PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[abaddon]

As a result of my communications with activists I followed up on some leads. I found this:

Note: I am certainly not one person making outrageous claims. There are concerned scientists. But feel free to cherry pick what suits your beliefs.

https://imhu.org/integrative/5g-impacts-covid-19/

Cities Most Vigorously Hit by Covid-19 Had 5G: Coincidence? Or, Important Correlation?

The Chinese first rolled out 5G in one Chinese city in the latter part of Fall, 2019. That city was Wuhan, China where there are 10,000 5G antennas radiating 60 gig (GHz) frequencies. In cooperation with Chinese giant Telecom company Huawei, Spain launched 5G in June, 2019, making it one of the first European countries with the ultrafast mobile network in Europe. Other places around the globe launching 5G included Northern Italy, Iran, and South Korea. 5G was also mobilized in New York City at the end of September, 2019 via Verizon and TMobile, reaching areas of uptown, midtown, and downtown Manhattan, along with select parts of Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens. Iran started trialing the technology back in September, 2017. The Diamond Princess cruise lines where some travelers were infected also employ highly advanced wireless systems for enhanced network connectivity. Similarly some navy ships have advanced wireless system capacity now—and also victims of Covid-19.

Now that these are all recognized hotspots for Covid-19 we might explore how 5G technology may actually harm the immune system, not causing the virus but making people more vulnerable to viruses and other physical and emotional disturbances. The correlation is there. The fact that Covid-19 also creates stress on the lungs that can be deadly has also been correlated with 5G. Specific biological impacts include: oxygen metabolism. 60 GHZ is absorbable by oxygen; thus humans cannot easily absorb the oxygen they need in an environment where 60 GHZ is present. 60GHZ changes oxygen molecules so they cannot be taken up as hemoglobin in the blood depriving all systems of the body of an essential nutrient for survival. According to Dr. Rashid A Buttar of AdvancedMedicine.com, 5G allows viruses, like Covid-19 access to cells through the cell membrane. It thus potentiates Covid-19 and other viruses. Thus, a relatively benign virus can become lethal when in the environment of 5G.

In sum, 5G can be correlated to “acute respiratory dysfunction” presenting first with a dry cough. Those severely afflicted need respirators to get them vital oxygen. Without more oxygen, they usually die.

For starters, IMHU promotes "spiritual astrology" "vedic astrology", "kundalini" "spiritualism as an alternative to psychiatry" and psychic mediums, and you think it is a suitable source? In a scientific discussion? For what? Industrial grade BS? It is snake oil. All of it. Don't tell me you got caught by the upsell.

5G does not correlate at all with COVID. Lie #1

SOKOR is not a COVID hotspot. Lie #2

5G does not make COVID stop intake of oxygen. Lie #3

And the piece de resistance is Buttar and his crank website, advanced medicine dot BS. That raises the bar to Lie #1000.

I did not have you pegged as an anti-vaxxer as such, but if you are willing to chuck your lot in with that kettle of crazy ideas, that is rightly your problem, not mine.

Personally, I have every vaccination there is to be had, so do my kids, so does everyone I know. Only wingnuts seem to take the anti-vaxx stance.

It is possible that you are not anti-vax, and merely cherry-picked an article you thought supported you without checking the bona fides. That can happen in this internet era. No blame attaches. Anyone can be fooled. That is how stage magic works. Also snake oil salesmen/women and grifters and scam artists use the very same technique.

So what of the provenance of Doctor Paddy O'Butter? I can do that apparently, because I am Irish.

He claims to be board certified. But by which boards? Lets check which "boards" certified him, shall we.

Claims to have a degree in osteopathy. Oddly, he does, but failed to complete his residency.

Claims to have served as a surgeon in the US army. Or was it a platoon medic?

Claims to be board certified by...
American Academy of Preventative Medicine
American Academy of Integrative Medicine
American College for Advancement in Medicine

All of which earned entries on Quackwatch that are not complementary.

Proponent of "chellation therapy" as a one size fits nobody therapy.

In 2007 he was hauled before the NC board of medical examiners for treating 4 patients with "unconventional" therapy. He got suspended indefinitely. 3 of those four died.

The list goes on right up to this very day, and you are citing this wingnut as some kind of authority? Really?

And why must I check these things on your behalf? Surely, you should check such things on your own behalf. Why have you not done so?

Why are you foisting such nonsense on all the other members?

