PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[PartSkeptic]

You are still assuming that your hypothesis as to the cause of your headaches is correct. That is what this test is actually going to establish. You might be barking up the wrong tree entirely, and extending the period during which you are suffering unnecessarily. That's why you need to be prioritising doing the test rather than looking for excuses to put it off which, frankly, is what you seem to be doing.

Stop taking pain killers pre-emptively (which as others have pointed out is a silly, even dangerous, thing to be doing) and stay home for a couple of days. Then do a couple of trials a day for three days. You should be doing nothing else (are these trips out really necessary?) until you have evidence either way for your hypothesis. Then, and only then, can you reasonably decide your next course of action.

Yes, the trips are absolutely necessary. There are a bunch of small jobs at the old house that even if we used contractors, I would still have to go there to open up and to instruct. I have to get my new bank card from the bank. I have to pick up a registered letter. I have to get my monthly prescription. And so on. My wife is trying to sell her business and her factory. I am the only one who can repair those old machines.

No, I do not yet have the luxury of staying home yet.

Today, I got rid of the bacterial infection I have had for the last three days and after being home for two full days I am in quite good shape. Do I want to make myself sick today to prove a (useless?) point?

 

[RedStapler]

They, in effect, get a double dose.

Did you warn them? What did they say?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Do you mean 'no causation'?
Quite ill with what? Growths on the forehead, or another symptom from your long list of claimed effects, or something else?
I thought it took months to become 'sensitised' to EMFs? How have your electrician and his helper been struck down so quickly?
Have you tried staying home and resting for 5 days yourself?

The two guys spent a lot of time in the roof. The direct radiation is the highest there. The foil on the ceiling reflects the radiation upwards. They, in effect, get a double dose. I expect the high dose over 12 days may have reduced their immune systems.

At least you have one fact right. Sensitization is a matter of dose and duration - as well as underlying predispositions such as chemical sensitivities. I wonder how long it would take if one spent a few hours each day close the antennae?

Mmm. Quite carefully skirting around an actual answer, then.
A few points:
You haven't said exactly what was wrong with the electricians, apart from a vague reference to 'reduced immune systems'.
Your house has been tested for radiation, and has been found to have tiny levels.
Did you warn the electricians that they were going to get a double dose of radiation, and did you offer any advice or protection?
To many, it will seem that your wildly-varying sensitisation figures are simply guesses, that you have retro-fitted to whatever situation you find yourself in in order to give your ideas a veneer of validity. Can I ask what actual foundation you have for these numbers?
Can I also ask what you mean by 'chemical sensitivities'? Are you saying that radiation from cell phone towers can start a dangerous chemical reaction in some people, and, if so, how do you know this?

 

[RedStapler]

Yes, the trips are absolutely necessary. There are a bunch of small jobs at the old house that even if we used contractors, I would still have to go there to open up and to instruct. I have to get my new bank card from the bank. I have to pick up a registered letter. I have to get my monthly prescription. And so on. My wife is trying to sell her business and her factory. I am the only one who can repair those old machines. No, I do not yet have the luxury of staying home yet.

Today, I got rid of the bacterial infection I have had for the last three days and after being home for two full days I am in quite good shape. Do I want to make myself sick today to prove a (useless?) point?

This is beyond ridiculous. Remember when I speculated that all your problems stem from MASSIVE narcissism?

 

[PartSkeptic]

No. You need a better argument than, "I'm so very smart and you all are so obviously irrational."

People are giving you well-considered reasons why they disagree with your claims, sometimes from a position of professional expertise. You brush them off without addressing them, claiming that they're "obviously" irrelevant or amateur. Then you try to steer the discussion back to your pre-arranged talking points: ham-fisted ploys to straw-man your critics. This scripted debate has obviously been cribbed from advocacy literature, not -- as you fervently purport -- derived from some exercise on your part to become legitimately proficient in the relevant fields. Then you get angry when your critics don't actually play the villains your sources tell you they are. The actual criticism of your claims that is being presented is not "beyond...reasonable thought," as a court is making you painfully aware.

Nobody is pleased to hear that you're in pain. But you need to read the room. This is not a palliative support group. If that's what you're looking for, find a sympathetic forum that doesn't care about you also pretending to be a scientist. If you want to talk about what makes good science, don't bias the discussion with your personal problems and pollute it with politics. The incessant, "poor, poor me!" got old a long time ago as crutch to lean on when your facts and reasoning fail you.

