If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
"Sid doesn't comment on Natural Law because he appears to be correctly rationalizing that your [Dilip's] Natural Law cultist shit is never ever going to see the light of day."
My View:
Having a robust justice system as we do now (Police, Departments of Justice, Courts) does not compensate for "vague" laws. In fact, courts have struck down the legislature's laws on the ground of "vagueness". Sid/Dilip's vaunted "Natural Law" is simply a platitude saying the Golden Rule: "Be Good; Be good to Others." Moral platitudes are notoriously unworkable as laws.
Courts require that Legislatures pass clear and precise laws which they are able to "Interpret" and "Apply".......this is certainly not Sid/Dilip's Natural Law.
You will notice that Argentina (Libertarian Government of Javier Milei) is in no rush to rescind all its laws and pass as the only law, The Natural Law (As framed by Libertarianism). And you will never see this.
Why? .... because it may be Libertarian "theory", but it is never going to be in their "political practice". Don't hold your breath, Sid/Dilip.
Sid has not expressed anything on Natural Law, and in fact with his comments on Singapore and Hong Kong seems to support a strong legal system of judges and lawyers as we currently have in Canada / USA -- the very judges and lawyers you want to eradicate completely.
It seems that you and Sid have quite different views of Libertarianism. You seem to fall into this category:
I consider Sid's views to be far "safer" than your views. You want a police state, Sid doesn't. You are a cultist who wants the state to decide all legal matters on Natural Law, much like a theocracy would decide all legal issues based on theology, except in your case religion is not involved -- the state is a few select elitists, what you keep calling the "hard-working smart-thinking" elite who are so far above everyone else that only they should decide all legal matters. Because everyone else are just lazy good-for-nothings seeking only a party lifestyle.
I have come to realize that Sid patronizes your views here because they help to support his own "free-market" views (an invented term, there is no such thing as a free market) ... and Sid doesn't comment on Natural Law because he appears to be correctly rationalizing that your Natural Law cultist shit is never ever going to see the light of day.
I am not against Sid's view of Libertarianism, because if people want to elect a party that preaches "free-market" capitalism, they will learn their lesson when the "free market" busts and everything comes crashing down. As Sid has pointed out, this has happened many times in history and will continue. People can be duped again and again, we have to learn over and over again.
But on the other hand, YOUR Libertarianism is totally abusing the very concept of freedom, acting like a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is far more nefarious and evil.
Personally, I think Sid should rethink his patronizing of your views ... but that is up to Sid and his conscience to decide.
Minimal Government: The Declaration of Independence, authored primarily by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, reflects a strong belief in limited government. The document outlines grievances against King George III and the British government, accusing them of imposing taxes without consent, depriving them of trial by jury, and dissolving representative bodies. These grievances highlight the colonists' desire for a government that would be less intrusive and more accountable to the people.
Natural Law: The Declaration also strongly emphasizes the concept of natural law, which is central to libertarian philosophy. It famously states that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, including "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." This reflects the belief that these rights are not granted by government but are inherent to human nature and must be protected by government.
Both you and Sid are right on what is happening, but between the two of you, only Sid is right in how to solve this: which is, by limiting the power of the government to only enforcing the Natural Law... even stuff like research and co-operative 'public' ventures can very efficiently happen without giving the government the power to pass corrupt, stupid laws when bribed by those with capital...
Sid has not expressed anything on Natural Law, and in fact with his comments on Singapore and Hong Kong seems to support a strong legal system of judges and lawyers as we currently have in Canada / USA -- the very judges and lawyers you want to eradicate completely.
It seems that you and Sid have quite different views of Libertarianism. You seem to fall into this category:
I consider Sid's views to be far "safer" than your views. You want a police state, Sid doesn't. You are a cultist who wants the state to decide all legal matters on Natural Law, much like a theocracy would decide all legal issues based on theology, except in your case religion is not involved -- the state is a few select elitists, what you keep calling the "hard-working smart-thinking" elite who are so far above everyone else that only they should decide all legal matters. Because everyone else are just lazy good-for-nothings seeking only a party lifestyle.
