Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
If people wonder why I get upset, it's because Peter is calling me, my friends, and (most importantly) my wife liars or fools. My wife is a neuroscientist who spent years researching mobile phone radiation, and Peter is calling her a liar. He is also calling our friends who work in similar fields liars. He is calling me a fool or a liar.
That is a revolting and vile thing for someone to do, when they admit they haven't even checked the stories they rely on when they throw around their vicious, arrogant and foul slurs.
Don't take it personally.
I think most of us here have deduced that PM33 does not like to try things out for himself to try and prove anything or otherwise. He doesn't want to know the science. He doesn't want to consider other points of view.
He just wants to think the whole world is a conspiracy, and once you reconcile that, it doesn't bother you. I know it makes sense to discuss this, and present logical points of view, and science, but as lots have found out, you are just talking to yourself (and other observers).
Edit: The other thing he does is comment often about how its so obvious a child can see it (obviously we are born with some inate understanding of physics 
), and tries to make out that we are insulting the memory of the people that died in 9/11 by agreeing with the accepted facts. I think the fact that he is insulting them by ignoring the most practical reasons they died is lost on him. It seems that thousands of people can keep secrets too!
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
If people wonder why I get upset, it's because Peter is calling me, my friends, and (most importantly) my wife liars or fools. My wife is a neuroscientist who spent years researching mobile phone radiation, and Peter is calling her a liar. He is also calling our friends who work in similar fields liars. He is calling me a fool or a liar.
That is a revolting and vile thing for someone to do, when they admit they haven't even checked the stories they rely on when they throw around their vicious, arrogant and foul slurs.
Are you calling pm33 a liar? or a fool?
Is it revolting if you do it?
/\
I'm calling him gullible, and ignorant of the reality of his ludicrous claims.
It is of course ridiculous to compare PM33's arrogant claims that just by looking at an article he can work out the reality of phone radiation, against the years of research carried out by highly intelligent people using proper equipment in proper studies.
It is also ridiculous to criticise me for defending people against PM33's vile attacks. It is not revolting to defend people against such callous lies.
If I started throwing around vicious lies about your wife or partner and your friends, would you just sit back and take it?
I'm not surprised that you think defending people against lies is stupid. After all, you have proven that you are a bald-faced unashamed liar yourself.
We are all here because we're board and we like to crap on .
We all have opinions and advice.
Some are educated and some are opinuated .
Im in the crap on basket
What was i saying ?
Could there be moments when that energy could be maritively positivly be of good ?
I have never mentioned anyone's wife on here - ever.
If i disagree with the opinion of others on 5G or any other topic for that matter it does not mean I'm calling them liars.
Talk about creating a mountain out of a molehill.
You DO repeatedly call people liars, because the only way your claims about 5G and other subjects could be true is if scientists and other people were lying. The effect of mobile phone radiation has been repeatedly tested. It has not been found to be dangerous. Scientists (like my wife, who spent years researching the area) are NOT lying when they say that, as you inherently accuse them of doing.
The fact that you can call the findings of extensive detailed studies in area like mobile phone radiation "an opinion" and compare it to your uninformed beliefs is just weird. It is utterly dishonest to imply that the knowledge derived from years of study and experiment is merely "an opinion".
To put your uninformed beliefs on the same level as the knowledge held by experts in the field is extraordinarily arrogant, no matter what field we're talking about. I don't claim as much about whatever you do for a job as you do, so why should you claim to know as much about a field of science as the scientists who work in the field do? It's as if someone who had never windsurfed or even studied how it works walked up to AA and said "you're wrong when you talk about how to windsurf, and I know more about windsurfing technique than you do". If someone did that to AA we'd all think they were a wanker - why is what you do any different? And I'm not going to apologise for any insult you think I'm throwing at you, because you throw far more abuse at others.
It's not as if you are really interested in discussion or exploration of your claims, because you won't answer questions about the BS you swallow and spin. For example, have you checked the claims that the Swiss doctor's federation has spoken out against 5G? And to ask again, why do you believe "Coco Tache-Berther" (one of the people quoted in the 5G article you quoted earlier) and what she says on 5G? How much study has she done on radiation? Which experiments has she run or studied? If you have no evidence that Tache-Berther and other people you rely on have any real information about these subjects, why do you believe that they say when it involved accusing others of incompetence, stupidity or dishonesty?
