Joe Kelley wrote:Why hold onto the fear mongering so dearly in the face of all the contrary evidence?

Whoa, I didn't mean to open up this can of worms. You just go on, friend. Be cool. I'm not nearly as emotionally invested in the peak oil idea as you are against it. So you win by sheer vehemence!

I just want to ask you something. Do you think the earth has any kind of carrying capacity or is my even asking this an act of fear-mongering? Do you think that we humans are living in a way that can be called sustainable? And if you add 3 billion people to our planet (twice the current population of China) does that change anything?

For the record, I think the earth has a carrying capacity. As for the other questions I don't know the answers, but I don't think in pondering them I am being a fear monger.

Also, what is this evidence that you speak of that renders the idea of peak oil so moot? Evidence. Actual evidence. I'd love to hear it. Please no more youtube videos of Lindsay Williams who I just googled, knowing that he must be a scientist or an expert of some kind. He must have some credibility to be on youtube, right? Well it turns out he's an ordained Baptist minister who went to Alaska in 1971 as a missionary. The book he wrote, The Energy Non-Crisis was written in the 1970s.

I’ll duck your metaphorical burst of machine-gun fire for the moment Joe, and comment on a couple of things.

The cost of producing a barrel of oil today is pretty cheap. If I have my numbers right, I think it is less than a case of my favorite brand of beer (I have expensive tastes). But that is not what we pay for.

Oil is speculated on in the market place. Futures contracts are sold that fix the price of batches of oil, based on what traders think will be the situation a few months or so down the road. This is done, economists tell us, to help assure supply. They are probably correct. If economists and traders around the world think there is a glut, the price should go down. If it seems it will become scarce, the reverse is likely. Information is what these guys use to get a jump on the competition, and I don’t doubt that they consume it voraciously.

Conspiracy is something people tend to enjoy. It is big out there in the media today, and I think it safe to say that a lot of people do conspire for their own gain in many ways. But the bigger the event, the harder it is to keep a lid on it. A handful of friends may keep a secret, but when thousands are involved, it’s another story. That’s because another favorite of human beings is divulging important secrets. What better buzz than to be able to phone a reporter and tell them that you have earth-shaking news that may change history? The boost to the ego is palpable. So when we are talking about an industry that employees millions around the world, many of them followed about by the media a great deal of the time, the chances of keeping history altering secrets very long seems to me remote.

When it comes to population, I have shared your feeling of looking down from an airplane and marveling at all the space. Here in BC, there is even more of it. But flying a little lower, or better yet pulling out a map showing resource use will tell another story.

We will never, ever get to the point where we run out of physical space for people. Long before that, we would all be dead, or reduced back to manageable levels. We don’t just need the space to stand up, but a heck of a lot more. We need the natural resources to provide input, and also recycle our wastes. Already today, we are playing fast and loose with things like nuclear waste and the emissions from coal plants. On the supply side, each person needs a lot of turf to grow the food, filter water, and produce the oxygen needed to live.

A quick look at BC might give the impression there is endless room for expansion. Four million people in an area about one and half times the size of Texas, and over half of them stuffed into the area around Vancouver. But practically all land is used for intensive resource extraction. Forests are being continuously logged, even in the most remote regions, hill country is used for ranching, the main river valleys for agriculture. In the northeast, coal and gas exploration is rampant, and there is little land without a claim on it. Even the mountains are important, as they provide the resource for hydropower, and the many dams in the province. It’s all being used, even if there are not many people around. You would have to go a long way to find a piece of “unused” land.

Oh come on! "He even wrote a book?" Yes, lets all take the good word from one book and believe it all.

Suzanne (Moderator?),

That quote above is an example of what is known as “hyperbole”.

Here is a definition of that word:

extravagant exaggeration (as “mile-high ice-cream cones”)

I did not just fall off the tuna boat. My experience in forums has lasted over 10 years, including public forums while running for congress.

Hyperbole is on the list used by political hacks; people who use falsehood to gain power at the expense of their targeted victims. In on-line forums such people are accurately labeled as trolls.

Hyperbole, Straw-Man constructions, projection, transference, and Parthian Shots, to name a few, are on the same list.

Who ever claimed that someone, anyone, must “believe it all”? Where is this person who claims such absolute nonsense? Is this person you?