I have come to realize that Sid patronizes your views here because they help to support his own "free-market" views (an invented term, there is no such thing as a free market) ... and Sid doesn't comment on Natural Law because he appears to be correctly rationalizing that your Natural Law cultist shit is never ever going to see the light of day.
I am not against Sid's view of Libertarianism, because if people want to elect a party that preaches "free-market" capitalism, they will learn their lesson when the "free market" busts and everything comes crashing down. As Sid has pointed out, this has happened many times in history and will continue. People can be duped again and again, we have to learn over and over again.
But on the other hand, YOUR Libertarianism is totally abusing the very concept of freedom, acting like a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is far more nefarious and evil.
Personally, I think Sid should rethink his patronizing of your views ... but that is up to Sid and his conscience to decide.
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Friday, 15th March, 2024, 02:27 AM.
First (And only at the moment) formal party of Democratic Marxism (Ontario – Canadian Province) in the world – not yet formally registered for the 2026 Ontario provincial election (Thurs., June 4).
operates through the Fb Page: Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario
b. Group: Democratic Marxist Global Forum: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2045...ref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARB5MaP7fzlN9ItgmSkMWzv60Rd9mIxsQIkIgIa6_Guh2MGR6mV82GdH-IxgmiiVaJcZ-NLi7Cz46VX0nn78clmPjd-pttzlYPR9dmEubTBnBdnGohd0bl3Fy4k02cb3BVHNVOcfjANvEEUCRw6k1IZDDsZV6l9V1Id5_NomySGWmEpA3Inygttyrt3-jYH1m1M50W3d94tVElUVaZ-SrM-WZ4BkYEj0ZYF5Y5X2d7KRG_MQJtND8fXyDSkU0F1I4FVHkI_eoiyOazUgCRS0lmfetiENOGsaJPb6MfuHzQ92-u7gMI_E8888fus
I think we do agree on one rather large thing.......though only the core of it.
There is, behind national governments, a Clique of strong influence, who are able to get passed laws favourable to them, and laws they favour. This Clique is international. They influence legislators in many ways......support for political campaigns, bribes, private enterprise jobs upon retirement, threats of exposure re vulnerable politicians, etc.
The make-up of this Clique? There are varied opinions.
I don't know if Sid agrees that one faction is the majority of Capitalist World Oligarchs. He does believe that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is a front for this Clique, a public influencer re promoting policies of the Clique. It is riddled with capitalist entrepreneurs. If we do agree on this, we do disagree that the WEF agenda is "part of a wider malicious plan of depopulation" (If I understand Sid correctly). I view the WEF, as Sid is well aware, as beneficially intentioned, but totally misguided (Beware the zealous well-intentioned).
The Clique is not well-intentioned.....its agenda is control of humanity, a totalitarian World Government.
I understand Sid holds the same position re the World Health Organization (WHO).
I am unsure if the United Nations is also being manipulated by the Clique, but I would certainly suspect so.
So Sid.........correct me if I have said something we have in common, with which you disagree.
Bob A (The world creates some unlikely allies)
Both you and Sid are right on what is happening, but between the two of you, only Sid is right in how to solve this: which is, by limiting the power of the government to only enforcing the Natural Law... even stuff like research and co-operative 'public' ventures can very efficiently happen without giving the government the power to pass corrupt, stupid laws when bribed by those with capital...
I think we do agree on one rather large thing.......though only the core of it.
There is, behind national governments, a Clique of strong influence, who are able to get passed laws favourable to them, and laws they favour. This Clique is international. They influence legislators in many ways......support for political campaigns, bribes, private enterprise jobs upon retirement, threats of exposure re vulnerable politicians, etc.
The make-up of this Clique? There are varied opinions.