There's a basic principle involved here - it is that we should run our lives with respect for other people. Why is that so hard?
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
I have never mentioned anyone's wife on here - ever.
If i disagree with the opinion of others on 5G or any other topic for that matter it does not mean I'm calling them liars.
Talk about creating a mountain out of a molehill.
Your entire ethos is that everything is a lie. It's pretty much all you ever write. Are you aware of this?
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
Alarmists are a bigger problem
Yeah, I agree with this.
Some people are fleeing to the country and becoming survivalists in anticipation of ecological collapse in the next 3 to 5 years. This is bull****. It is more likely to happen in the next 20-30 years.
There was an observation in a post I read on the weekend that asked "what happens to all the nuclear reactors if/when society collapses?". Yikes.
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..
There was an observation in a post I read on the weekend that asked "what happens to all the nuclear reactors if/when society collapses?". Yikes.
On the 'comedy' The Last Man on Earth, they are looking for a new place to settle after one of the local nuclear plants catches fire. It makes you wonder what does happen if these things are left unattended. Can the same thing happen? The suggestion is that there are enough of them around to be a problem, but hey, if you are in a small group of survivors, what do you have to worry about... just move somewhere that hates nuclear!
Again, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are looking at trying to foster development of better nuclear reactors that will survive a complete loss of coolant and be able to 'not melt down' just using ambient air cooling. I think this could be the future for nuclear power.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
I have never mentioned anyone's wife on here - ever.
You have when they are part of your vast "them".
Chris, I think you need to make an allowance for Peter. He lives in a very different universe to the rest of us.
In Peter's universe there are plenty of inconsistencies that are invisible to him. The fact that quite a few people here are part of his "they" being one of them. So yes he doesn't set out to hurt or insult people, quite the opposite in fact, he's trying to awaken us from our "brainwashing".
In Peter's universe the Earth is flat, any evidence to the contrary is manufactured somehow by "them"
The Earth is stationery, up and down are universal constants, with the rest of the universe painted on a giant dome, with their movements controlled by "them".
How "they" could have such enormous power, but still need to control the "un-them", with chemtrails and conspiracies, is yet another inconsistency, he is unaware of.
I told you that pointing out to people that the world is flat will have an impact on your future credibility Pete
Select to expand quotejapie said..
I told you that pointing out to people that the world is flat will have an impact on your future credibility Pete
I think Pete is totally unconcerned about his credibility
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
I'm not surprised that you think defending people against lies is stupid. After all, you have proven that you are a bald-faced unashamed liar yourself.
That is vile a revolting
The claims by Chris against me are totally unfounded and frankly laughable.
As for his touchiness on 5G - there are many documentaries that expose the dangers by well credentialed people.
Of course there are many other well credentialed others who maintain it is safe. My feeling is it should not have been rolled out until all the safety concerns were fully met.
It is obviously a very technical issue and difficult to verify.
I know a electricaian and and a electrical engineer and both have no clue whether it's safe or not.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..That is vile a revoltingChris 249 said..
I'm not surprised that you think defending people against lies is stupid. After all, you have proven that you are a bald-faced unashamed liar yourself.
I agree; being a bald-faced liar is vile and revolting. 
A shame this thread has turned in to a slagging match.
Shame,as it possibly is the most important of the topics ever discussed on Seabreeze.
We already are aware the mainstream media are practicing censorship on a large scale on many issues (911 Truth being the most obvious example)
If the majority of the public follow decrepit and allow the media to censor contrary opinion to man made climate change then surely you have to wonder what topic is next up for censoring?
It seems at times we are our own worst enemies.
So what's your view on the current condition of the planet Pete?
You think everything's ok? We don't need to change anything?
Surely in the flat Earth model covered by a glass dome we're filling it up with all sorts crap and it has nowhere to go . Or maybe there's a hatch somewhere and "they"can let all the crap out.
Is that how it works?
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..If the majority of the public follow decrepit and allow the media to censor contrary opinion to man made climate change then surely you have to wonder what topic is next up for censoring?
It seems at times we are our own worst enemies.
