Of course, smart people don't take healthcare advise from pro-mandatory vaccination Deep State bureaucrats.
On Nov. 19, 2025 the text about vaccines and autism was changed by CDC officials to inform the reader that the possibility that vaccines could contribute to the development of autism had not been ruled out. The
health agencyrCOs website language changed to:
-a -a rCLVaccines do not cause autismrCY is not an evidence-based claim. Scientific studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant
vaccines contribute to the development of autism. However, this
statement has historically been disseminated by the CDC and other
federal health agencies within HHS to prevent vaccine hesitancy."
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2026/07/cdc-again-changes-wording-about-vaccines-and-autism/
Whoo-boy! Major backpedaling at the speed of science!
Of course, smart people don't take healthcare advise from pro-mandatory vaccination Deep State bureaucrats.
Whoo-boy! Major backpedaling at the speed of science!
It is almost impossible to rule something out with certainty. Science
is a system based on probabilities and never yields static conclusions. >Experimental evidence must be the work product of an experimental design
that stipulates a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis with a
protocol that minimizes bias, selects subjects compatible with the
stated hypothesis, and uses a large enough number of test cases to
enable statistical analysis to yield a threshold of probability to be
labeled as "significant" proof that either supports or rejects the
hypothesis being tested. That conclusion gains credibility when the
results are confirmed by repeated experiments using the identical >experimental design. It is an error in understanding the scientific
method to claim that something has been or has not been unequivocally
ruled out. What may seem highly likely when first examined may turn out
not to be so as additional information is obtained. When a scientist
reports the results of well designed studies, what is not explicitly
stated but possibly should be is that the results represent that best >information available to date but are always subject to change when >additional information is learned about the issue. As we were told many >times during training, "the retrospectascope is always in sharp focus."
Don't blame a scientist for promoting a theory or a policy based on the
best available knowledge that was available when that promotion was made
but has since been superseded by additional information that has been >learned.
Whoo-boy! Major backpedaling at the speed of science!
It is almost impossible to rule something out with certainty. Science
is a system based on probabilities and never yields static conclusions.
Experimental evidence must be the work product of an experimental design
that stipulates a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis with a
protocol that minimizes bias, selects subjects compatible with the
stated hypothesis, and uses a large enough number of test cases to
enable statistical analysis to yield a threshold of probability to be
labeled as "significant" proof that either supports or rejects the
hypothesis being tested. That conclusion gains credibility when the
results are confirmed by repeated experiments using the identical
experimental design. It is an error in understanding the scientific
method to claim that something has been or has not been unequivocally
ruled out. What may seem highly likely when first examined may turn out
not to be so as additional information is obtained. When a scientist
reports the results of well designed studies, what is not explicitly
stated but possibly should be is that the results represent that best
information available to date but are always subject to change when
additional information is learned about the issue. As we were told many
times during training, "the retrospectascope is always in sharp focus."
Don't blame a scientist for promoting a theory or a policy based on the
best available knowledge that was available when that promotion was made
but has since been superseded by additional information that has been
learned.
Oh don't go gettin' all rational and science-y on us ..
... the MAGA folks don't like it one bit. :-)
John T.
On 2026-08-01, Deep State <deep.state@ms-cbs.dnc> wrote:
Of course, smart people don't take healthcare advise from pro-mandatory
vaccination Deep State bureaucrats.
Nor do they take it from people who had a brain worm and snorted
coke off toilet seats.
On 8/1/2026 9:27 AM, Deep State wrote:
On Nov. 19, 2025 the text about vaccines and autism was changed by CDC
officials to inform the reader that the possibility that vaccines could
contribute to the development of autism had not been ruled out. The
health agencyrCOs website language changed to:
-a -a rCLVaccines do not cause autismrCY is not an evidence-based claim. >> Scientific studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant
vaccines contribute to the development of autism. However, this
statement has historically been disseminated by the CDC and other
federal health agencies within HHS to prevent vaccine hesitancy."
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2026/07/cdc-again-changes-wording-about-vaccines-and-autism/
Whoo-boy! Major backpedaling at the speed of science!
Of course, smart people don't take healthcare advise from pro-mandatory
vaccination Deep State bureaucrats.
