any radio altimeter in the presence of a 5G signal. Like usual as of late, the FAA was shown to be a joke of an agency. They issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin that basically said nothing more than asking for manufacturers to include selectivity specifications for their radar altimeter receivers, and gives a place to send that info. The manufacturers have so far complied (about 78% of them at the time of this posting) and every single one already has sufficient selectivity PLUS a 220Mhz guard band (twice what the FCC required). The FAA also published the usual bullshit notice to the press that, "safety is our mission", which on to describe, "The FAA continues to work every day to reduce effects of this disruption as we make progress to safely integrate 5G and aviation. ". Currently approved list: All Boeing 717, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787 MD-10/-11 All Boeing 717, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787 MD-10/-11 Airbus A300, A310, A319, A320, A321, A330, A340, A350, A380 All Embraer 170 & 190 regional jets Most of these are by AMOC (alternative method of compliance). Basically, all they have to show is that their radar altimeters are not affected by the use of C band for 5G. For those that manufacture their own radar altimeters, they just need to include the selectivity specs for their receivers to the FAA. Boeing and Airbus have both done this. Thus, these systems are now legal to use for Cat2 and Cat3 approaches (automated ILS following). Airline pilots can now return to using their robots to make the approach. I suppose this is a good thing, since many airline captains haven't shot an actual ILS approach in so long they probably would be all over the sky if they tried (similar to an Aeroflot captain over Seattle once!). Airline captains tend to let the robot fly the plane. The robot can **** up, of course, and U.S. pilots can handle that pretty well, but foreign pilots are often hopeless basket cases when that happens. So, in summary: 5G has already been approved and has already been in service for several years. Radar altimeters have kicking around even longer. More C band activity is taking place now as 5G is expanded, putting some transmitters on C band. Radar altimeter selectivity was already sufficient, but not documented. The airlines force the FAA's hand to get this done. The FAA panics, produces a few 'feel good' announcements for the public, then uses a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (of all things!) to request radar altimeter manufactures post their receiver selectivity specs to the FAA. In 24 hours, the situation is resolved. No radar altimeter has ever shown interference from C band operation for 5G, and the FAA now has the specs it should've required years before, and the phone companies can continue to roll out 5G using C band, and airlines will go back to using automated approach systems. The FAA has been shown to be a joke, yet again. Edited on 24-01-2022 03:46
24-01-2022 05:25
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	I think what the FAA and the airlines are concerned about is the possibility that there may be a transmission on a different freq than what is specified and the radar altimeter might receive on a frequency that is not specified. QM may be in play here. Complaints about "fake or incompetent authorities" and "fake news" miss the point. This is speculation. I'm looking forward to the final determination. There was a c130 that went down off the west coast 20 years ago or more. There was speculation that it was caused by radio transmissions but i don't know what the final determination was. The cause might have been "undetermined".
24-01-2022 06:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	keepit wrote:I think what the FAA and the airlines are concerned about is the possibility that there may be a transmission on a different freq than what is specified and the radar altimeter might receive on a frequency that is not specified. QM may be in play here. Like I said, your ambiguous and irrelevant worrying and whining is discarded. None of this is the case. Why are you imagining that it is? keepit wrote:I thinkThere was a c130 that went down off the west coast 20 years ago or more, before there was any 5G. There was speculation by morons and incompetents that it was caused by radio transmissions but i don't know what the final determination was. The cause might have been "undetermined". Wow, that was a complete waste of bandwidth. You said absolutely nothing. . Attached image:
24-01-2022 11:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: I think what the FAA and the airlines are concerned about is the possibility that there may be a transmission on a different freq than what is specified and the radar altimeter might receive on a frequency that is not specified. Not at all. The frequencies these devices use is constantly checked. FCC rules, you know. They are also crystal locked. You cannot change what the synthesizer is doing without knowing about it. keepit wrote: QM may be in play here. Nope. I already described what is at play here. keepit wrote: Complaints about "fake or incompetent authorities" and "fake news" miss the point. This is speculation. No, it isn't. The FAA and the FCC documentation already exists. It shows the FAA is, once again, a joke. keepit wrote: I'm looking forward to the final determination. Of what? keepit wrote: There was a c130 that went down off the west coast 20 years ago or more. There was speculation that it was caused by radio transmissions but i don't know what the final determination was. The cause might have been "undetermined". 5G hasn't been around for 20 years, moron. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2022 18:18
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	itn, You misinterpret again and again. My point was that there are anomalous transmissions. I've never heard of anomalous receptions but this is speculation as i mentioned. I'm still waiting for the final determination before i make up my opinion. Just to let you know, google says that some 5g does operate at a frequency closer to the radar altimeter than does 4g. Edited on 24-01-2022 18:22
24-01-2022 19:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	keepit wrote:My point was that there are anomalous transmissions. Nope. You really had no point. You merely whined. "Ooooh, there may be an erroneous reading, ... and cough syrup tastes bad ..." You didn't clearly describe any sort of real problem or threat. keepit wrote:I've never heard of anomalous receptions but this is speculation as i mentioned. Exactly, you dreamt of some fantastic science-fiction emergency and are now wasting bandwidth trying to convince those on this board that this is somehow some sort of real problem. keepit wrote: I'm still waiting for the final determination before i make up my opinion. 1. You have clearly already formulated a firmly erroneous opinion. 2. There is no "determination" forthcoming. You say this just to give the air of possibility, and thus of plausibility, to your delusion. 5G is a protocol, not a frequency.