Has Suzanne the moderator claimed that because someone wrote a book, now, having read the book, the reader should “believe it all”, or is there an implication occurring here, where someone other than Suzanne the moderator is being accused of making such a claim; and if so who is the person being targeted with this supposed belief in absolute belief?

Is the target me?

Why am I the target? Is it something I wrote?

Did I write something that could cause someone else to believe that I have this absolute belief in what Lindsay Williams’s claims, and that everyone should have the same absolute belief according to me?

Why not ask me? Would that defeat the purpose of this Man of Straw?

Now I’m inspired to read on; but not for want of learning something new. That “belief” has vanished in this present effort.

If you prefer to only consider the words and speculations from Lindsay Williams and choose to dismiss the comments and opinions of others, please stop your tirade.

Can I assume that the question is directed at me; since the quote above that question is authored by me? I am guilty of a “tirade” now.

Here is a definition of that inflammatory word:

Tirade

: a protracted speech usually marked by intemperate, vituperative, or harshly censorious language

Well, I see why you might have made it to the position of moderator.

I’m being censored by you, as you inflame; to get me to shut up, or to get me to stoop to your level, and then have both of us thrown out?

What exactly have I written that is intemperate, vituperative, or an example of a tirade? I am curious, I’d like to know, and I prefer not to repeat such an error, please help me. Please help me, please.

Can I be more sincere? I can pay you to help me avoid repeating another example of a tirade. How much do you charge for such help, perhaps I can afford the cost of your price? I do want to avoid producing examples of “tirades”.

What is it costing me now, for your help?

Does the text above constitute a tirade - too? At what point does my writing require your approval? What exactly constitutes a tirade? How can I know what you want stopped?

Am I really “dismissing” what other people write, or am I challenging the text written by other's for accuracy, validity, meaning, understanding, etc. – according to you?

You quoted words of mine. Was it the reference to “collateral damage”; is that an example of a tirade? Can I show you pictures of “collateral damage”, is that more or less of a tirade? Is “tirade” an accurate word, or have you chosen a word that causes “collateral damage”?

Where did this come from?

That came from me. I wrote that, because I write things like that. That is what I write. That came from me. I didn’t quote anyone. I wrote it. That is where that came from. Why ask, isn’t the answer obvious? I wrote something published, not for pay, but it was published; on the origin of thought - is that what you mean to ask?

Please do not put words into the mouths of members.

Who put words in the mouths of “members”? If a shoe doesn’t fit; why would anyone wear the shoe? If I don’t ask if the shoe fits anyone, I won’t know if anyone is wearing the shoe. If you prefer to have specific questions censored, never asked, ever, well then: please list them, and then we will both know exactly what you don’t want asked?

“Oh, Joe, but the milk plant was “collateral damage”, and you are now obviously an anti-Semite and a conspiracy theorist so anything you say is meaningless.”

I didn’t invent the practice of creating imaginary dialogue, and I use that tool often in my work on forums. Sometimes I write arguments in dialogue that go on for 1000 words. My intent is not to place words onto anyone other than an imaginary, fictional, character. It isn’t a novel thing to do, it does covey meaning.

Is that an example of a “tirade” to you?

I need to know these things; since I am ignorant concerning what you think is a tirade. You may have chosen your word hastily?

Your remark about anti-Semitism, and the implication that someone here has said this, or even thought it is truly offensive!

What is “truly offensive”? Consider, please, the possibility that your lack of specifics leaves way to much room for error on my part concerning this specific point.

What is “truly offensive”?

I think that bombing, torturing, and mass murdering innocent men, women, children, babies, pregnant women, old people, teenagers, and honest productive, hard working, peaceful human beings – for profit - is truly offensive, so offensive that I can’t look at the pictures. Can you?

Are you associating me with the dirty deeds done by others for some reason? I am not torturing and mass murdering here, I’m writing text. Text worthy of exclamation points, apparently.

If a member has said this to you I would like to know. If this is part of your tirade, it has to stop!

What?

This:

“Oh, Joe, but the milk plant was “collateral damage”, and you are now obviously an anti-Semite and a conspiracy theorist so anything you say is meaningless.”

Is that an example of a tirade?

Which words exemplify a “tirade”?

I’ll stop when you can inform me of the boundaries here, perhaps I can submit my work to you and have you black out the parts that constitute a tirade?