It is almost impossible to rule something out with certainty. Science
is a system based on probabilities and never yields static conclusions. Experimental evidence must be the work product of an experimental design
that stipulates a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis with a
protocol that minimizes bias, selects subjects compatible with the
stated hypothesis, and uses a large enough number of test cases to
enable statistical analysis to yield a threshold of probability to be
labeled as "significant" proof that either supports or rejects the
hypothesis being tested. That conclusion gains credibility when the
results are confirmed by repeated experiments using the identical experimental design. It is an error in understanding the scientific
method to claim that something has been or has not been unequivocally
ruled out. What may seem highly likely when first examined may turn out
not to be so as additional information is obtained. When a scientist
reports the results of well designed studies, what is not explicitly
stated but possibly should be is that the results represent that best information available to date but are always subject to change when additional information is learned about the issue. As we were told many times during training, "the retrospectascope is always in sharp focus."
Don't blame a scientist for promoting a theory or a policy based on the
best available knowledge that was available when that promotion was made
but has since been superseded by additional information that has been learned.
On 8/1/2026 12:25 PM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
It is almost impossible to rule something out with certainty. Science
is a system based on probabilities and never yields static conclusions. Experimental evidence must be the work product of an experimental design that stipulates a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis with a
protocol that minimizes bias, selects subjects compatible with the
stated hypothesis, and uses a large enough number of test cases to
enable statistical analysis to yield a threshold of probability to be labeled as "significant" proof that either supports or rejects the hypothesis being tested. That conclusion gains credibility when the
results are confirmed by repeated experiments using the identical experimental design. It is an error in understanding the scientific
method to claim that something has been or has not been unequivocally
ruled out. What may seem highly likely when first examined may turn out not to be so as additional information is obtained. When a scientist reports the results of well designed studies, what is not explicitly
stated but possibly should be is that the results represent that best information available to date but are always subject to change when additional information is learned about the issue. As we were told many times during training, "the retrospectascope is always in sharp focus." Don't blame a scientist for promoting a theory or a policy based on the best available knowledge that was available when that promotion was made but has since been superseded by additional information that has been learned.
I believe what suites me. Don't confuse me with facts and fancy words
of more than six letters.
As for my frame of reference, I'm a trained scientist with a doctorate
degree who did more than 5 years of additional post-graduate training at
an ivy league university. A substantial part of my career was spent
managing and coordinating a very large budget I controlled to fund and monitor scientific research. Sorry but I can't get more detailed.
On 8/1/2026 1:05 PM, hubops@ccanoemail.com wrote:
Whoo-boy! Major backpedaling at the speed of science!
It is almost impossible to rule something out with certainty. Science
is a system based on probabilities and never yields static conclusions.
Experimental evidence must be the work product of an experimental design >>> that stipulates a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis with a
protocol that minimizes bias, selects subjects compatible with the
stated hypothesis, and uses a large enough number of test cases to
enable statistical analysis to yield a threshold of probability to be
labeled as "significant" proof that either supports or rejects the
hypothesis being tested. That conclusion gains credibility when the
results are confirmed by repeated experiments using the identical
experimental design. It is an error in understanding the scientific
method to claim that something has been or has not been unequivocally
ruled out. What may seem highly likely when first examined may turn out >>> not to be so as additional information is obtained. When a scientist
reports the results of well designed studies, what is not explicitly
stated but possibly should be is that the results represent that best
information available to date but are always subject to change when
additional information is learned about the issue. As we were told many >>> times during training, "the retrospectascope is always in sharp focus."
Don't blame a scientist for promoting a theory or a policy based on the
best available knowledge that was available when that promotion was made >>> but has since been superseded by additional information that has been
learned.
Oh don't go gettin' all rational and science-y on us ..
... the MAGA folks don't like it one bit. :-)
John T.
They sure don't! They seem to believe that education and rational
analysis will enable the masses to see right through them. It's one of
the few things they believe that I suspect is logical.
As for my frame of reference, I'm a trained scientist with a doctorate
degree who did more than 5 years of additional post-graduate training at
an ivy league university. A substantial part of my career was spent
managing and coordinating a very large budget I controlled to fund and >monitor scientific research. Sorry but I can't get more detailed.
On 2026-08-01, Deep State<deep.state@ms-cbs.dnc> wrote:
Of course, smart people don't take healthcare advise from pro-mandatoryNor do they take it from people who had a brain worm and snorted
vaccination Deep State bureaucrats.
coke off toilet seats.
