Oh no, that wasn't what I was thinking. If you are OK with it, the simplest would be to go to Baron (the site owner). I would be happy to share and allow him to verify my identification in person, if he is an acceptable suggestion to you. I don't know him in person, and I assume you don't either. But what I was thinking is we hire a law firm we both agree on to verify my identity, yet keep both your and my identity from the other (as today's danger of revealing one's personal details is too great). But a law firm could do it. We could also each put a modest sum in escrow with this firm - say...$10,000? And if I am not who I claim in the bet, you get my 10k. Otherwise, I get your 10k. Loser pays the law firm's fee. How's that sound?
I know way too many sleazy lawyers that for an extra bump would out you, especially after they find out you troll Parler and Telegraph. Get real fool!
you'd have to agree on the law firm as well. Its not my law firm. Come on, don't find excuses to run away. If you are going to throw down the gauntlet, I am open to any suggestion that doesn't provide you with a way to personally harm me. Surely there has to be SOME law firm we agree on in the world. PS. I have no Parler or Telegraph account. So you're wrong about that, too.
I’m not looking to harm you I just didn’t think there were still companies that had C-Level execs that could consistently f-off all day. You proved me wrong.
Ah, so we agree I am who I claim. That's awesome - we've reached an accord. Something so unusual on this site. Now all we disagree with is that I consistently f-off all day, as you put it. I do not. Again, I've explained this. This is just you back peddling now to get out of your original asinine statement. That's cool. I also submit that the only reason we are having this discussion about me and you trying to attack me personally is because you don't like the content of my posts. Not because you can refute anything in them. You're just interested in discrediting me, personally. That shows what type of person you are more than it does what I am about.
Find me a CEO in any legitimate business that would allow you to consistently post on a politics forum for 10+Yrs. You wouldn’t even hire you.
First, I've not been in this position for 10 years. Second, I personally know many other C level executives that post to political forums. Especially in these times. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean anything at all. Who made you the decision on what is or is not reasonable? If you understood what corporate executives did for a living, you'd understand the strategic importance of these positions, not the tactical nature of them. What is it you claim to do for a living?
Fauci hinted at this problem about a month ago. Reuters had to correct itself. PCR tests were not designed to test for live infection... just the presence of the genetic sequence. (test might not know if a person is infectious) https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...cant-be-used-in-virus-detection-idUSKBN24420X Fact check: Inventor of method used to test for COVID-19 didn’t say it can’t be used in virus detection Correction Nov. 13, 2020: The verdict of this fact check has been changed from false to misleading, to reflect that the quote examined may have been a fair reflection of Mullis’s views, even if not a direct quote. The body of the text is updated in places to further clarify this. Social media users have been sharing a quote attributed to the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, currently being used to detect COVID-19, which says “PCR tests cannot detect free infectious viruses at all”. This quote appears not to be a direct quote from the inventor, Kary Mullis, has lost some context and does not mean COVID-19 testing is fraudulent, as suggested by some social media posts. The context around the quote shows Lauritsen is not saying PCR tests do not work. Instead, he is clarifying that PCR identifies substances qualitatively not quantitatively, detecting the genetic sequences of viruses, but not the viruses themselves: “PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.” Even if Mullis had voiced a similar statement before his death in 2019, this quote does not mean the PCR test is unable to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 - the virus that causes COVID-19 - rather that it cannot determine whether the individual tested is infectious. The PCR test is the preferred COVID-19 testing method in England (tinyurl.com/u9xxxup). It detects the presence of the virus by amplifying the virus’genetic material to a point where it can be detected by scientists (tinyurl.com/y7rno7pf). The posts have been shared over 1,000 times on Facebook (here , here , here). The post begins with the words “COVID-19 TEST a FRAUD?”, then introduces the alleged quote from Mullis, who invented the PCR method in 1985 and was recognized for this achievement by being awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993 (here). The context around the quote shows Lauritsen is not saying PCR tests do not work. Instead, he is clarifying that PCR identifies substances qualitatively not quantitatively, detecting the genetic sequences of viruses, but not the viruses themselves: “PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.” Even if Mullis had voiced a similar statement before his death in 2019, this quote does not mean the PCR test is unable to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 - the virus that causes COVID-19 - rather that it cannot determine whether the individual tested is infectious. The PCR test is the preferred COVID-19 testing method in England (tinyurl.com/u9xxxup). It detects the presence of the virus by amplifying the virus’genetic material to a point where it can be detected by scientists (tinyurl.com/y7rno7pf).
I want to point out... what was stated in the end of that quote from Reuters.... https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...cant-be-used-in-virus-detection-idUSKBN24420X Even if Mullis had voiced a similar statement before his death in 2019, this quote does not mean the PCR test is unable to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 - the virus that causes COVID-19 - rather that it cannot determine whether the individual tested is infectious.