The next thing that happens here, if things proceed in customary fashion, is that the person using hyperbole to construct a Straw-Man, targeting me as being someone I am not, someone who “believes everything” written by someone else, after being blamed for authoring “tirades”, the next step is to blame me for my defense, to claim that my defense (I didn’t, and don’t, condone absolute belief in words written by Lindsay Williams, and I have yet to know exactly what a “tirade” is according to my potential censor), the next step is to find me guilty of picking on the person attacking me with unjustified, false, and misleading text – aimed at me personally.

I am guilty of a very aggressive defense; which is something I have learned to sharpen over the years, because it nips trolling in the bud.

If the subject matter, oil, is divorced from the subject of such things as Zionism, then the whole picture won’t be whole, it will be missing specific pieces of the puzzle, according to my rational thought process.

If the forum rules state that the subject of Zionism must be kept off the tables; then I failed to read that rule.

If I can be helped, in my capacity as a forum member, is the use of falsehood against me going to help me?

I did not claim that Lindsay Williams can be, let alone should be, “believed” – absolutely.

I did not commit the tortures and murders that are so very offensive; so why blame me for them – if that is the intended inference here?

I didn’t intend to suggest that any specific person, any “member”, is capable of speaking the words spoken by my fictional characterizations; rather: people are capable of speaking those words, real people, in my experience, it is possible, and it is a very important part of the subject matter, which is power (oil power, and the power controlling it).

So now the “discussion” has opened up some; where will it go from here?

Whoa, I didn't mean to open up this can of worms. You just go on, friend. Be cool. I'm not nearly as emotionally invested in the peak oil idea as you are against it. So you win by sheer vehemence!

geo,

Exclamation point!

I’m not arguing, what would be the point – to win something? Did I forget to report how my first “official” exposure to Peak Oil sent me to run for congress again? The data produced by the fear mongers is scary, talk of wiping half the population of the Earth off it – etc.

If you were arguing, then I’m wondering who was on the other side. My question that you quote was a rhetorical question; I think I didn’t forget to announce that specifically.

Do you think the earth has any kind of carrying capacity or is my even asking this an act of fear-mongering?

Perhaps you missed the part where the question I asked was couched as a rhetorical question. Who would think that your question is an example of fear mongering? Who is this person who would think that your question is an “act of fear-mongering”? I would like to meet that person, he sounds like someone who might also wear a tin hat.

Am I reading you now, or am I reading too much in between the lines?

What is “carrying capacity”?

If the subject is food, and the subject of food is linked to the subject of fresh water; then the subject could include the subject of food grown with sea water, then the subject turns to the “carrying capacity” of sea water, and food grown with it.

If your question is too vague; what is the likely answer going to be?

If your question is a back-handed attack on me, do you really think I deserve it?

If so, then why do I deserve your back-handed attack?

My question concerning the fondness for fear-mongering was a rhetorical questions; perhaps I do not understand the meaning of that word: rhetorical.

Do you think that we humans are living in a way that can be called sustainable?

Again, with the already mentioned caveat in mind, concerning ambiguity, lack of specifics, vagueness, the question can be turned around.

If overpopulation exists, doesn’t that prove sustainability? Unsustainable human existence is the opposite of over-population.

The current problem is certainly a scarcity of power, but I think that the scarcity isn’t a lack of physical power, such as oil, since the Sun, for one example, supplies a whole lot of power, night and day. Knowing how to use the power that is available is akin to moving from night to day.

So you get a vague answer, and it is OK to blame me, it is customary.

And if you add 3 billion people to our planet (twice the current population of China) does that change anything?

If that happens, the increase in numbers is a change, why ask questions that have self-contained answers? I don’t get it. If another Einstein or Newton, or Henry Ford, or Confucius is among the new arrivals, will that change anything, or will they be ignored, or censored, for lack of interest, or for whatever reason, a preference for doom day perhaps?

Also, what is this evidence that you speak of that renders the idea of peak oil so moot? Evidence. Actual evidence. I'd love to hear it.

The exponential growth of competitive supplies of power, not limited to the following examples:

1. Solar Panels
2. Wind Generators
3. Thermal electric generators
4. Algae fuel
5. Lunar generators
6. Electric powered cars
7. Hydrogen from water generators (storage capacity and fuel)
8. Natural gas
9. Fusion generators
10. Human interconnectivity (removal of data transfer barriers)

The last on the list may prove to be the most powerful example.