 

[JayUtah]

As a result of my communications with activists I followed up on some leads.

You're practically marinating in this nonsense, and you seem to have the opinion that it stands up against actual science. It's neither telling you the truth nor teaching you how to be a good scientist.

 

[Pixel42]

It was ”feel free to cherry pick what suits your beliefs" which finally destroyed my irony meter. The lack of self awareness is breathtaking.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I guess that site does sort of explain how 'The Telco's' were able to suppress the information about 5G/wifi radiation's effect on cells from the 1940's onward to their emergence.
With the logic presented there evil time travel is clearly a possible explanation.

 

[Darat]

He's introducing complexities that render the odds of the test actually occurring at 0%.

As they have always done and I suspect always will do.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I've been flicking through the court documents PS linked to, in the hope of finding the actual judgement of the court.
No luck so far.
PartSkeptic- would you mind indicating where in those documents we can find this? I'd also be interested in the source of the statements you have attributed to the telcos about 'destroying their industry', the nature of the 'technicality' you claim cost you the appeal, and your evidence for your claim your opponents committed perjury in order to win.
Thanks.

Was “the next judge” hearing an appeal from the decision of the first one?

Good luck with getting an answer, Mojo. PartSkeptic has not been especially forthcoming with these details.

 

[EvilBiker]

Was “the next judge” hearing an appeal from the decision of the first one?

I've been searching through the high court cases using the case number, and nothing is coming up. As far as I can ascertain, from PS's documents, and from the lack of a final judgement, this case is still open.

Looking at the documents that were submitted to the court, it appears that PS went the route of flooding the court with "studies", for example the Ramazzini Institute report, others titled "Scientists warn of 5G harm", "Scientific peer review in crisis", etc. A lot of these have been discussed here.

I doubt very much that any fact-checking was done on the submissions.

Reading through the submissions and transcriptions was like reading through this thread, but with less skepticism

 

[Darat]

I've been searching through the high court cases using the case number, and nothing is coming up. As far as I can ascertain, from PS's documents, and from the lack of a final judgement, this case is still open.

Looking at the documents that were submitted to the court, it appears that PS went the route of flooding the court with "studies", for example the Ramazzini Institute report, others titled "Scientists warn of 5G harm", "Scientific peer review in crisis", etc. A lot of these have been discussed here.

I doubt very much that any fact-checking was done on the submissions.

Reading through the submissions and transcriptions was like reading through this thread, but with less skepticism

At least the court will be paid! We've no excuse...

 

[jadebox]

https://imhu.org/integrative/5g-impacts-covid-19/

Be careful. Google is an enabler for confirmation bias. No matter how outlandish one's beliefs are, one can always find a site on the internet to support them.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I've been searching through the high court cases using the case number, and nothing is coming up. As far as I can ascertain, from PS's documents, and from the lack of a final judgement, this case is still open.

Looking at the documents that were submitted to the court, it appears that PS went the route of flooding the court with "studies", for example the Ramazzini Institute report, others titled "Scientists warn of 5G harm", "Scientific peer review in crisis", etc. A lot of these have been discussed here.

I doubt very much that any fact-checking was done on the submissions.

Reading through the submissions and transcriptions was like reading through this thread, but with less skepticism

I did not flood the court with studies. Please do not post incorrect information. I deliberately kept the study section concise and to the point. I know how the balance must work.

You misrepresent the court case with false opinion. The judge stated he was impressed. (I met him before the hearing in his chambers). What is your motive for posting this fake post?

If you want to find an ongoing court case you have to visit the Court archives and request the file. If the case is not closed you will not get access. The matter is not closed. What was heard AND GRANTED was an urgent interdict to turn the tower off. They turned the tower on illegally for two days knowing it would probably make me sick and I might miss an important filing deadline. I was one day late.

The next hearing was to condone the lateness. THAT judge ignored perjury and although illness is an acceptable excuse, and although some cases condone 3 years of lateness with a variety of excuses THAT judge decided that one day late was unacceptable. The tower was allowed back on. Two knowledgeable lawyers told me that was the end of the matter. I did not think so and applied for written clarification from THAT judge and it was confirmed that the matter is not closed.

BTW.
The only matters you will find on the internet are matters that are stamped as "REPORTABLE". Embarrassing matters and matters with self-represented litigants are NEVER reportable.

