@raphjd <This is not a political comment.>
This has to be one of the funniest headlines in years: We have both "Joe Biden giving Boris Johnson a hand with his sausage," and the same fellow "beating off the EU."
This rivals my favourite from some years back--and article about how one could pickle gherkins and cucumbers at home. The title of the article? "You can put pickles up yourself."
I've used this process myself for a hundred or more uploads.
Note that the "Trackers" window will show http://gaytor.rent:------- to reflect the new site domain.
Be sure to follow all of @john32123666's other recommendations, like unchecking "start seeding" which seems to be a default. Leaving that one checked can cause issues.
I know I join with other members in looking forward to the material you share on here.
@manhandler said in Terrible News for the Vaxxed: by 2025:
@eobox91103 Yes, the inventor of mRNA was cited in the article, for one. You think HE'S a CONSPIRACY NUT? HMMM? I don't think so, and he echoes what the former VP of Pfizer said, as well as the inventor of the PCR test. It's all singing to the same tune, and you are playing ignorant because it doesn't fit your belief system.
PLEASE learn to read. There was no reference to a source. For a web page to assert something without any backup doesn't count. Show me an reference.
But you can't. You're the one with the fixed (i.e., broken) belief system who doesn't believe in fact.
Responding to your trash posts is a fucking waste of time.
I think there are two topics going on here: (1) I think the OP was asking about thumbnail files that would be part of of the torrent itself, and (2) others were addressing thumbnail files that would be part of the description on the torrent page.
Both approaches are useful, depending on the circumstances: If the torrent has only a few videos (four or less, maybe), then having thumbnail files posted as part of the torrent page is a good idea, along with some large single photos.
For torrents with a lot of video files, I like to see a separate folder of thumbnails in the torrent itself; then I can download only the thumbs and then decide which video files to download.
Whether a thumbnail file is part of the torrent page or downloadable from the torrent, advice from members above should be heeded:
Set the thumbnail generator to make each thumb a good size--150 pixels high at a minimum.
Don't have the video sampled too often--once every two minutes will give a sense of what's going on.
@chanelkokoro said in Party of family values part 1 
:
We have to define where life begins. Science has defined it as viability. Because if you define life at the potentiality for life such as at conception that rabbit hole never ends. That means by the time you get that dick up there is a 3rd person in that room. have you ever condemned yourself for all the lives you've killed cumming in your toilet?
but then, why do conservatives claim to be pro life, but anti birth control and anti sex education that would lead to less abortions? how do y'all claim to be pro life and then try to gut and defund the programs that would help sustain that life? make it make sense.
"Viability" is a tricky concept: As medical science improves, smaller and smaller fetuses could be considered viable. But there could also be an argument (which I don't think anybody has made) that a child isn't "viable" until age 8 or 10, given that for some period of many years, s/he is dependent on other humans to provide food, shelter, etc. The young of other species (I'm thinking of turtles and fish, and likely others) are abandoned when hatched, so they are by definition viable at birth. I don't know the way out of this mess.
As for birth control and sex education, the conservatives' view on that baffles me. If conservatives don't want women to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, why don't they seek to prevent those unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place? Quite illogical on their part.
If you like uTorrent (as I do), you don't want to use version 3.6. Version 3.5.5 is stable (I use it), and you can get a download of it at https://www.filesoul.com/software/uTorrent/3-5-5-45271-for-PC-Windows/download/ . Then, make sure you got to Options -> Preferences -> General and un-tick the box that says, "Automatically install updates:"
Do NOT try to get this version from a link on domain uptodown.com. Those links have been corrupted and will install version 3.6, which is a disaster.
You can also follow the suggestions of others on there who advocate version 2.2.1. That also works...but again, make sure you untick the auto-upgrade box.
Good luck with your project, and let us know how it turns out!
@shami94 said in This is what liberalism does to people:
Just checking in to see how raphjd's personal echo chamber is going. It's been a while but I see it hasn't changed.