I don’t offer those things. I offer text. The things exist in the real physical world, and I’ve been tracking and recording the growth rate, as the data becomes available to me, and the numbers report “exponential” growth. I have yet to find a comprehensive study, other than my own hodge/podge.

I can point you to my own forum, where I have kept the links I find, but that would be innapropriate to me, somewhat, and the list is too long for here. Search for Power-Independence if you are curious.

Please no more youtube videos of Lindsay Williams who I just googled, knowing that he must be a scientist or an expert of some kind. He must have some credibility to be on youtube, right?

OK, yea, I’m reading you loud and clear, this is the good cop bad cop routine, or passive aggressive routine that you are using on me – yes or no? Am I reading you loud and clear! I’m curious. I want to know the truth here.

Because someone is on youtube, they must be credible, yes or no?

Why ask that question of me? Have I been ramming something down your throat, of course I have, and I have been doing this because “I” (not this Man of Straw you are constructing) “believe” that the mere fact that someone is on youtube proves, beyond any doubt, that what is reported is absolute fact, or so the suspicion suggests - which originates from where?

I think I get the point.

I will still ask, just in case.

What is the point?

Well it turns out he's an ordained Baptist minister who went to Alaska in 1971 as a missionary. The book he wrote, The Energy Non-Crisis was written in the 1970s.

He is who he is and he speaks well enough for himself, it seems to me.

Here is another good speaker, for the curious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRE8ghD9Ee0

I’ll duck your metaphorical burst of machine-gun fire for the moment Joe, and comment on a couple of things.

etudiant,

If wrote the above, sent it to you, what would you call it?

Oil is speculated on in the market place. Futures contracts are sold that fix the price of batches of oil, based on what traders think will be the situation a few months or so down the road. This is done, economists tell us, to help assure supply. They are probably correct. If economists and traders around the world think there is a glut, the price should go down. If it seems it will become scarce, the reverse is likely. Information is what these guys use to get a jump on the competition, and I don’t doubt that they consume it voraciously.

I’m pulling the trigger on my machine gun, so watch out.

Competition is a force.

Competition forces quality up.

Competition forces price down.

When competition is in force, price will be forced down to cost, and in some cases even below cost.

If the price of oil is not at cost, what happened to competition?

It is big out there in the media today, and I think it safe to say that a lot of people do conspire for their own gain in many ways. But the bigger the event, the harder it is to keep a lid on it.

Who listens? How many “official” voices does it take for someone, anyone, to listen, to hear, to understand, to comprehend, and to know? Can I sell you a war with "Iraq" or "Iran" - how about Yemen - Bosnia?

Which conspiracy is in view, or specifically non-existent? Which one?

Already today, we are playing fast and loose with things like nuclear waste and the emissions from coal plants.

“We” is misdirection from my view. Who is “playing fast and loose” with, for example, turning nuclear waste into military projectiles and then spreading those things like democracy all over the Middle East?

Who is this “we” person, or people, I am curious enough about him, or her, or them, to want to know him or her or them better.

On the supply side, each person needs a lot of turf to grow the food, filter water, and produce the oxygen needed to live.

Is the news about Modular Green House Farming Units superfluous to this present focus, or am I missing something?

Such devices when used are capable of consuming CO2 and the waste product, to be exhausted out into the atmosphere, or bottled and sold, is oxygen.

Is that superfluous data, irrelevant, and a non-issue; while Global Warming dooms day is more attractive, or is it more attractive to merely ask questions, not actually looking for an answer?

A. Scarcity of fuel, food, water, space, oxygen, jobs, money, wisdom, and an overabundance of pollution, and CO2.

B. Compact food production, needing people to make the units, sell the units, use the units, maintain the units, ship the units, where the production of the food consumes less space, recycles the water, consume CO2, pollutes the atmosphere with oxygen, and can produce cheaper transportation fuel by burning more CO2, polluting more oxygen, when producing Algae, and the industry can grow even faster than the oil can run out.

Why focus on A and ignore B?

I don’t get it.

But practically all land is used for intensive resource extraction.

I need a reality check on that one, please, please, please, don’t leave that merely told, ambiguously told, and yet authoritatively told. What is the area in question, what boundaries are you talking about, how much of it is, or will be, used for intensive resource extraction, and how much of it isn’t. Please offer some data.

Forests are being continuously logged, even in the most remote regions, hill country is used for ranching, the main river valleys for agriculture.