24-01-2022 20:04
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	ibd, I often wonder if anyone believes our trash talk. If so, WHO?

24-01-2022 21:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	keepit wrote:ibd, I often wonder if anyone believes our trash talk. I'm glad you picked up on the "trash talk" theme of the pic. It's all you, Clampster. It's all you.
24-01-2022 21:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: itn, You misinterpret again and again. Nah. I can clearly see your C clamp from here. keepit wrote: My point was that there are anomalous transmissions. Let the FCC know. keepit wrote: I've never heard of anomalous receptions but this is speculation as i mentioned. No such thing. Keep your wacky speculations to yourself. keepit wrote: I'm still waiting for the final determination before i make up my opinion. Determination of what? keepit wrote: Just to let you know, google says that some 5g does operate at a frequency closer to the radar altimeter than does 4g. 5G is a protocol, not a frequency. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2022 21:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: ibd, I often wonder if anyone believes our trash talk. If so, WHO? OUR trash talk? The only one wasting bandwidth with wacky speculations is YOU. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-01-2022 22:54
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	itn and ibd, You didn't mention anyone that believes your trash talk other than each other. I suppose there might be a couple of others. That doesn't amount to a lot!
25-01-2022 05:43
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	keepit wrote:itn and ibd, You didn't mention anyone that believes your trash talk other than each other. You are the only one sprewing trash talk with no point to be made. You whine and delude. You waste bandwidth. Shall we see if there are any others who see it this way as well?
25-01-2022 18:42
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	I don't mind. Don't forget to ask if anyone believes your trash talk.
25-01-2022 18:57
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	keepit wrote: I don't mind. Don't forget to ask if anyone believes your trash talk. I don't need to believe what they say. ITN, IBd, and gfm, these guys are so good at articulating and explaining, so there is only knowing. If there's any farther questions, I am free to ask and learn, or do farther research on my own, avoiding Google at all costs. Do you KNOW Google is highly filtered with algorithms and censorship? If I only believe them, well then these guys would be my religion and I'm not going there! Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
25-01-2022 19:22
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: I don't mind. Don't forget to ask if anyone believes your trash talk. Just more trash talk from you, keepit... Sad.
25-01-2022 20:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	GasGuzzler wrote: keepit wrote: I don't mind. Don't forget to ask if anyone believes your trash talk. I don't need to believe what they say. ITN, IBd, and gfm, these guys are so good at articulating and explaining, so there is only knowing. If there's any farther questions, I am free to ask and learn, or do farther research on my own, avoiding Google at all costs. Do you KNOW Google is highly filtered with algorithms and censorship? If I only believe them, well then these guys would be my religion and I'm not going there! I would not want you to worship me. I expect to research it on your own! You are correct about Google. It's been a complaint by site providers for several decades now, but especially lately. Not everything is on a website either. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-01-2022 20:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: I don't mind. Don't forget to ask if anyone believes your trash talk. Since you describe engineering and science as 'trash talk', you are just denying both of them again. Since you are afraid of 5G, get rid of your cellphone, hide in a bunker and never fly on an airplane ever again. Your prison. You built it yourself. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 25-01-2022 20:39
25-01-2022 21:47
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	itn, i didn't describe engineering and science as trash talk. Where di you get such an idea? And 'm not afraid of 5g. I'm just speculating about what the FAA and the airlines are concerned about. Edited on 25-01-2022 21:50
26-01-2022 02:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: itn, i didn't describe engineering and science as trash talk. Yes you did. keepit wrote: Where di you get such an idea? You. keepit wrote: And 'm not afraid of 5g. Yes you are. keepit wrote: I'm just speculating about what the FAA and the airlines are concerned about. Why? The FAA and the airlines and the FCC have all documented what they are concerned about. It's not a concern. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-01-2022 03:30
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	Everything you said in that last post is wrong.