Every case that is NOT heard by the ConCourt is not made public. That means one cannot judge why cases are rejected with the phrase "Dismissed as having no prospect of success". This is despite the fact that ALL cases have to be submitted with 26 copies, AND a digital version. It is no work to put that digital version on the internet. Check their web site. Every term they have hundreds of cases. And at the end of the term, they clear the case load with this common phrase. They hear about two a week and they are mostly political parties using public money.

The justice system here is captured and broken - and many do not realize how bad it is. The media do not report it. This is not a conspiracy theory. I have 12 years of fighting in almost every aspect of it, including police complaints and judicial complaints. I have appeared before the Deputy Chief Justice (Zondo) in one complaint. Another eye opener. I could write not one but about three books on how the law should work and how it is subverted and perverted.

Another reason for a global clean-up.

 

[EvilBiker]

I did not flood the court with studies. Please do not post incorrect information. I deliberately kept the study section concise and to the point. I know how the balance must work.

You misrepresent the court case with false opinion. The judge stated he was impressed. (I met him before the hearing in his chambers). What is your motive for posting this fake post?

Dude, I have the court documents you linked to, I can read for myself. So can others, if they like.

What's my motive? Getting to the truth through the web you are spinning.

If you want to find an ongoing court case you have to visit the Court archives and request the file. If the case is not closed you will not get access.

I know this - hence why I stated that I did not believe the case was closed. You said you won the case, so I assumed there was a final judgement. However...

The matter is not closed. What was heard AND GRANTED was an urgent interdict to turn the tower off.

...and there we have it.

They turned the tower on illegally for two days knowing it would probably make me sick and I might miss an important filing deadline. I was one day late.

Conspiratorial thoughts aside, seeing as you can detect EM radiation in 15 minutes, why did you not realise early on that they had supposedly done so and go somewhere else to prepare?

The next hearing was to condone the lateness. THAT judge ignored perjury and although illness is an acceptable excuse, and although some cases condone 3 years of lateness with a variety of excuses THAT judge decided that one day late was unacceptable. The tower was allowed back on. Two knowledgeable lawyers told me that was the end of the matter. I did not think so and applied for written clarification from THAT judge and it was confirmed that the matter is not closed.

So, again, you've not won anything. The status quo remains as it was before the first case.

The only matters you will find on the internet are matters that are stamped as "REPORTABLE". Embarrassing matters and matters with self-represented litigants are NEVER reportable.

My legal friends dispute this - I just had an email exchange with them. While it's true that some cases don't make it to the InterWebz, the "embarrassing" bit and self-represented litigants is not a factor except in some specific cases, for example when protecting parties like children, etc.

Every case that is NOT heard by the ConCourt is not made public. That means one cannot judge why cases are rejected with the phrase "Dismissed as having no prospect of success". This is despite the fact that ALL cases have to be submitted with 26 copies, AND a digital version. It is no work to put that digital version on the internet. Check their web site. Every term they have hundreds of cases. And at the end of the term, they clear the case load with this common phrase. They hear about two a week and they are mostly political parties using public money.

To follow on from my comment above - while some cases may not be published online, I can still get hold of any case (according to my legal contacts), whether it was rejected or not, as long as I have the case number. Last I heard, there was also a Freedom of Information Act in South Africa.

The justice system here is captured and broken - and many do not realize how bad it is. The media do not report it. This is not a conspiracy theory. I have 12 years of fighting in almost every aspect of it, including police complaints and judicial complaints. I have appeared before the Deputy Chief Justice (Zondo) in one complaint. Another eye opener. I could write not one but about three books on how the law should work and how it is subverted and perverted.

Another reason for a global clean-up.

You know, that's one point I can agree on: the justice system, along with most other state institutions in SA, is broken. However, this has got nothing to do with the Coronavirus, EM radiation, 5G, and your predictions and/or corresponding ailments, so I will refrain from commenting along that line further as it's just a derail.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I did not flood the court with studies. Please do not post incorrect information. I deliberately kept the study section concise and to the point. I know how the balance must work.

Dude, it's literally hundreds of pages.

You misrepresent the court case with false opinion. The judge stated he was impressed. (I met him before the hearing in his chambers). What is your motive for posting this fake post?

So you had a private meeting with the judge, before the hearing, in which he said he was favourably disposed towards your case.
And then you have the actual audacity to complain about the SA justice system being flawed? Really? If it is, it sounds like it's heavily biased in your favour.