If the idea is to get an accurate picture of how much is used and how much is yet to be used, or never to be used, then percentages help.

X is the total land area
Y is the total land area used
Z is the percent of land used or unused

Pie charts, like looking at how much space is left on the hard drive, work well.

It’s all being used, even if there are not many people around.

That is it? Case closed?

You would have to go a long way to find a piece of “unused” land.

How about “claimed” or “owned” or “licensed” or “purchased” or “controlled” or “excluding all else” - why use the word “used” (“unused”)?

informationclearinghouse.info/article24 ... e24654.htm

Anyone,

That link is only relevant to this topic by way of introduction concerning much of my view on this topic, to answer a question such as: "What is that guy Joe thinking?" or "Where is that coming from?"

It is an audio file, it hammers out a lot of data, and it may not be easy to understand without some background in political economy. It is power, not oil power, but power none-the-less.

guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/13/ ... el-problem

The book is a source of data; so far it is accurate if not precisely telling the whole truth (something that isn't possible?); but I'm not done reading it yet.

Leaving things out, is inevitable, knowing what was left out can lend some knowledge as to the motives behind the decision maker.

Joe knows a lot about this topic, but possibly he is misusing the term "fear-mongering." When is forecasting the future based on current trends (which can themselves be disputable, granted) analysis, and when does it take on the emotional corruption that makes it fear-mongering? But isn't there a difference? Or should we not even look into the future of resources such as oil or of programs such as Social Security? It seems a little too easy to charge those with whom you disagree with fear-mongering.

Joe knows a lot about this topic, but possibly he is misusing the term "fear-mongering."

DWill,

I’m right here.

The book on the table is, to me, an example of a source of data that is not typical “fear-mongering”.

If I am guilty of misusing the term “fear-mongering” I am open, willing, even asking, boarding on begging, for examples of this pre-meditated error on my part, so as to not repeat this error, please, pretty please, with sugar on top. Please illustrate an example of my misuse of “fear-mongering”.

To aid in defense against such charges of misusing the term “fear-mongering” I’m going to illustrate what I mean by fear-mongering and to do so I am going to conduct an experiment. I’m going to pretend to be someone who has just became aware of the term “Peak Oil” and this innocently ignorant human being searches for data on the subject.

This person may go to the library and pick up a book. This person may shop on-line for a book. This person may even shop on-line for free data, before choosing a book to get and then to read.

This person searches with Google; in this experiment.

I’m going to pick from the list, and choose a link based upon the word “Hubbert” and then I see the term “Princeton.edu” as those words look very official, my pretend ignorant fellow may have heard of Hubbert and Princeton.edu sounds like one of those upstanding education centers.

Next I’m going to pick an alarming looking link called “die off”. I may not have been very alarmed as yet, but that link sure does look alarming, so I’m concerned enough to look at it – first.

http://dieoff.org/

There, there is an example of “fear-mongering”, as I show anyone who may have any doubts as to what I consider to be “fear-mongering” – there it is.

If someone else thinks that I misuse the term “fear-mongering” then that person may not share my background in psychology, mass media manipulation, propaganda, false advertisement, and falsehood in general. I can point to many works, and one work that stands out is the Nobel Peace Prize Lecture by Solzhenitsyn; which I won’t quote, since the relevant message, the background I elude to, is in the whole message by that author, that person, that person who could be considered an expert on “fear-mongering” if ever one managed to survive “fear-mongering” and mass die offs.

When is forecasting the future based on current trends (which can themselves be disputable, granted) analysis, and when does it take on the emotional corruption that makes it fear-mongering?

There are among our species members who have answered that question with precision. They can be called propagandists, scientists, market analysts, or fear-mongerers, depending upon the goal in mind when the answer is produced by the specific people who have a vested interest in answering that question with the utmost precision.

If the product (text, audio, video: media) is scientifically tested for specific affects to people during exposure to the media, the data resulting from such tests measure the answer to the question asked.

This question:

When is forecasting the future based on current trends (which can themselves be disputable, granted) analysis, and when does it take on the emotional corruption that makes it fear-mongering?

If the question seeking an answer isn’t asking for motives other than “forecasting the future”, then the question seeking an answer does not pertain to communication media. An individual can forecast the future and once the forecast is done, the individual has a forecast. What is done with the forecast? Is the forecast broadcasted?

Is the thing on the table a question concerning mass media, or is the thing on the table merely an individual viewpoint (forecast)?

