nixdev
The major point of contention is that Alex Jones' version of the story was never presented in court. The court records, from the primary sources, and not a smear website run by Alex Jones' opponents, are congruent with Alex Jones' statements about the court prohibiting Alex from defending himself.
> The Jones team explicitly did not respond to discovery.
The Jones team has stated otherwise.
At the very best, nothing meaningful has been proven against Jones and Jones lost the case on procedure, "technicality", and looks railroaded.
The thing about the IgG4 topic overall, is it's not just a small handful of papers that are discussing it, along with other immune issues that have resulted from the mRNA shots.
> It would be good to point out William Makis is a disgraced
Can you give us a solid citation on exactly how? I would like to see this.
> He worked at a cancer center as a radiologist but continues to misrepresent his expertise as an oncologist.
This means he had a front row seat to how cancer develops in patients, how cancer is successfully neutralized (or not) in patients, and also the internal politics and realpolitik imperatives of such a place. Given that cancer is a multi-hundred billion dollar industry, and a patient cured or prevented from having the disease in the first place is not profitable, unironically his work history could provide insight into how institutions that employ fleets of oncologists actually operate.
Even Snopes, fucking Snopes, confirmed the "fine people" thing is false.
Obama, Kamala, and Joe Biden all pushed "Trump said Nazis were fine people" with complete confidence, this is the literal definition of a hoax.
The original video credited with "drinking bleach", was Trump openly speculating on disinfection approaches. And, the approach he verbalized out loud, disinfecting lungs with UV light, was at the time a relatively new and completely valid medical treatment. Trump was ahead of the curve on that one.
Anyone who interprets his open questions about the UV light treatment as "drink bleach" is either a victim of a hoax (and an irresponsible moron) or has no qualms pushing hoaxes.
And, those text messages revealed nothing of substance, they had nothing to charge with him with. They didn't even attempt to charge him. They didn't even go after the supposed perjury charge because it was weak. If it wasn't weak, they would certainly go after him for it.
Nobody has a perfect memory of all text messages they have sent over the last couple of years. If you think you have a perfect memory of all text messages you have sent over the last couple of years, you don't understand your own memory. Let alone a guy who runs a business with 20+ employees reading a deluge of news articles and whitepapers from when he gets up to when he goes to sleep.
Right, 100%. The point of contention is that documents that don't exist were demanded and those documents that don't exist are what the court claimed a default judgement over. This is per the court's own records.
> the parents could not see that evidence.
What evidence do we believe we are talking about here? If this evidence was never entered into the trial, why should us spectators believe it existed?
> the "consistent pattern of discovery abuse" (quoting the decision)
This here is what gives Alex ground to say "the court was on trial", in the greater context that an undercover journalist caught someone who works for the CIA on video admitting that the suits against Jones are lawfare. If you have not seen this video, you may not know how much information you are missing on this topic. If you dismiss the video because a particular group filmed the video, then we're not playing a game of mutually pursuing the truth here.
Throughout the entire process, Alex alleged a consistent pattern of discovery abuse on the part of the court. Deprivation of rights under color of law is a very serious crime that carries a 10+ year prison sentence. And yes, judges do sometimes have federal lawsuits filed against them for it.
> caused harm to many families
The other major point of contention, is this was never demonstrated in court, let alone meaningfully argued in court.
> He did this while knowing he was lying.
This also was never demonstrated. The court records don't show anything like this ; perhaps they show something like this on a procedural matter around discovery, but not anywhere on the topic of the supposed substance of the case.
> and is now getting punished for it
The other so-called echo chambers, the ones that don't have a shadowbanning and censorship problem, the one one the side that won the majority vote in the recent election, don't see it this way at all.
Not an argument.
If you had the intellectual acumen for argument you would present one, but you don't, so we know where you and I stand relatively intellectually.
inb4: "I don't have an argument because I already think I'm right"
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Foriginal%2F001%2F175%2F924%2F751.jpgYet, editors of prominent dictionaries DID change the definition. The existing unadulterated definition doesn't leave room for mRNA gene therapy. The mRNA gene therapy is literally not a vaccine without the adulterated new definition. By that existing definition, a new vaccine was not created.
> They work on a specific strain of the virus, they're not effective against other strains.
This is a fair argument and I was one of those presenting this argument at the time. So why did the corporate Pfizer-sponsored -- brought to you by Pfizer -- media tell the public told something else?
The mRNA gene therapy were marketed by the brought to you by Pfizer media as 100% safe and effective, and there doesn't seem to be any dispute here that they were in fact not. Why they were not so is neither here nor there.
