I have a serious problem when an audience gambles by going 'all-in,' dumping their entire stake into the pot. It's like by being a part of an audience and deciding where to spend your attention, you have to commit wholly and solely to whatever choice you made.
An "all-in" mentality like this will make you over-commit to a single sou…
I have a serious problem when an audience gambles by going 'all-in,' dumping their entire stake into the pot. It's like by being a part of an audience and deciding where to spend your attention, you have to commit wholly and solely to whatever choice you made.
An "all-in" mentality like this will make you over-commit to a single source and if that source turns out to be a bust, you are broke. And desperately searching for a loan shark to lend you enough for the next round.
I don't really read Kirsch's stuff anymore - he had a great blog post about the leaked audio from inside the Israeli Ministry of Health recently. Pretty potent stuff (or so I thought) because now we're back at square one and listening to Steve patiently for the next jackpot to drop. The louder the squabbling, the less I pay heed to it and unfortunately, the lower their overall credibility sinks.
Today was an interesting day on substack as I got to see a mass formation occurring on certain substack pages - probably the largest substack accounts infact. The comments section on these blog posts are boilerplate and bland, being too polite and devoid of conjecture. Is that the way they like it?
Maybe i'm noticing this because the powers that be want to astroturf over any questioning of viral theory. They are certainly changing the subject pretty quick & lashing out too.
I might change my account description to "expert scientist" and start polluting their comments section with boilerplate scientism, could be fun!
Agree. And that's exactly what the nonindependent thinkers do. "Follow the experts" mentality even if those "experts" are just talk show hosts, journalists, or whatever the case may be. That's why it's important that Bigtree and the others actually look seriously at the evidence against the existence of pathogenic viruses and come to the obvious truth and speak out about it. Celia asked why it was so important that Del refutes the viral causation notion and that is why. He at minimum needs to have a clear scientific based response as to why and how it's been proven that they do indeed exist and cause disease which of course isn't possible, or have a reasonable reason why he is choosing not to look at the evidence, and he's not doing that either.
So many substack readers/commenters are of the same mentality as you see with other social media . While substack appeared to, initially anyway, be for those that were being censored elsewhere for their truthful but oppositional views, it has become a free for all for imitators and detractors and outright controlled, (in one way or another), opposition. It will be a good day when all of the truly great writers, journalists, and other contributors to truth and freedom at on the newest platforms, such as Sayer Ji's newest, and Barre Lando's.
I have a serious problem when an audience gambles by going 'all-in,' dumping their entire stake into the pot. It's like by being a part of an audience and deciding where to spend your attention, you have to commit wholly and solely to whatever choice you made.
An "all-in" mentality like this will make you over-commit to a single source and if that source turns out to be a bust, you are broke. And desperately searching for a loan shark to lend you enough for the next round.
I don't really read Kirsch's stuff anymore - he had a great blog post about the leaked audio from inside the Israeli Ministry of Health recently. Pretty potent stuff (or so I thought) because now we're back at square one and listening to Steve patiently for the next jackpot to drop. The louder the squabbling, the less I pay heed to it and unfortunately, the lower their overall credibility sinks.
Today was an interesting day on substack as I got to see a mass formation occurring on certain substack pages - probably the largest substack accounts infact. The comments section on these blog posts are boilerplate and bland, being too polite and devoid of conjecture. Is that the way they like it?
Maybe i'm noticing this because the powers that be want to astroturf over any questioning of viral theory. They are certainly changing the subject pretty quick & lashing out too.
I might change my account description to "expert scientist" and start polluting their comments section with boilerplate scientism, could be fun!
Agree. And that's exactly what the nonindependent thinkers do. "Follow the experts" mentality even if those "experts" are just talk show hosts, journalists, or whatever the case may be. That's why it's important that Bigtree and the others actually look seriously at the evidence against the existence of pathogenic viruses and come to the obvious truth and speak out about it. Celia asked why it was so important that Del refutes the viral causation notion and that is why. He at minimum needs to have a clear scientific based response as to why and how it's been proven that they do indeed exist and cause disease which of course isn't possible, or have a reasonable reason why he is choosing not to look at the evidence, and he's not doing that either.
So many substack readers/commenters are of the same mentality as you see with other social media . While substack appeared to, initially anyway, be for those that were being censored elsewhere for their truthful but oppositional views, it has become a free for all for imitators and detractors and outright controlled, (in one way or another), opposition. It will be a good day when all of the truly great writers, journalists, and other contributors to truth and freedom at on the newest platforms, such as Sayer Ji's newest, and Barre Lando's.