26-01-2022 04:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	keepit wrote:Everything you said in that last post is wrong. If everything was wrong, then nothing was wrong. You're a moron. Attached image:
26-01-2022 05:19
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	Into the Night wrote:Not everything is on a website either. Internet content is like the people you've known in your life. One by one they drift away, move away and/or pass away. It seems like every week you learn about yet another person you will likely/definitely never see again. Your list of close friends and acquaintances grows smaller and smaller over time, being replaced with memories residing only in your mind. It seems like every week a huge chunk of former content disappears from the internet. Content that I posted previously, and that I remember well, is nary to be found (with search engine filters and restrictions and censorship substantively contributing to this end). The cherry on the sundae is that our education system cranks out stupid young people who are taught to believe that if something isn't on the internet then it somehow never existed, and that if it really is true then it will be announced on CNN or will be forthwith written in Wikipedia. I'd like to mention just one small example that I noticed recently. The term "magick" with a "k." It might not seem like it but it was over a decade ago that I learned about that word from you, in a discussion with (I could be mistaken about this) Earthling-1 at the time, on a board that no longer exists. I was intrigued by your explanation of the term "magick" so I researched it and discovered some very interesting information about Old English usage of the term, linguistic roots and other historical background that I found fascinating. I decided that I was going to join you in using that term when appropriate per its original usage ... because it is so apropos to the types of discussions on sites such as this one. Unfortunately,I cannot find any of the information that I previously studied. All of that information now resides solely in my mind. People like keepit who cannot grasp that someone might have learned something in the past are forever doomed to a life of confusion because they themselves cannot somehow confirm said information through a quick internet search.

01-02-2022 17:55
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	Some news feed said that the faa and airline came to some partial agreement. Many of the 5g towers would operate but a minority of them (which are the closest to airports) would not. Edited on 01-02-2022 17:56
01-02-2022 18:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	keepit wrote:Some news feed said Yeah, that news feed always gets it wrong. keepit wrote: that the faa and airline came to some partial agreement. keepit, the technical term for a partial agreement is "reached no agreement." keepit wrote: Many of the 5g towers would operate but a minority of them (which are the closest to airports) would not. It's easy to see why no agreement was reached.
01-02-2022 22:52
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	ibd, Just curious, what news feed are you talking about? I don't remember what newsfeed i was talking about. It wasn't newsmax i'm sure. And by the way, why do you care what my opinions are? No one is listening anyway, except for maybe a dozen posters here. And my opinions are similar to yours anyway except for a very few that get discussed here. The real difference is that the atmosphere of my education was much more polite than yours. You have my sympathy on that.
01-02-2022 23:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: Some news feed said that the faa and airline came to some partial agreement. Many of the 5g towers would operate but a minority of them (which are the closest to airports) would not. No such agreement. You are hallucinating. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-02-2022 23:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	keepit wrote: ibd, Just curious, what news feed are you talking about? I don't remember what newsfeed i was talking about. It wasn't newsmax i'm sure. And by the way, why do you care what my opinions are? No one is listening anyway, except for maybe a dozen posters here. And my opinions are similar to yours anyway except for a very few that get discussed here. The real difference is that the atmosphere of my education was much more polite than yours. You have my sympathy on that. False authority fallacy. The FAA is not the news. The FCC is not the news. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-02-2022 00:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	keepit wrote:ibd, Just curious, ... First, put your shoes on your feet before you try to tie them. keepit wrote: what news feed are you talking about? Some news feed. It wasn't Newsmax, I'm sure. keepit wrote: I don't remember what newsfeed i was talking about. It wasn't newsmax i'm sure. Yep. keepit wrote: And by the way, why do you care what my opinions are? I don't care at all what your opinions are. You don't have any that are rational and valid. In fact, you have yet to make a point or to be correct about something for your second time. keepit wrote: No one is listening anyway, except for maybe a dozen posters here. Does it matter how many posters are "listening"? I don't think any care what your opinions are. By the way, you don't know how many denizens Climate-Debate has at any given moment. There are many from Denmark who "listen" regularly and chime in rarely or never. I'm trying to imagine them chatting with each other in Danish "Hey, you know that poster 'keepit' on the English board, I juss-gotta get me some mo'-a hizz opinions." keepit wrote:And my opinions are similar to yours anyway The technical term for similar opinions is "complete disagreement on core issues." keepit wrote: The real difference is that the atmosphere of my education was much more polite than yours. Oh, that's right, I had forgotten that you can travel arbitrarily through time and space. The atmosphere of my education is "what we know." Fortunately for me, at least I had one. keepit wrote:You have my sympathy on that. Yeah, my education was a lot of work, I admit. But as my mother taught me, "Son, just work hard and learn everything there is to know by the time you turn eight and your life will be so much easier." Boy was she right.
02-02-2022 00:20
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	ibd, I think that's true what your mother said about learning but the truth of it is hard to measure.
02-02-2022 01:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	keepit wrote:ibd,I think that's true what your mother said about learning but the truth of it is hard to measure. Yeah, my mother wanted me to learn everything before my eighth birthday, but because I'm a little "slow", I didn't master all knowledge until I had turned ten. I was getting hung up on, of all things, related rates. Imagine that. Then there was simple geography that I couldn't get right. Staro is in Macedonia and Starac is in Serbia. It was all Yugoslavia back then and so there were no hard borders to help me maintain a mental picture. And I kept swapping Martinique with St. Lucia for some reason. Anyway, I had to put in a little more effort than some, but I think it was worth it.
02-02-2022 02:08
keepit ★★★★★ (3060)	Well done.

Page 2 of 2

Join the debate 5G: