Posts made by eobox91103

@bi4smooth said in Trump goes to the Dark Side...:

Should any of THEM question my facts, I'll be happy to respond.

Oh, but facts are such inconvenient things for some people, as are the basic principles of logic: Some want to simultaneously believe,

• (1) Coronavirus is a hoax. It's no more a problem than seasonal flu. It's being used as a tool by governments to oppress people; and

• (2) Donald Trump is the great Saviour, because his Warp Speed programme developed a Vaccine to save us from this horrible Plague [gratuitous capitalisation in honour of the Dear Leader].

'Tis Christmas Eve...
Merry Christmas to ALL!

and as we Anglicans would say, And also with you.

@raphjd said in Sarah Palin says she’ll get Covid vaccine ‘over my dead body’:

@eobox91103

Didn't you say that NO ONE ever said those things they said in that video?

No. When did I do that?

"Intelligent people" just keep obeying their masters, is what you mean.

No; intelligent people can learn when the knowledge advances or their own world view matures. Coronaviruses are better understood now than they were one year ago.

Even you admitted that vaccines, especially against viruses, don't work the way they claimed in the video.

Informed people today have a different understanding of vaccines than they did months/years ago. Again, that is due to the increase and advancement of knowledge, not from "lying" or some malevolent conspiracy. The person who put together the video on Twat-er would have done well to put a date stamp on each of the sound bites. For example, at one point Bill Gates is talking about vaccines, and 2021, in the future tense:

The video editor would be more responsible using current information such as:
from two days ago.

I expect that one year from now intelligent and informed people will have new understandings of covid based on the advance of knowledge. That doesn't mean that people are lying today or will be lying one year now. It means that people are able to learn. This is a good thing.

@raphjd said in Sarah Palin says she’ll get Covid vaccine ‘over my dead body’:

@eobox91103

https://twitter.com/i/status/1473680044044263426

These are the people you want us to listen to.

No.

That piece from Twitter is a cherry-picking of excerpts from over a year ago. Science evolves. People learn. Things can change. Intelligent people keep up with them.

@geobear40 said in Sarah Palin says she’ll get Covid vaccine ‘over my dead body’:

Why are you so hyped up on a virus that has a death rate of 1.8% and most of those had underling conditions.

I don't think I'm "hyped"--but I would prefer 0% to 1.8%.

If people listen to some stranger on rather they should get the shot they deserve what happens to them.

I largely agree. A foundational principle of conservatism is that people should make their own choices, and also be responsible for the consequences of them. (I think a large majority of all people would subscribe to this.) Ideally, though, people would be properly informed about these choices when they make them. Getting medical advice from an Alaskan "hockey mom" is probably not prudent.

@geobear40 The problem I have with Sarah Palin's blathering is that it can further encourage unvaccinated & non-previously-infected people to not get a vaccination...and thus they are more likely to join the millions of unvaccinated people who have died from covid.

Mandated vaccination is a separate topic. I'm not comfortable with government requiring a vaccination, as long as people understand that being unvaccinated can have consequences: If a business owner wants to require customers to be vaccinated, s/he has that right. Similarly, if a business does not require customers or staff to be vaccinated, I have a right to not patronise that business.

See https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/21/sarah-palin-covid-vaccine-coronavirus

I wonder if she appreciates the irony of her statement.

@lizejing1994 said in Is there a do not upload list?:

@iaimtoplease https://www.gaytorrent.ru/notallowed.php is this what you're referring to? Because I'm actually thinking about joshua armstrong. I used to remember there are a lot of his seeds on this site but they're all gone so I presume he is on a no-upload list or something like that.

The page linked by @iaimtoplease shows material that can't be uploaded at all. There are also studios (like EnglishLads and OnlyFans) that often request that torrents of their material be deleted for copyright reasons. It's OK to upload that material, but know that it might be deleted.

I'm not familiar with Joshua Armstrong, although I did a quick image search and he's definitely not under-age. If his stuff has disappeared from this site, it's probably for copyright reasons.