It's the same: Some factless conspiracy-theory piece gets posted, and then when it's debunked, he devolves into insults because because there's no rational response to the truth. It's driven many people away from not only this forum group, but the forums in general. (Some of the latter effect might be due to the crappy new interface put up several months ago.)
Sometimes I wonder if it's all a satirical caricature. Nobody with a double-digit IQ could really believe some of the stuff that gets posted.
@manhandler said in 82% Miscarry After Vaccine: Prestigious Medical Journal:
@eobox91103 https://www.newswars.com/top-doctor-covid-vaccines-killing-babies-in-first-trimester-at-astonishing-rate/
Texas A&M professor of medicine Dr. Peter McCullough warns against vaccinating pregnant women for COVID-19, claiming the vaccines are completely unnecessary for pregnant women and are “directly killing babies in the first trimester.”
One nutcase on a conspiracy website. No more need be said.
@manhandler said in 82% Miscarry After Vaccine: Prestigious Medical Journal:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/ocqrto/the_new_england_journal_of_medicine_shows_that/
You're mis-reading the statistics.
First, let's dismiss the reddit post--it's on their "conspiracy" page.
Next, let's take a careful read of the NEJM article. The sample set was of 35,691 women. Table 1 shows that 86.5% of these were pregnant at the time of vaccination, and the remaining 15.5% became pregnant shortly after the vaccination. This does NOT mean, as conspiracy theorists want to believe, that the 86.5% somehow lost their pregnancy shortly after vaccination. It means that those 15.5% were women who became pregnant after the study and thus were included in it.
What was the outcome of the vaccinated pregnant women? Let's look at Table 4. The pregnancy and neo-natal outcomes from vaccinated-mother pregnancies were completely in line with incidence rates from the larger population--in fact is some areas, adverse outcomes were a bit lower than the larger population averages, but a much larger study would be needed to establish that.
So, based on real data rather than prejudiced preconception, one can confidently assert what the researchers (and their peer reviewers) stated:
RESULTS
Although not directly comparable, calculated proportions of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in persons vaccinated against Covid-19 who had a completed pregnancy were similar to incidences reported in studies involving pregnant women that were conducted before the Covid-19 pandemic.
CONCLUSIONS
Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.
@manhandler The linked video page description says that the New England Journal of Medicine came to these findings.
That's not true, and likely why that video page didn't cite a specific paper.
If you're willing to learn about this topic, see:
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-724952235185
https://news.wttw.com/2021/04/21/new-data-reassuring-covid-19-vaccination-pregnancy
https://www.jwatch.org/na53527/2021/05/03/covid-19-mrna-vaccines-appear-safe-during-pregnancy
@hubrys said in Is FOX even "news" anymore?:
It's strange that ordinary Joes think that Tucker Carlson really understands them
A while back some people sued Tucker Carlson and Fox News saying that Carlson's on-air rants were a breach of an implied contract between a journalist and his audience. Fox News responded by saying that Carlson was not a journalist, but rather an entertainer.
If that's the case, Carlson knows how to work his room of uncritical Trumpers: Feed them baseless conspiracy theories reaffirming their unhinged world view that they can absorb within their 30-second attention span.
In the real world, complex problems don't have simplistic solutions, but in the Fox world, facts are inconvenient and ignored.
@illustrious said in Is FOX even "news" anymore?:
@raphjd LOL. Literally not a single piece of evidence.
Did you read the Mueller report?
The first part of the investigation was not about Donald Trump (although his worldview thinks everything is about him). It was a "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election." That interference did take place "in sweeping and systematic fashion," according the report. (The report is available at https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download. It's 448 pages long, far exceeding a Trumper's attention span. The introduction and executive summary is only 10 pages, and one hopes that people could read that much.)
While it has been clearly established that the Internet Research Agency of Russia interfered with the 2016 election, it is not surprising that there was no provable conspiracy between Donald Trump and the Russian actors. Putin and his gang are as smart as they are evil: They did not want an erratic and naive person involved in a carefully designed and executed project.