Why phrase the question in such a way as to remove the factor of motive during the effort to communicate the “forecast” to other people?

It seems to me that the question supplies the answer once it is assumed that the forecast moves from the forecaster to other people.

When is forecasting the future based on current trends (which can themselves be disputable, granted) analysis, and when does it take on the emotional corruption that makes it fear-mongering?

When forecasting the future based on current trends: when that becomes emotional corruption (fear-mongering) is exactly when that is the decision to do that, and then action is taken to do that, precisely that, how can that be otherwise?

If a study is done whereby two visual and audio media streams are presented to a subject audience, where the audience is hooked up to measuring devices, and filmed, and the media streams differ because one shows bodies loaded into trucks, skulls, skeletons, and images of the grim reaper, with appropriate sounds of pain, even torture, and the other media stream doesn’t have these specific sounds and images, what conclusion could be drawn from the data taken from the audience?

When I see current trends I see rapid and exponential growth rates of new power producing products. Algae fuel just happens to be one of the most promising because it happens to eat C02 and few people are frightened by a fear of running out of C02, for some reason.

Algae happens to produce oxygen, and few people are frightened about having too much oxygen polluting the Global Environment – for some strange reason.

A Global Environment with too much 02 and not enough C02 could be a very scary trend, taken to a very scary extreme, producing dead people everywhere as one spark ignites the entire surface of the planet in one last great bone fire – OH MY.

But isn't there a difference?

When encountering fear-mongering campaigns, as with encountering any mass media that is designed to cause a specific reaction from the audience, it is a good idea, to me, to measure yourself before and then after exposure to the mass media, to pretend that you are both observer and observed in a illustrative study; as if you are testing the mass media for its capacity to perform a specific task.

A. You feel as you feel before exposure the mass media.
B. You feel as you feel after exposure to the mass media.

Mass media design is a science; it has been for some time now. I first became aware of the science of Mass Media well into my adult life during a college course called: Statistics and Dynamics. It was one of my best exposures to mass media (school).

Psychological testing, even back then, in forms such as personally tests, just one illustrated example of mass media, has reached a capacity of statistical perfection, targeting human beings, so as to enable the employer of the tests to know if the test subject is lying, or answering falsely on purpose, proven statistically in all but a very few exceptions way out on the ends of the bell curve.

Or should we not even look into the future of resources such as oil or of programs such as Social Security? It seems a little too easy to charge those with whom you disagree with fear-mongering.

Please note how my name is the first word in this reply to this topic by this forum member. I am not addressed, the forum member authoring this reply does not address me, rather, the forum member addresses his reply at me - targeting me - speaking to other people, other than me, as I am doing now, speaking to the gallery.

“Joe knows…”

“but”

It seems a little too easy to charge those with whom you disagree with fear-mongering.

Ambiguity is to plausible deniability as oxygen is to fire.

Who in this vast universe is charging those whom he (or she) disagrees with: with the charge of fear-mongering?

Who does that?

I wonder.

If someone expends effort to focus attention toward something as fearful as massive human starvation, and then someone focuses attention toward either no solution whatsoever or a solution of their choosing – then it may be a good idea to do two things:

A. Note that no solution is offered, only the fearful thing is presented
B. Note the specific solution offered and inspect it.

What do I do – exactly?

Do I do the following?

It seems a little too easy to charge those with whom you disagree with fear-mongering.

I am asking for the precise and accurate answer, and I am not asking for the ambiguous answer, cause I’d like to know the truth and if I’m going to know the truth I need to see it. Where, if this is the case, where am I charging those with whom I disagree with, with fear-mongering?

If not, if I’m not doing that, then what is the point in pointing that out when the topic is a book that addresses the fear-mongering Peak Oil scare in (as far as I’ve read so far) a reasonable way where the author offers reasonable solutions to the supposed fears of mass starvation and such.

What is the point of pointing the finger at me and charging me, in this plausibly deniable way, of this offense, if that is what is being done now?

I’d really like to know the truth and avoid any further misunderstandings on my part.

dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/gaza-in-plai ... -language/

grist.org/article/2010-02-13-bill-gates ... s-nuclear/

Power is the connecting medium, like air, air is power, air connects all human beings. Barriers to air, barriers to power, extinguish human life. My next offering here will be specfic to the topic book, when I employ my power to accomplish that goal.