The moderators/staff of this site seem to follow a good policy here: If a person/company can demonstrate that they own the copyright to material being torrented here, the torrent will be deleted and the uploader notified to that effect, although the site will not tell the copyright owner who the uploader was. Furthermore, the admins/site will not comment to others regarding a torrent that they have deleted. These policies protect users' privacy while honoring copyright requests.

(There is another torrent site that currently has five Joshua Armstrong torrents active. I won't mention that site's name here, but you can send me a PM if you're interested.)

@bi4smooth I do indeed get the joke...but it would have been just the same if the caption had read "chemistry team" instead of "math team." This makes one wonder why someone would put on an erroneous caption, when the real one would work just fine. It reminds us to check the veracity of graffiti on the electronic superhighway.

@geobear40 said in Straight porn vs gay porn, your thoughts:

They are both overly scripted. First they do oral then this position than that position and finally the cum shot.

Amen to that...and in male-male porn, the first guy to suck is almost always the bottom. (It doesn't happen that way in my bedroom.)

@adonismix said in Straight porn vs gay porn, your thoughts:

I think it's either that, or an issue where the audience (primarily heterosexual and male) feels as if a more attractive man is some sort of competition.

I agree. Porn is a business, after all, and the customer base for male-female porn is overwhelmingly male...males who don't want to be threatened by guys with better bodies, bigger cocks, etc.

Conversely, many straight women like male-male porn: They're not as much interested in watching women, but they like watching guys...either solo or paired up.

@lololulu19 Cute story, although there's some fake news here: This is actually the winning team from the 49th International Chemistry Olympiad in 2017 (see https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/07/US-team-makes-history-IChO.html).

@eobox91103 *Make that GT.ru (this domain) in my missive above. For some reason I can't edit the post.

As the discussion above shows, this is a complex topic. I'll add a few of my own thoughts here.

As for underage material, as @bi4smooth points out, you can't simply look at a "model" and determine their age. While a pre-pubescent 10 year old would not be mistaken for an adult, someone who's 15 can look 20, and vice versa. It would be nice to be able to rely on a producer's certification of age-compliance, but this is not infallible. Some get it wrong, and some purposely misrepresent the facts.

Then, there's the issue of amateur material--anybody with a smartphone can make and post a video. There's no way to determine the age of the performers, and thus some sites will not host (or share) material that isn't from a commercial producer. There is amateur material on GR.ru, and it's possible that there are some underage performers. The moderators can't look at everything that's uploaded.

Part of amateur material is voyeur content--filmed in a locker room, shower, or over the divider of a toilet stall without the consent of the subject. These subjects could pursue both the person taking the photos and anyone possessing that material for an invasion of privacy--the usual norm being that photos or videos taken where a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" constitute such invasion. This gets further complicated given that there's no way to verify the age of a person being recorded in such circumstances. I have seen some toilet stall videos where I am less than convinced that the subject was 18 or over.

And finally, we need to distinguish age of consent from age of majority: In Canada, and most of the United States, it is legal to engage in sexual activity with someone 16 or 17 years old--but possessing a photo of that person's genitalia would be a crime.

One conclusion from all this is that each of us needs to use caution about what material we download and/or keep on our computer. Ultimately, it doesn't matter that you believe it's "legal" or can make an argument for that being the case, but rather it's what the legal system would think if you come under scrutiny. There have been cases where a person's computer or download records were seized for one reason or another, and when an investigator had reason to believe that there was banned material present, criminal charges were made. These might be later dismissed or acquitted, but only after considerable inconvenience and/or embarrassment. I don't say this to frighten people, but only to recommend that all of us be careful in what we do. Unless one is really into child (i.e., pre-pubescent) material, there's an abundance of clearly legal content available on this site that will be more than satisfying.

@dilemmax Take a look at "Auto Movie Thumbnailer," at https://funk.eu/amt/. The user interface is a bit clunky, but it will do a bunch of thumbnail sheets at once. I have it installed on a Windows 10 machine, and it passed all of my computer's multiple virus checks. I don't think there's a Mac version, but I haven't looked closely.

@raphjd said in Once again, Biden can't stop lying:

@eobox91103

So you admit you are a total hypocrite.

How can you say that? I think you would benefit from a course in remedial English comprehension.

@iaimtoplease said in Why do torrents that have already been taken down still affect my ratio?:

@bi4smooth Their topic and message are two different things. A torrent taken down, I read that as removed, would error in your client as "unregistered" in which case you should absolutely stop seeding if you want credit for any data that you're uploading.

I'm not sure I would say "absolutely stop seeding." It's true that one won't get credit for anything seeded after a torrent is deleted from the site, but one can still share data with a leecher that was connected prior to the deletion. This upload from my client doesn't hurt/cost me anything, and it benefits the leecher--which is probably a Good Thing.

If I have a deleted torrent in my client and no leechers are connected to it, then no new ones will be and I can delete the torrent, saving any downloaded material that might have come through.

@raphjd said in Once again, Biden can't stop lying:

@eobox91103
You clowns bringing up Trump in a thread about Biden.

In a discussion of lying, it is hard not to mention your Dear Leader.

@raphjd said in Once again, Biden can't stop lying:

@eobox91103

Umm, you are being a hypocrite again.

How so?

@bi4smooth said in Once again, Biden can't stop lying:

When you FIRST claim that your inauguration was "the largest crowd in history" it's just being wrong. When you're shown photographic evidence, backed up by testimony of your own followers - that you were wrong, but you continue to make that claim, you cross over from just being wrong to lying.

I appreciate how clearly you have stated this. I'm willing to give the Orange Toddler a pass on his initial statement of "largest crowd in history," as even the meager turnout at his inauguration had to look yooge (in Trumpist dialect) from his vantage point. But after being confronted with the facts, his persistence in making the claim was indeed an attempt to deceive. (This assumes that he did indeed see photographs comparing his crowd to previous inaugurations. It's possible that his inner circle prevented those facts from coming before him...which itself would indicate a serious problem.)

Under Trump, the "stimulus" was reasonable - inflationary, but inflation was historically low, and the economy had just taken a gut-punch. The 2nd Trump "stimulus" was purely political, and totally an inflationary event - causing people to not only spend unwisely, but also to expect to routinely collect money from the Gov't for free!.

One writer likened the stimulus payments to swatting a fly on a window using a sledge hammer: You might accomplish what you wanted to do, but with a lot of collateral damage. We must also remember that Trump wanted his name to appear on the stimulus checks, even though doing so would delay those checks. I also recall one report that he was furious that the majority of the payments would be made by direct deposit, and thus no paper with his name on it would go to those recipients.

@bi4smooth said in Universal Healthcare according to liberals:

• Requiring people to take a vaccine PERIOD (as-in, there is no way to decide NOT to take it) is un-American and amoral to my Libertarian beliefs. If you ACCEPT that you cannot work for the Federal Gov't (or a contractor), or go certain places, or do certain things because of your choice, that's fine - BUT IT IS STILL YOUR CHOICE!

Indeed so--and people often have more choice than they think: For example, security screening at the airport is optional, not mandatory. A person can refuse to be screened. If the person refuses, s/he won't be allowed to go past the checkpoint to the gates and get on a plane--but the option of refusing to be screened does exist.

I think covid vaccination should be optional...but if a person refuses to be vaccinated, then s/he should not be permitted to be in contact with other people, whether in the home or in public.That might sound severe, but it is the price of the freedom to not be vaccinated.

@raphjd said in Co-founder of Christian TV network that railed against vaccines dies of Covid-19:

@eobox91103

You are a Whataboutism nazi and hypocrite, everyone here knows it.

AH, that is why you, claim, you did it. I still notice that you never, ever mention when someone on your side does it to me because you are so fair and balanced in your comments.

Thank you for again proving my point--that you have nothing substantive to say, and childishly resort to insults.

You are a typical liberal.

Actually, I'm not. But I don't think you would be able to understand this. Perhaps you can illuminate us as to what you mean by "liberal."