If you want to find an ongoing court case you have to visit the Court archives and request the file. If the case is not closed you will not get access. The matter is not closed. What was heard AND GRANTED was an urgent interdict to turn the tower off.
They turned the tower on illegally for two days knowing it would probably make me sick and I might miss an important filing deadline. I was one day late.

You have repeatedly made this statement. It was flatly contradicted by the tower's operators. So far, we only have your word that this is true.

The next hearing was to condone the lateness. THAT judge ignored perjury and although illness is an acceptable excuse, and although some cases condone 3 years of lateness with a variety of excuses THAT judge decided that one day late was unacceptable.

Please indicate the evidence for this claimed perjury lies within the documents you have linked to.
Oh, and is this the same judge as before, the one who colluded with you in violation of all the principles of impartial justice, or a different one?

The tower was allowed back on. Two knowledgeable lawyers told me that was the end of the matter. I did not think so and applied for written clarification from THAT judge and it was confirmed that the matter is not closed.

That is not my understanding from what I've seen in those documents.
Can you indicate where these judgements can be found?

BTW.
The only matters you will find on the internet are matters that are stamped as "REPORTABLE". Embarrassing matters and matters with self-represented litigants are NEVER reportable.

And yet somehow yours is. How curious.

 

[JayUtah]

Please do not post incorrect information.

Are you saying the public record of your case is incorrect?

I met him before the hearing in his chambers.

You had an ex parte conference wherein the judge revealed his prejudice. This is turning into a bad TV legal drama.

...knowing it would probably make me sick and I might miss an important filing deadline. I was one day late.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

THAT judge ignored perjury...

Assumes facts not in evidence.

The last time you mentioned perjury you did not say what the evidence for perjury was. You concluded you would not prevail in an action for perjury because your legal system was corrupt. Since we have not been provided with the evidence, we have no basis to judge whether your conclusion is the one that best fits the evidence. And now you're providing testimony that the court is biased in your favor in this case, so your proffered explanation contradicts your own claims.

...and although illness is an acceptable excuse, and although some cases condone 3 years of lateness with a variety of excuses THAT judge decided that one day late was unacceptable.

One day after how many days of allowance? Orders to show cause generally require the cause to be supported by evidence. What evidence did you provide that you were sick and that your illness prevented you from complying with the court's deadlines? I don't know about South Africa, but in the U.S. the easiest way to irritate a judge is to ignore a deadline. Arguing after the fact of contempt rarely succeeds.

I did not think so and applied for written clarification from THAT judge and it was confirmed that the matter is not closed.

Which precise matter? There is the order to show cause in re contempt of court. You clearly lost that. Then there is the matter to which the filing deadline was subordinate. Is there a disposition in that matter? If so, where is the ruling?

...matters with self-represented litigants are NEVER reportable.

Why should cases with pro se litigants be inaccessible? Other posters are claiming that they can find your case. Your argument seems to be that the public docket of your case is inaccurate, and that a full picture of it supports your interpretation of the outcome. That's simply not a credible explanation.

Every case that is NOT heard by the ConCourt is not made public. That means one cannot judge why cases are rejected with the phrase "Dismissed as having no prospect of success".

No. An order dismissing a case still requires express grounds for why it cannot proceed. Often those grounds are pled by the defendant in a motion to the desired effect, alleging any of various acceptable criteria for dismissal. Otherwise it may arise as an inevitable consequence of some other ruling (such as one in limine), or the judge's notice of a claimant's failure to engage the case beyond the initial filing. The motion, if any, and the ruling are necessarily part of the case docket. This may all be perfunctory and largely uninteresting when clearing the docket, but it does not mean the cases are not on record in some way that a member of the legal profession can discover.

Even in the U.S. I cannot, as a private citizen, point and click my way to any case on any court's docket for free. This is mostly due to the sheer number of cases handled. "Reportable" means a specific thing, at least in U.S. law. "Reported," as in being published officially by a court, is generally limited to appealed cases granted certiorari, and thus raising a salient issue of law. But that is very different than the notion of a court's records being a matter of public record. Yes, in the case of redactions due to the minority of a party or particularly sensitive filings, the full record of a case may be available only with the judge's agreement. But the existence of the document is not hidden. If one knows the case capitation and the identity of the court, and is prepared to meet the court's reasonable expense and procedure for obtaining access, one may certainly examine the records. There are private aggregation services available to those who need frequent access to court records, for a subscription fee. The case is not reported, but it doesn't simply disappear from public memory.