On 8/1/2026 9:27 AM, Deep State wrote:
On Nov. 19, 2025 the text about vaccines and autism was changed by CDCIt is almost impossible to rule something out with certainty. Science
officials to inform the reader that the possibility that vaccines could
contribute to the development of autism had not been ruled out. The
health agencyrCOs website language changed to:
-a -a rCLVaccines do not cause autismrCY is not an evidence-based claim. >> Scientific studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant
vaccines contribute to the development of autism. However, this
statement has historically been disseminated by the CDC and other
federal health agencies within HHS to prevent vaccine hesitancy."
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2026/07/cdc-again-changes-wording-about-vaccines-and-autism/
Whoo-boy! Major backpedaling at the speed of science!
Of course, smart people don't take healthcare advise from pro-mandatory
vaccination Deep State bureaucrats.
is a system based on probabilities and never yields static conclusions.
Oh don't go gettin' all rational and science-y on us ..Whoo-boy! Major backpedaling at the speed of science!It is almost impossible to rule something out with certainty. Science
is a system based on probabilities and never yields static conclusions.
Experimental evidence must be the work product of an experimental design
that stipulates a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis with a
protocol that minimizes bias, selects subjects compatible with the
stated hypothesis, and uses a large enough number of test cases to
enable statistical analysis to yield a threshold of probability to be
labeled as "significant" proof that either supports or rejects the
hypothesis being tested. That conclusion gains credibility when the
results are confirmed by repeated experiments using the identical
experimental design. It is an error in understanding the scientific
method to claim that something has been or has not been unequivocally
ruled out. What may seem highly likely when first examined may turn out
not to be so as additional information is obtained. When a scientist
reports the results of well designed studies, what is not explicitly
stated but possibly should be is that the results represent that best
information available to date but are always subject to change when
additional information is learned about the issue. As we were told many
times during training, "the retrospectascope is always in sharp focus."
Don't blame a scientist for promoting a theory or a policy based on the
best available knowledge that was available when that promotion was made
but has since been superseded by additional information that has been
learned.
... the MAGA folks don't like it one bit. :-)
John T.
You're creating transgender frogs, right?
On 2026-08-01, Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.invalid> wrote:
As for my frame of reference, I'm a trained scientist with a doctorate
degree who did more than 5 years of additional post-graduate training at
an ivy league university. A substantial part of my career was spent
managing and coordinating a very large budget I controlled to fund and
monitor scientific research. Sorry but I can't get more detailed.
Super, Doc! I have a measly BSChem with a C average. I'm still smart
enough to know that when politics enters science, everyone scrambles to promote the money and cover their ass. Money and power!
As a big cheese, you have to be familiar with the concept.
On 2026-08-01, Deep State <deep.state@ms-cbs.dnc> wrote:
Of course, smart people don't take healthcare advise from pro-mandatoryNor do they take it from people who had a brain worm and snorted
vaccination Deep State bureaucrats.
coke off toilet seats.
On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 14:22:16 -0400, Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.invalid> wrote:
On 8/1/2026 1:05 PM, hubops@ccanoemail.com wrote:
Whoo-boy! Major backpedaling at the speed of science!
It is almost impossible to rule something out with certainty. Science >>>> is a system based on probabilities and never yields static conclusions. >>>> Experimental evidence must be the work product of an experimental design >>>> that stipulates a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis with a
protocol that minimizes bias, selects subjects compatible with the
stated hypothesis, and uses a large enough number of test cases to
enable statistical analysis to yield a threshold of probability to be
labeled as "significant" proof that either supports or rejects the
hypothesis being tested. That conclusion gains credibility when the
results are confirmed by repeated experiments using the identical
experimental design. It is an error in understanding the scientific
method to claim that something has been or has not been unequivocally
ruled out. What may seem highly likely when first examined may turn out >>>> not to be so as additional information is obtained. When a scientist
reports the results of well designed studies, what is not explicitly
stated but possibly should be is that the results represent that best
information available to date but are always subject to change when
additional information is learned about the issue. As we were told many >>>> times during training, "the retrospectascope is always in sharp focus." >>>> Don't blame a scientist for promoting a theory or a policy based on the >>>> best available knowledge that was available when that promotion was made >>>> but has since been superseded by additional information that has been
learned.