> IgG4 Antibodies Induced by Repeated Vaccination May Generate Immune Tolerance to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein
> Pfizer/BioNTech says its Covid-19 vaccine is 100% effective and well tolerated in adolescents
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/health/pfizer-vaccine-adolesc...
I did not, and would not, dismiss the use of mRNA gene therapies (that's what it is), categorically.
> this just sounds like my mum saying "I know this one doctor
By "legitimate" / "authoritative" voices, I am referring to "mainstream" media. I put "mainstream" in quotes because long-form podcasts and even Alex Jones himself have a larger audience than CNN/MSNBS etc.
> I'll freely admit that I might have completely missed such an admission from a major authority - care to enlighten me please?
I respect this sincere pursuit of truth, very much so. I will leave this thread open in a tab and bring resources I am aware of to you in the near future.
Even from all the way over here, I infer that I think we're from so different worlds that what "real cloud" means to my side of the world isn't a part of your world.
What I can tell you, is AWS is the king of cloud, Google Cloud is a very very distant 2nd place, and Azure is an event more distant 3rd place.
> and aren't oracle, I would not consider them worthy of trust either
Smart man.
They are re-labled existing products that are sold in other places, and unironically already-recognized, before being re-labled by InfoWars, as very high quality.
If you're gonna criticize InfoWars you have my 100% support in your right to do so, but try not to post out of your ass. This is HackerNews, not Reddit.
What "law" exactly do you think needs to be "executed"? Defamation laws? Were these defamation laws ever argued in court? Did you actually follow the trial?
The court claimed that Alex Jones didn't provide documents, documents that never existed, and defaulted him. The defamation laws were never argued in the court case. This action by the court is deprivation of rights, due process rights, under color of law. The judge is a criminal.
If the courts don't function properly, this creates an extremely dangerous climate.
But no one is actually stupid enough to believe they are his peers, not even you.
By doing what, exactly? Are you telling us Alex and his legal team did not show up to the court? Alex Jones did show up to court, did he not?
The court demanded documents that did not exist, did they not?
Your response is in itself looking extremely ridiculous.
I don't think your problem with Trump is that he is accused of raping women. I think your problem with Trump isn't even with Trump's own success with women, but that there are men out there who see more poon in a fiscal quarter than you do in a decade.
Except for the hard material fact that he did not rape her.
TL;DR: where a cloud provider hosts customers for which there are real-world consequences for data leakage, not a single customer can be at-risk for data leakage. It's a different line of thinking, almost "a different world", to those who have this line of thinking vs those who do.
"The thing about reputations is you only have one".
By contrast even more than ten years before that, AWS was publishing whitepapers about how all contents of RAM to be used by a VM are initialized before a VM is provisioned, and other efforts to proactively scrub customer data.
I worked at a niche cloud provider a bit over ten years ago. We used Intel QAT for client-side encryption for our network attached pools of SSD. We were able to offer all-SSD at low cost and without security blindspots by crypto key rotation implemented by compartmentalized teams and also physical infrastructure compartmentalization patterns. Which, about half a decade later we found we were second only to AWS and almost second (but ahead of in other ways) to some smaller cloud-style hosting provider.
Heh.. well.. California *was* majority white not even a decade and a half ago. And, the judge that put the final nail in on that issue for California wasn't exactly a white person.
So..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_18...
You may think you mean, or maybe you did not, the accurate description: adjudicated rapist. And that difference right there, between adjudicated and convicted, and all of the other ambient hoaxes, is in big part what the referendum yesterday was about.
Ask yourself how long it was between late 2017 and when you found out the "fine people" hoax was actually a hoax. Or if just now, whether you knew that even Snopes confirmed the hoax that Kamala wantonly repeated (as if it were true) in the debate is indeed a hoax.
Most normal people don't see the difference between adjudicated rapist and convicted rapist as an innocent mistake but as something that those who push such hoaxes -- rather than innocently parrot them out of ignorance -- should be put behind bars for in response to the damage they do this great union of states.
Even when provided a means to instantiate virtual machines where they can have root access within the virtual machine, a lot of them will bitch.
https://external-preview.redd.it/bgOMQfMeKo_CF5XXqX485aPKRvwVc_P5ue0EW5S_9dk.jpg?auto=webp&s=49296031d016df4f5380c78d7b41981b03ba035dIf you're a normal person and some random intern with a 10% non-American accent probably in their early 20s calls you from some random number greeting you by your full name and says they're a part of some polling company you wouldn't recognize even if you'd heard of it before, are you going to confess in the slightest to them you intend to vote for orange cheeto man who is like literally worse than mustache man from WW2?
Probably not.
http://stonetoss.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/male-feminist-comic.png