Specifically, your performance here vacillates between bemoaning your station and railing against "bad" science in a way that spackles gaps in one argument with elements from the other. This is unfair, and frankly childish. Since you've chosen to present your problem to skeptics, people are telling you what to do in order to conduct a valid scientific experiment to test the suspected cause of your pain. At every step you undermine that test. It seems that your presentation here is not an intellectual exercise to test a hypothesis. It seems instead to be a theatrical offering where you prefer to continue wallowing in pain for whatever sympathy you think you can get (including excoriation for not getting enough). Rather than take responsibility for your future, you've woven a narrative that blames everyone else for your present. And you're looking to cast that drama with unwilling actors. It adds insult to injury to pretend that you're the one being "scientific" about all this and that your critics are irrational and unreasonable. This is a very shabby way to treat the legitimate attempts to help you based on the tenets this forum is based on.

The last thing I need is sympathy. I can deal with my lot in life.

I say that emfs will be found to be toxic to life on the planet, and that they will be part of the die-off. That is a psychic prediction and you can scoff for two reasons. One is because you do not believe in the supernatural or God, and the other is that you do not believe emfs are harmful.

I say that God is using the fact that people reject emfs as causing harm until it is almost too late. The science confirms the harm - but you are choosing to believe the industry. I will get back to finding out which part of you beliefs that there is no harm is rational.

One at a time. True or false (or a qualified simple answer):

NIR that is within the ICNIRP safety guidelines cannot cause cancer.

 

[Pixel42]

Do I want to make myself sick today to prove a (useless?) point?

The correct question is: Do you want to risk making yourself sick today in order to confirm or eliminate one of the many possible causes of your symptoms? Given how incredibly valuable that information will be to you - it's not an exaggeration to say your life may potentially depend on it - I really don't understand how the answer could possibly be anything other than yes.

 

[PartSkeptic]

This is beyond ridiculous. Remember when I speculated that all your problems stem from MASSIVE narcissism?

Tough. I can back up my statements. Can you?

Point in question. 8 weeks ago, the Russian guillotine had a pneumatic valve fail. The specialists tried for two weeks to fix it. I had to tell them how and why it worked. They proposed a very expensive substitute. I do not call "rebuilding a machine" a "fix". When they gave up, I took it apart and rebuilt the valve section by section. I put two pins that were reversed into their correct positions. I found that the piston had a cracked plastic part and repaired it with epoxy. I had to fix 4 other issues on the machine.

You do not like me being factual in response to insults to my intelligence and when I give you examples to refute your false narratives. Now you insult my intelligence by accusing me of narcissism. What does that make you?

For many years I have accepted that I am different, but so are others and others have areas of specialty that clearly outshine me. I have accepted people for who they are, and have not pushed my abilities in their face. But when people want to take me on in technical areas that I can confidently say I am far superior to most, then you have to deal with the responses.

I have a long list of achievements, and have been hired as a consultant to fix problems with machines because the in-house engineers and managers do not have a wide enough expertise and experience to see that the problems are interactive across disciplines.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Fact?

Yes.

 

[Mojo]

Yes.

Evidence?

 

[RedStapler]

Tough. I can back up my statements. Can you?

Point in question. 8 weeks ago, the Russian guillotine had a pneumatic valve fail. The specialists tried for two weeks to fix it. I had to tell them how and why it worked. They proposed a very expensive substitute. I do not call "rebuilding a machine" a "fix". When they gave up, I took it apart and rebuilt the valve section by section. I put two pins that were reversed into their correct positions. I found that the piston had a cracked plastic part and repaired it with epoxy. I had to fix 4 other issues on the machine.

You do not like me being factual in response to insults to my intelligence and when I give you examples to refute your false narratives. Now you insult my intelligence by accusing me of narcissism. What does that make you?

For many years I have accepted that I am different, but so are others and others have areas of specialty that clearly outshine me. I have accepted people for who they are, and have not pushed my abilities in their face. But when people want to take me on in technical areas that I can confidently say I am far superior to most, then you have to deal with the responses.

I have a long list of achievements, and have been hired as a consultant to fix problems with machines because the in-house engineers and managers do not have a wide enough expertise and experience to see that the problems are interactive across disciplines.

Anecdotes, sprinkled with narcissism, won't cut it, I'm afraid.

 

[abaddon]

Tough. I can back up my statements.

False. You have never backed up any of your claims.

 

[gmanontario]

False. You have never backed up any of your claims.

Anecdotes, religion, superstition, braggadocio and scorn. What more do you want?



Not to mention a supersized ego. Checkmate skeptics.