Oh don't go gettin' all rational and science-y on us ..
... the MAGA folks don't like it one bit. :-)
John T.
They sure don't! They seem to believe that education and rational
analysis will enable the masses to see right through them. It's one of
the few things they believe that I suspect is logical.
As for my frame of reference, I'm a trained scientist with a doctorate
degree who did more than 5 years of additional post-graduate training at
an ivy league university. A substantial part of my career was spent
managing and coordinating a very large budget I controlled to fund and
monitor scientific research. Sorry but I can't get more detailed.
You're creating transgender frogs, right?
On 2026-08-02, Malte Runz <nobodys@busine.ss> wrote:
You're creating transgender frogs, right?
Heh. Good one.
On 8/1/2026 12:25 PM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 8/1/2026 9:27 AM, Deep State wrote:
On Nov. 19, 2025 the text about vaccines and autism was changed by CDC
officials to inform the reader that the possibility that vaccines could
contribute to the development of autism had not been ruled out. The
health agencyrCOs website language changed to:
-a -a rCLVaccines do not cause autismrCY is not an evidence-based claim. >>> Scientific studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant
vaccines contribute to the development of autism. However, this
statement has historically been disseminated by the CDC and other
federal health agencies within HHS to prevent vaccine hesitancy."
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2026/07/cdc-again-changes-wording-about-vaccines-and-autism/
Whoo-boy! Major backpedaling at the speed of science!
Of course, smart people don't take healthcare advise from pro-mandatory
vaccination Deep State bureaucrats.
It is almost impossible to rule something out with certainty. Science
is a system based on probabilities and never yields static conclusions.
Experimental evidence must be the work product of an experimental design
that stipulates a hypothesis and then tests that hypothesis with a
protocol that minimizes bias, selects subjects compatible with the
stated hypothesis, and uses a large enough number of test cases to
enable statistical analysis to yield a threshold of probability to be
labeled as "significant" proof that either supports or rejects the
hypothesis being tested. That conclusion gains credibility when the
results are confirmed by repeated experiments using the identical
experimental design. It is an error in understanding the scientific
method to claim that something has been or has not been unequivocally
ruled out. What may seem highly likely when first examined may turn out
not to be so as additional information is obtained. When a scientist
reports the results of well designed studies, what is not explicitly
stated but possibly should be is that the results represent that best
information available to date but are always subject to change when
additional information is learned about the issue. As we were told many
times during training, "the retrospectascope is always in sharp focus."
Don't blame a scientist for promoting a theory or a policy based on the
best available knowledge that was available when that promotion was made
but has since been superseded by additional information that has been
learned.
I believe what suites me. Don't confuse me with facts and fancy words
of more than six letters.
Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On 2026-08-01, Deep State <deep.state@ms-cbs.dnc> wrote:
Of course, smart people don't take healthcare advise from pro-mandatoryNor do they take it from people who had a brain worm and snorted
vaccination Deep State bureaucrats.
coke off toilet seats.
Do you have a sworn affidavit signed by 51 Biden intelligence agents?
You're creating transgender frogs, right?
I believe what suites me. Don't confuse me with facts and fancy
words of more than six letters.
On 8/1/26 13:05, hubops@ccanoemail.com wrote:
Oh don't go gettin' all rational and science-y on us ..Whoo-boy! Major backpedaling at the speed of science!It is almost impossible to rule something out with certainty.
Science is a system based on probabilities and never yields static
conclusions. Experimental evidence must be the work product of an
experimental design that stipulates a hypothesis and then tests
that hypothesis with a protocol that minimizes bias, selects
subjects compatible with the stated hypothesis, and uses a large
enough number of test cases to enable statistical analysis to
yield a threshold of probability to be labeled as "significant"
proof that either supports or rejects the hypothesis being tested.
That conclusion gains credibility when the results are confirmed
by repeated experiments using the identical experimental design.
It is an error in understanding the scientific method to claim
that something has been or has not been unequivocally ruled out.