The justice system here is captured and broken - and many do not realize how bad it is.

No judiciary is perfect, and many are misused. And I believe you if you say the South African judiciary is profoundly broken. The problem in this thread is your preferential acceptance of it. You think nothing of an ex parte conference, and you brag about favorable prejudice. But then you rail about injustice when you think the system has betrayed you. The system cannot be simultaneously sincere and equitable when it pleases you, and corrupt and prejudicial when it doesn't.

 

[Mojo]

Was the interdict that PartSkeptic won, but which was later overturned, an interlocutory injunction ordering the tower turned off pending the result of the whole case, so that while the matter relating to that interdict is closed, the case it related to is still open?

 

[EvilBiker]

Was the interdict that PartSkeptic won, but which was later overturned, an interlocutory injunction ordering the tower turned off pending the result of the whole case, so that while the matter relating to that interdict is closed, the case it related to is still open?

As far as I can ascertain at this stage, yes. I have not yet found out why the original injunction fell away, will keep searching.

 

[EvilBiker]

The justice system here is captured and broken - and many do not realize how bad it is. The media do not report it. This is not a conspiracy theory. I have 12 years of fighting in almost every aspect of it, including police complaints and judicial complaints. I have appeared before the Deputy Chief Justice (Zondo) in one complaint. Another eye opener. I could write not one but about three books on how the law should work and how it is subverted and perverted.

Another reason for a global clean-up.

A small derail, but I felt I should comment further on the justice system after my blanket comment, which was not entirely fair to the judicial system:

The judicial system at local level actually works fairly well, although in the main there is a lot of ineptitude, especially from the state side. As is common in most countries, I believe, state prosecutors are poorly paid, underequipped and underexperienced. As a result, court dockets are not properly prepared, and seemingly simple cases get bogged down in delays due to incomplete investigations, deviation from norms, and so forth.

Lawyers take advantage of this, and easily find loopholes to get cases thrown out (or won, depending on your side). Essentially the person with the most money to pay for legal fees wins. I've been there. I don't think this is necessarily that much different from most institutions worldwide.

The kicker in South Africa is that for criminal or political cases, there is a lot of corruption. The police are literally a joke, the men on the street and in stations are woefully undertrained, and forensics is essentially stalled. For example, to get a blood test result for a DUI case can take upwards of 8 months, and if you're lucky the blood test that comes back will be at least human, although not necessarily the right one.

This does not really feature in PS's case, as it is essentially a community case and the only law enforcement involvement would be taking statements and so forth, but I can see how it would be a challenge even so.

The courts themselves are still functional, and equipped with good magistrates, although overwhelmed, so cases tend to be somewhat delayed.

Thinking about this, it makes sense that missing a deadline could be a rather large negative on a case, considering the court's caseload.

Derail over.

 

[PartSkeptic]

To CY, EB and JU.

Your extreme ignorance about how the law is supposed to work, how it does work in practice, and how often it is corrupted and subverted, is quite obvious to me.

It shows how little you know because nearly every statement made by you guys is wrong, even with legal input.

That is in addition to blatantly false statements.
Let me take an easy one.

CY says : "Dude, it's literally hundreds of pages"

My application was 153 pages.
Pages 20 to 34 deal with my health and harm.
The science study annexures are pages 97 to 146.

How do you justify your comment?



Am I supposed to give you guys lessons in the law, and how it ACTUALLY works. This is not just South Africa, but the USA and New Zealand.

JU says: "You had an ex parte conference wherein the judge revealed his prejudice. This is turning into a bad TV legal drama."

Ex Parte. You are not using the legal term properly. Ex Parte means a hearing without giving the opposing party a chance to be heard. That never happened. Look at the list of Respondents.

When I was in the USA I learned (with God' help) that the way the system works is that the secretaries to the judge do the grunt work. They summarize for the judge. They contact the lawyers to help with the summary if the lawyers have not already done so, and get input of a thorny issue. I visited the judges office and spoke to the secretary to "resolve a minor issue". That gave me a chance to influence them.