After the Mueller report was released, Trump and his sycophants (none of whom read the report) screamed loudly that they had been "totally exonerated." That is factually false. The investigation was conducted according to a rigorous standard of proof, which found sufficient evidence to establish that there was Russian interference in the election.
While there was also much evidence of interaction between Trump campaign staff and advisers and Russian actors, there wasn't a provable link that Trump himself was involved in the conspiracy. This is hardly "total exoneration."
Marcus Lamb, 64, whose Daystar network reaches an estimated 2 billion viewers worldwide, had pushed alternative therapies. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies
This score just in: Science 1; Dumbass 0.
@raphjd said in Co-founder of Christian TV network that railed against vaccines dies of Covid-19:
Even the Mayo Clinic website said that if you get the vaccine, you won't get covid.
No, it doesn't
If you search for "mayo clinic covid vaccine," the first page that comes up is https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/why-get-vaccinated. This page says, "A COVID-19 vaccine might ... Prevent you from getting COVID-19 or from becoming seriously ill or dying of COVID-19"
Notice the word "might" in there. I think this wording is quite clear.
So, by your own definitions, this would make you a fucking liar. (I would prefer to say that it suggests that you are illiterate and/or ignorant).
@raphjd said in Co-founder of Christian TV network that railed against vaccines dies of Covid-19:
AH, the "whataboutism" nazi.
Many people on here notice that your responses to other people are almost always an ad hominem, attacking the person rather than addressing issues. While this might give you some childish satisfaction, it shows the reader that you have surrendered on the topic and are left with nothing else than hurling your feces at people. This is not worthwhile discussion
If you are going to slag off a person for not getting a vaccine and then repeat boosters and not wear masks, you have to accept it when people point out that your side dies too. .
I have no idea what this incoherent rambling means. I do know that it's very likely nonsense.
Macron isn't being helpful...this was likely a moment of rage that he will soon regret.
His actual comment was, "Quand ma liberté vient menacer celle des autres, je deviens un irresponsable. Un irresponsable n’est plus un citoyen" (When my liberty becomes a menace to others, I become irresponsible. An irresponsible [person] is no longer a citizen.) His statement is incorrect under French law.
He could have expressed his thought by saying that "the irresponsible are not acting like good citizens," but even that would have been inflammatory. It might even have been irresponsible, which would then backfire on him. (Le karma, c'est une chienne.)
One doesn't persuade people by publicly insulting or shaming them. His wife was a school teacher, and would know this quite well. I think the two of them will have a rather spirited conversation.
@raphjd said in Dems who once decried "loose canon" Trump, now defending Biden "going off script":
Please try again.
Will do...although this will require reading, and confronting facts, which you may find distressing:
Here's a partial transcript of your Dear Leader's comments about the "Unite the Right" march in Charlottesville:
Reporter: (Inaudible) "… both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the --"
Trump: "Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say."
Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name." [emphasis added]
(Trump frequently praised Robert E. Lee as a "very fine general," even though he commanded an army that fought against the United States.)
@raphjd My bad. I thought we could have a rational, fact-based discussion...but that can be threatening to a simplistic world view.
@raphjd said in Dems who once decried "loose canon" Trump, now defending Biden "going off script":
Oh, I thought you were referring to Biden since he's made a career out of lying for the last 50 years.
Your BDS seems to be clouding your ability to read. Perhaps you can check with the local school authorities to see if they have remedial classes for you.
@raphjd said in Dems who once decried "loose cannon" Trump, now defending Biden "going off script":
You're talking about Biden, right?
Re-read the sentence carefully, although I know that reading comprehension can be challenging:
... on the rare occasions that Putin's not behind layers of handlers, he can call upon his decades of experience as a professional liar.
"he" and "his" refer to Putin. That should be clear from the grammatical construction (my apologies for using multi-syllabic words).
We know that you love Putin because he is adored by the Dear Leader. Perhaps, though, you feel some conflict when you see what Vlad is doing? Or perhaps not. That would require thought.