What may seem highly likely when first examined may turn out not
to be so as additional information is obtained. When a scientist
reports the results of well designed studies, what is not
explicitly stated but possibly should be is that the results
represent that best information available to date but are always
subject to change when additional information is learned about the
issue. As we were told many times during training, "the
retrospectascope is always in sharp focus." Don't blame a
scientist for promoting a theory or a policy based on the best
available knowledge that was available when that promotion was
made but has since been superseded by additional information that
has been learned.
... the MAGA folks don't like it one bit. :-)
John T.
Remember the Democrat's name calling tactics? Gramma killer?
Anti-vaxxer?
I don't take healthcare advise from these evil idiots.
Follow the science, my ass!
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 07:00:42 -0400
Deep State<deep.state@ms-cbs.dnc> wrote:
On 8/1/26 12:25, Retirednoguilt wrote:Let's take a glance at Fraudci's about faces:
On 8/1/2026 9:27 AM, Deep State wrote:
On Nov. 19, 2025 the text about vaccines and autism was changed byIt is almost impossible to rule something out with certainty.
CDC officials to inform the reader that the possibility that
vaccines could contribute to the development of autism had not
been ruled out. The health agencyrCOs website language changed to:
-a -a rCLVaccines do not cause autismrCY is not an evidence-based
claim. Scientific studies have not ruled out the possibility that
infant vaccines contribute to the development of autism. However,
this statement has historically been disseminated by the CDC and
other federal health agencies within HHS to prevent vaccine
hesitancy."
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2026/07/cdc-again-changes-wording-about-vaccines-and-autism/
Whoo-boy! Major backpedaling at the speed of science!
Of course, smart people don't take healthcare advise from
pro-mandatory vaccination Deep State bureaucrats.
Science is a system based on probabilities and never yields static
conclusions.
I'll do me, you do you. No tyrannical BigPharma mandates.
Now get out of my face and go social distance yourself. ;-)
https://twitchy.com/samj/2026/08/02/patricia-heaton-nukifies-fauci-with-his-own-words-and-its-glorious-n2430865
Fauci: rCLstanding 6 feet apart is the most important thingrCY
Also Fauci: rCL6 feet apart is almost irrelevantrCY
Fauci: rCLI highly recommend standing 6 feet apartrCY
Also Fauci: rCLthat was the CDCrCys recommendation, not mine.rCLhttps://t.co/GusYSxcaoO
rCo Patricia Heaton (@PatriciaHeaton) August 1, 2026
On 8/1/2026 3:55 PM, Ed P wrote:
I believe what suites me. Don't confuse me with facts and fancy words
of more than six letters.
Maybe you should stick to 5 letter words. The word you were looking for instead of "suites" is "suits". The word "suite" means a group of
related things intended to be used together; a set. My goal wasn't to
confuse you, merely to try to correct your erroneous thinking. I
apologize for using a vocabulary that exceeds your comfort zone.
Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.invalid> wrote:
On 8/1/2026 3:55 PM, Ed P wrote:
I believe what suites me. Don't confuse me with facts and fancy words
of more than six letters.
Maybe you should stick to 5 letter words. The word you were looking for
instead of "suites" is "suits". The word "suite" means a group of
related things intended to be used together; a set. My goal wasn't to
confuse you, merely to try to correct your erroneous thinking. I
apologize for using a vocabulary that exceeds your comfort zone.
You missed the sarcasm.
On 8/2/2026 9:31 PM, Roger Rhino wrote:
Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.invalid> wrote:
On 8/1/2026 3:55 PM, Ed P wrote:
I believe what suites me. Don't confuse me with facts and fancy words >>> of more than six letters.
Maybe you should stick to 5 letter words. The word you were looking for >> instead of "suites" is "suits". The word "suite" means a group of
related things intended to be used together; a set. My goal wasn't to
confuse you, merely to try to correct your erroneous thinking. I
apologize for using a vocabulary that exceeds your comfort zone.
You missed the sarcasm.
Oh, it gets worse. I got a call from my 7th grade teacher. She know I
know better but was careless typing and now she is embarrassed. She
knows that everything posted on the internet is perfect, but I did not check. If my mother was still alive she would send her a note about it.
Ed P<esp@snet.n> wrote:
On 8/2/2026 9:31 PM, Roger Rhino wrote:
Retirednoguilt<HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.invalid> wrote:Oh, it gets worse. I got a call from my 7th grade teacher. She know I
On 8/1/2026 3:55 PM, Ed P wrote:You missed the sarcasm.