The lawyers go through the "dance" and do all the paperwork, but when it comes to the trial they try to settle the case. This is now openly part of many systems. Prior to the court hearings Counsel are supposed to "introduce" themselves to the judge between 9am and 10am. I realized this was happening when some lawyers apologized for not doing so. So I got past security (heavy in SA) to the judge's office (their chambers) at 9am at took part in these "introductions". The hearings start at 10am.

I would listen to opposing Counsel telling the judge what they had decided the Court needed to do, and how they would restrict argument to certain topics. Often the judge would then say "Put that down in a draft order which I will sign to make it an order the Court."

In this case the judge saw I did not have a robe on. "Are you the engineer?" he asked me. "Where are your opponents". I said they were not there yet. He said that I could leave his chambers - he was going to order the tower shut down. The judge clearly met with the opposing parties in his office because they knew what was coming. He gave them ample opportunity at the hearing to try to change his mind and they could not.

Why are you guys all trying to discredit my ability and my knowledge and my experience?

I may write a small book teaching people (and many lawyers) the tricks of the trade. The first case I had when I was 24 years old was my divorce. God helped me by having a work colleague tell me how my opposing lawyer won his cases. He had dirt on most lawyers and judges. If he could not win the case, he had no problem throwing his own client "under the bus" - probably for a "fee".

I got a big corporate lawyer who mis-advised me so as to boost the fees for both lawyers. I had him on tape so he could not deny it. I got a ridiculously small bill because I was going to the Attorney General. I went to 6 lawyers who declined to take the case once they knew I knew the game. I asked the last lawyer to advise me "off the record". He told me how I could win but I had to do it myself to pull it off. The bad lawyer dropped the matter and gave it to a young inexperienced lawyer. I enjoyed not only beating him but aggravating him as I pretended to be "dumb".

Truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[Pixel42]

It's now seven weeks since PartSkeptic agreed to do a simple blind test of his claim to be able to tell whether or not the wifi is switched on from his physical symptoms.

[I know I said I'd stop this weekly count, having given up hope of him ever keeping his promise, but he has since declared his intention of doing the test after all - properly witnessed, no less - so I've changed my mind].

 

[PartSkeptic]

Was the interdict that PartSkeptic won, but which was later overturned, an interlocutory injunction ordering the tower turned off pending the result of the whole case, so that while the matter relating to that interdict is closed, the case it related to is still open?

Pretty much - yes. It was not overturned. It was vacated because I missed the filing deadline. The only way they could win. And they made me sick by turning on the tower illegally. I have enough evidence of what they did and why to win a court case if I so wished. I just may try. It is also criminal. I will be laying police charges.

The interdict was on health grounds. Not only was I told that I could never win such an application, but I then found that no Advocate would take the case because it would be "bad for business". So that should tell you how good my legal skills are. I had other lawyers who are involved in such cases look at my application and tell me how good it was. In another matter in 2008 I had a judge tell me that he wished lawyers could present their case as well as I had done.

It might require the Court's permission to continue because certain time limits may have expired and need condonation. I would also have to apply to have an order that the matter was in the public interest and all parties should bear their own costs. To avoid the SLAPP tactics.

Otherwise they will use the Stalingrad defense which ex-President Jacob Zuma has been using for decades using State money (and an illegal bank loan from VBS - Venda Building Society - which collapsed after massive fraud so Zuma does not have to repay them) to fund the huge legal bills.

 

[PartSkeptic]

It's now seven weeks since PartSkeptic agreed to do a simple blind test of his claim to be able to tell whether or not the wifi is switched on from his physical symptoms.

[I know I said I'd stop this weekly count, having given up hope of him ever keeping his promise, but he has since declared his intention of doing the test after all - properly witnessed, no less - so I've changed my mind].

You can count. It may be about 6 months because I have a long term strategy and I want the test done right. The posts here have convinced me I gain nothing by posting on this forum.

BTW. I am accused of psychosomatic pain and other harm. If that was the case then I would not have sat next to the modem for 15 minutes wondering why I felt no bad effect. But once the modem went to high power it was only 5 minutes.

Note:
You mistake a stated intention for a promise. How often people do this. I tell them what I plan to do and when circumstances change I get accused of breaking a promise. When my late wife and I agreed to a life plan THAT was a promise. When it meant I would have to end my life I had no intention of breaking my promise (my word of honor). I did not try to wriggle out of it. My late wife insisted I was released because she felt I had a mission to do after she was gone. This is part of the ongoing distortion of facts in order to continually discredit me. Why?