 

[bruto]

Yes, the trips are absolutely necessary. There are a bunch of small jobs at the old house that even if we used contractors, I would still have to go there to open up and to instruct. I have to get my new bank card from the bank. I have to pick up a registered letter. I have to get my monthly prescription. And so on. My wife is trying to sell her business and her factory. I am the only one who can repair those old machines.

No, I do not yet have the luxury of staying home yet.

Today, I got rid of the bacterial infection I have had for the last three days and after being home for two full days I am in quite good shape. Do I want to make myself sick today to prove a (useless?) point?

The way you frame that question pretty much guarantees that the experiment wouldn't be made in good faith, since you've already stated that it will make you sick and that it will be useless.

This despite the fact that throughout this thread you've asserted that you're already sick much of the time, and that whatever you're doing had been pretty unsuccessful. But better that than to risk your ideas.

I suspect the only way a test of the sort proposed would work would be if it were done blind to you, and that probably wouldn't work unless you reported your results before knowing, and accepted the experiment itself.

It's too bad, because of course if there's any chance you're right and others here are wrong, you're missing an opportunity to make a huge contribution to science and public health. If you were to perform the experiment in good faith, and come up with repeatable, good faith results, you'd change the world! Meh, why bother, eh?

 

[JayUtah]

I can deal with my lot in life.

The facts don't bear this out. You're taking other people to court to try to make them responsible for your lot in life, on the flimsiest of evidence.

One is because you do not believe in the supernatural or God...

I rightly don't believe in things for which there is no evidence. You have claimed superhuman abilities, but you have routinely declined to prove by any objective test that you have them, either to yourself or to others. Again, this is not the forum for your narcissism. If you want credit for being a prophet of God, go tell it to the Marines.

A court won't believe in things for which you are unwilling to provide evidence. I hope you have a better argument to present in court than a claim that electromagnetic energy is God's punishment, and that you are God's prophet to say so.

...and the other is that you do not believe emfs are harmful.

I don't believe that exposure to radio frequency energy of the kind used in cellular telephone communications is equivalent to exposure to nuclear fission used to produce electricity. That was your claim. I dispute it.

The science confirms the harm - but you are choosing to believe the industry.

False. I do not dispute your claim because I have put faith in some industry. I gave you the reasons why I disputed your claim. You chose to ignore them and insult me instead. Foisting arguments on your critics or court adversaries isn't as sneaky or effective as you might think.

I will get back to finding out which part of you beliefs that there is no harm is rational.

I never stated any such belief, and I challenged you to link to the post where I did. What am I to conclude from your unwillingness to do so? Is it fair to say your incessant straw-manning is deliberate?

I warned you that we are not going to follow your predetermined roadmap, where I make the easy argument you've planned out for me. Trying to force other people to adopt and defend propositions that you cram in their mouths is not a winning strategy. That's of no consequence here. In court it will be a disaster. You will lose -- badly. If you follow the same strategy of ignoring the other party and acting instead according to your roadmap, the court may conclude that you are deliberately wasting their time and that of the other party. This could end far badly for you than you may have previously thought.

 

[Pixel42]

It's too bad, because of course if there's any chance you're right and others here are wrong, you're missing an opportunity to make a huge contribution to science and public health. If you were to perform the experiment in good faith, and come up with repeatable, good faith results, you'd change the world! Meh, why bother, eh?

I think if he ever did do the experiment he would try to do it honestly, but I have long suspected that if he got the "wrong" result he would just explain it away as God not wanting The Truth to be revealed just yet ("God is using the fact that people reject emfs as causing harm until it is almost too late", remember) and so intervening to muck up the experiment. It wouldn't be the first time he'd used that rationalisation.

 

[bruto]

I think if he ever did do the experiment he would try to do it honestly, but I have long suspected that if he got the "wrong" result he would just explain it away as God not wanting The Truth to be revealed just yet ("God is using the fact that people reject emfs as causing harm until it is almost too late", remember) and so intervening to muck up the experiment. It wouldn't be the first time he'd used that rationalisation.

yes, I suppose it depends a little on what you would say constitutes an honest experiment. I would suggest that if you intend at the start to discard results you don't like, it would be a dishonest experiment even if it's done well.

 

[JayUtah]

yes, I suppose it depends a little on what you would say constitutes an honest experiment. I would suggest that if you intend at the start to discard results you don't like, it would be a dishonest experiment even if it's done well.

Hence the farce of this thread. "The science is irrefutable; you all are irrational. I'm smarter and more rational than everyone." But waiting in the wings, "God doesn't want the truth known yet. I am his prophet." If you don't believe one brand of narcissism, there's always a different kind.