So Pete, are you in favour of allowing incitement to terrorism, racial vilification etc, because this sort of censorship already exists?
As I said, I'm in favour of the editor having control of content, as long as it doesn't contravene existing laws.
Are you saying all media should be forced to publish stuff? If so by whom?
It's like HW has been reborn with all time legends like TonyAbbott and Groucho...
As far as I recall, Groucho always had a thing for TonyAbbott
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
...It makes you wonder what does happen if these things are left unattended. Can the same thing happen? ...
According to Alan Weisman in his book The World Without Us, any traditional nuclear power plant left unattended will eventually do a Chernobyl when all the control systems fail. Which they will without constant human supervision. At least that's the message I remember from the book, its been a while since I read it and can't remember the exact technicalities.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..petermac33 said..If the majority of the public follow decrepit and allow the media to censor contrary opinion to man made climate change then surely you have to wonder what topic is next up for censoring?
It seems at times we are our own worst enemies.
So Pete, are you in favour of allowing incitement to terrorism, racial vilification etc, because this sort of censorship already exists?
As I said, I'm in favour of the editor having control of content, as long as it doesn't contravene existing laws.
Are you saying all media should be forced to publish stuff? If so by whom?
PM33 didn't mention terrorism or racial vilification, he responded directly to your post about censoring contary opinion to man made climate change. Why rely on extremes to justify censoring legitimate arguments you disagree with.
His question is valid, whats next to be censored?
Select to expand quotecammd said.. PM33 didn't mention terrorism or racial vilification, he responded directly to your post about censoring contary opinion to man made climate change. Why rely on extremes to justify censoring legitimate arguments you disagree with.
His question is valid, whats next to be censored?
You don't get my meaning, what I'm saying is that editors are in charge of what they publish.
Choosing not to publish something happens all the time with media all sides of the spectrum.
My point is, should all media be forced to publish everything?
That's the only way you can change the status quo. And I've no idea how you would do it.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
But it's 2019..
and 5 7 pages later..
A finals philosophy exam question.. (So everything on the line all your knowledge training skills and prejudices..)
Why?
The answer given 100% ..
Because.
I can imagine a lot of output best cleaned up with toilet paper was also written in response...
Major wholehearted climate change action will occur in Australia when... the middle class property owners (so the bulk of this category) living within a kilometer or twenty of the coast realise that their asset --the house / property -- is for real actually Plucked on the current footpath.. till then... political football for votes.
Does the science on climate kick-up the dust enough?
Stability creates comfort, comfort creates apathy, apathy is the hallmark of a headless chook...
Wouldn't it be nice if everything can carry-on - if you are living in OZ in the bell curve of average sure it could be better but -- it is bloody good - sure it is totally un-Australian to have such expensive power when we are No1 & No2 in the world exporting energy products (Coal and Gas).. but I can buy fuel whenever, I can go to the city on a whim, I can plan (and save or borrow) to buy something .. a car, a holiday an elective surgery to change something on a whim, I can fly around this earth on a whim, I can turn on a tap and get water to drink, or go to the Supermarket and get water from the other-side of the world (according to the label) on a whim, ..
Does your belief system belong to a headless chook - bothered to kick-up dust?
Not yet..
Cheers
AP
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..cammd said.. PM33 didn't mention terrorism or racial vilification, he responded directly to your post about censoring contary opinion to man made climate change. Why rely on extremes to justify censoring legitimate arguments you disagree with.
His question is valid, whats next to be censored?
You don't get my meaning, what I'm saying is that editors are in charge of what they publish.
Choosing not to publish something happens all the time with media all sides of the spectrum.
My point is, should all media be forced to publish everything?
That's the only way you can change the status quo. And I've no idea how you would do it.
The status quo should be changes with facts and logic, whatever side of an argument wins that battle should sway the majority into supporting that side. Thats what happened with the marriage equality debate. Its called democracy and media should report both sides of that argument in order for the people to make a decision. We know different media outlets lean in different directions but overall we get to hear opposing views.
What your suggesting is reporting one side only and actively suppressing contray opinion to support a belief you have to change the status quo in the direction you think is correct. Pretty much the same as the inquisition or a modern totalitarian government.