I believe what suites me. Don't confuse me with facts and fancy words >>>>> of more than six letters.Maybe you should stick to 5 letter words. The word you were looking for >>>> instead of "suites" is "suits". The word "suite" means a group of
related things intended to be used together; a set. My goal wasn't to
confuse you, merely to try to correct your erroneous thinking. I
apologize for using a vocabulary that exceeds your comfort zone.
know better but was careless typing and now she is embarrassed. She
knows that everything posted on the internet is perfect, but I did not
check. If my mother was still alive she would send her a note about it.
At least it wasn't your biology teacher telling you to shut
up about injecting household disinfectants to cure covid.
Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.invalid> wrote:
On 8/1/2026 3:55 PM, Ed P wrote:
I believe what suites me. Don't confuse me with facts and fancy words
of more than six letters.
Maybe you should stick to 5 letter words. The word you were looking for
instead of "suites" is "suits". The word "suite" means a group of
related things intended to be used together; a set. My goal wasn't to
confuse you, merely to try to correct your erroneous thinking. I
apologize for using a vocabulary that exceeds your comfort zone.
You missed the sarcasm.
On 8/2/2026 9:31 PM, Roger Rhino wrote:
Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.invalid> wrote:
On 8/1/2026 3:55 PM, Ed P wrote:
I believe what suites me. Don't confuse me with facts and fancy words >>>> of more than six letters.
Maybe you should stick to 5 letter words. The word you were looking for >>> instead of "suites" is "suits". The word "suite" means a group of
related things intended to be used together; a set. My goal wasn't to
confuse you, merely to try to correct your erroneous thinking. I
apologize for using a vocabulary that exceeds your comfort zone.
You missed the sarcasm.
Oh, it gets worse. I got a call from my 7th grade teacher. She know I
know better but was careless typing and now she is embarrassed. She
knows that everything posted on the internet is perfect, but I did not check. If my mother was still alive she would send her a note about it.
On 8/3/2026 12:19 AM, Ed P wrote:
On 8/2/2026 9:31 PM, Roger Rhino wrote:
Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.invalid> wrote:
On 8/1/2026 3:55 PM, Ed P wrote:
I believe what suites me. Don't confuse me with facts and fancy words >>>>> of more than six letters.
Maybe you should stick to 5 letter words. The word you were looking for >>>> instead of "suites" is "suits". The word "suite" means a group of
related things intended to be used together; a set. My goal wasn't to
confuse you, merely to try to correct your erroneous thinking. I
apologize for using a vocabulary that exceeds your comfort zone.
You missed the sarcasm.
Oh, it gets worse. I got a call from my 7th grade teacher. She know I
know better but was careless typing and now she is embarrassed. She
knows that everything posted on the internet is perfect, but I did not
check. If my mother was still alive she would send her a note about it.
OK. That's sarcasm. Congratulations! I knew you knew the difference between sarcasm and making a mistake but just don't have the integrity
to admit it.
On 8/3/2026 8:28 AM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 8/3/2026 12:19 AM, Ed P wrote:
On 8/2/2026 9:31 PM, Roger Rhino wrote:
Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.invalid> wrote:
On 8/1/2026 3:55 PM, Ed P wrote:
I believe what suites me. Don't confuse me with facts and fancy words >>>>>> of more than six letters.
Maybe you should stick to 5 letter words. The word you were looking for >>>>> instead of "suites" is "suits". The word "suite" means a group of
related things intended to be used together; a set. My goal wasn't to >>>>> confuse you, merely to try to correct your erroneous thinking. I
apologize for using a vocabulary that exceeds your comfort zone.
You missed the sarcasm.
Oh, it gets worse. I got a call from my 7th grade teacher. She know I
know better but was careless typing and now she is embarrassed. She
knows that everything posted on the internet is perfect, but I did not
check. If my mother was still alive she would send her a note about it.
OK. That's sarcasm. Congratulations! I knew you knew the difference
between sarcasm and making a mistake but just don't have the integrity
to admit it.
Wow,yes, it was a simple typing mistake. Like many here, I do
occasionally make them and don't always check before hitting send. You
can make a career of calling out typos on the internet.
At least it wasn't your biology teacher telling you to shutAI Overview
up about injecting household disinfectants to cure covid.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 51:15:30 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,016 |