 

[PartSkeptic]

yes, I suppose it depends a little on what you would say constitutes an honest experiment. I would suggest that if you intend at the start to discard results you don't like, it would be a dishonest experiment even if it's done well.

I consider myself honest and not self-delusional. If the results show that I cannot tell when the modem is on or off then I need to know why. I will not manipulate raw data to discard bad results. And I will be open about it.

Today I am in reasonable shape. Only one pain tablet yesterday, and I think I will get away with only one this morning. I must do two trips for errands and commitment but will not go to the tower house. I will see how I feel tonight.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Hence the farce of this thread. "The science is irrefutable; you all are irrational. I'm smarter and more rational than everyone." But waiting in the wings, "God doesn't want the truth known yet. I am his prophet." If you don't believe one brand of narcissism, there's always a different kind.

The farce is your own narrative (which you seem to think is so superior to all) that you weave in an out in order to mock and ridicule.

The science (emf harm) is far from rock solid - but it is quite definitive in many areas. Certainly enough to cause concern for thinking rational people.

Most people are not bothered to educate themselves and this includes most posters here. Being smart and rational does not mean that people do not cling to their beliefs. They do not want electrosmog to be dangerous. And the industry is a skilled and intelligent manipulator of propaganda. Enough truth for most people, even the educated, and enough falsehoods to create doubt. They had me fooled until the tower arrived and I really began investigating. properly.

I never said I am God's prophet. This is your narrative. I said I believe I had a single message from God. The rest is my interpretation of how the message is going to play out. I may or may not have some guidance on my interpretations. I have stated this position a number of times. Maybe I should put it as my signature line.

I have also said that I am intelligence. It is a blunt fact that I am forced to state when posters tell me I am stupid in order to score points.

God had to chose someone - it is the way it works apparently. We all have had moments when we either win a lottery or have good fortune, or the reverse of having bad fortune. What I ask is "Why not me?" I did not want to be chosen, and still do not. I have tried to remain anonymous and live an ordinary life - but it seems that will not happen.

So far I have not seen much to commend you when it comes to respect for others and your own opinion of yourself. I see the state of the world and the I see the corruption all around - even in my own area. I see people in denial who are adamant they are right. I see opinions thrown around with nasty personal adjectives against people with a different opinion.

It was so nice for me to be ignorant about people and society until the age of 60. Even if there is no God, society cannot carry on the way it is. It will self-destruct. One can hope that it is not terminal.

https://www.helpguide.org/articles/mental-disorders/narcissistic-personality-disorder.htm
It’s more accurate to say that people with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) are in love with an idealized, grandiose image of themselves. And they’re in love with this inflated self-image precisely because it allows them to avoid deep feelings of insecurity. But propping up their delusions of grandeur takes a lot of work—and that’s where the dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors come in. Narcissistic personality disorder involves a pattern of self-centered, arrogant thinking and behavior, a lack of empathy and consideration for other people, and an excessive need for admiration. Others often describe people with NPD as cocky, manipulative, selfish, patronizing, and demanding. This way of thinking and behaving surfaces in every area of the narcissist’s life: from work and friendships to family and love relationships. People with narcissistic personality disorder are extremely resistant to changing their behavior, even when it’s causing them problems. Their tendency is to turn the blame on to others. What’s more, they are extremely sensitive and react badly to even the slightest criticisms, disagreements, or perceived slights, which they view as personal attacks. For the people in the narcissist’s life, it’s often easier just to go along with their demands to avoid the coldness and rages. However, by understanding more about narcissistic personality disorder, you can spot the narcissists in your life, protect yourself from their power plays, and establish healthier boundaries.

I could go through this narrative point by point (supported by the opinion of friends and family) and detail why it does not apply. Stop using it as a baiting/debating technique. It is plain nasty when so obviously wrong.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Anecdotes, religion, superstition, braggadocio and scorn. What more do you want?



Not to mention a supersized ego. Checkmate skeptics.

I am very self-confident - and for good reason. I have achieved much because I go after what works, and also work with people. I was shy and worried about doing the wrong thing when I was younger. I always adjusted the way I did things so as to get along better with people and to get things done. I am self-critical, and will change where change is needed. Not because I am told to.


I do not put up with being attacked. I respond, although I do my best not to be nasty. My comments may be uncomplimentary but to me they are the blunt truth.

Anecdotes. Why are these not seen as precursors to a deeper truth? Why such a negative attitude to them? I see that attitude as denial.