I don't know if Sid agrees that one faction is the majority of Capitalist World Oligarchs. He does believe that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is a front for this Clique, a public influencer re promoting policies of the Clique. It is riddled with capitalist entrepreneurs. If we do agree on this, we do disagree that the WEF agenda is "part of a wider malicious plan of depopulation" (If I understand Sid correctly). I view the WEF, as Sid is well aware, as beneficially intentioned, but totally misguided (Beware the zealous well-intentioned).
The Clique is not well-intentioned.....its agenda is control of humanity, a totalitarian World Government.
I understand Sid holds the same position re the World Health Organization (WHO).
I am unsure if the United Nations is also being manipulated by the Clique, but I would certainly suspect so.
So Sid.........correct me if I have said something we have in common, with which you disagree.
Or by a small group of "dissident" ultra-rightwing cultists?
Hardly; most dissident doctors and scientists I have worked with are both Democrats and Republicans. Naomi Wolf, a former
advisor to the Clinton Campaign does not exactly fit into your false stereotype of "ultra-right wingers" who happen to support the anti-genocidal globalist movement.
Even though Bob and I disagree on everything, I am delighted he is still around and hope he has a long life. Unlike some people, one thing he is not is a troll.
Because I am in the highest risk group for mortality, it seems a no-brainer to me that I likely would have died (I got COVID-19 after vaccinations, and was still sick as a dog.........but could it have been worse?) had I not been vaccinated. I recovered with no long-term effects, a big problem, and for which I am quite grateful.
Having said that, I am unsure as to whether the medication does have some longer term deleterious effect.......certainly non-mainstream science has lots of studies, reports and tests, that maintain there are a number of problems with the Pfizer and Moderna injections.
At my age and condition, I will choose to live....and....hope that the minority is quite wrong. But even if they are right, I'd rather still be alive! A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.
Hey, Pargat What-An-Asshole, Please wear three masks around your mouth and nose 24/7 and follow in Bob's footsteps and inject yourself nine(!!!) times.
I'll wear the masks if you make at least a $10,000 cash donation to Liz Cheney's PAC! LOL She wants to stop Trump, and is threatening to run as a 3rd party candidate. And what's $10,000 to you? I bet you blow that much each week on anger management therapy. Oh, maybe your wife pays for that .... can't even imagine what she has to put up with.....
Bob A. wearing masks and getting Covid injected 9 times .... shouldn't he be dead from either CO2 poisoning or blood clots by now? According to your posts here?
Instead he's very much alive despite admitting to being member of by far the most covid-threatened democratic, senior diabetics, which must make you very .... angry?
Hey Bob A., are you really being lied to by a massive medical political complex???? Or by a small group of "dissident" ultra-rightwing cultists?
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Thursday, 14th March, 2024, 02:07 AM.
Older adults are at highest risk of getting very sick from COVID-19. More than 81% of COVID-19 deaths occur in people over age 65. The number of deaths among people over age 65 is 97 times higher than the number of deaths among people ages 18-29 years.
Diabetics
Is COVID worse for diabetics?
A: People with diabetes are more likely to have serious complications from COVID-19. In general, people with diabetes are more likely to have more severe symptoms and complications when infected with any virus. Your risk of getting very sick from COVID-19 is likely to be lower if your diabetes is well-managed.
Senior Diabetics should not do NOTHING to mitigate the possible contraction of COVID19. Vaccination seems one reasonable step.
Bob A (Senior Diabetic)
Hey Bob,
Assuming you weren't lied to by a corrupted and genocidal medical political complex, you would. be correct. Sadly, that is not the case.
I have been involved with a forum of dissident Doctors, including the Doctor in this video. If you
ever need help from Doctors who still follow the Hippocratic oath, let me know; you can always DM me, and that goes for any other Cter here.
Older adults are at highest risk of getting very sick from COVID-19. More than 81% of COVID-19 deaths occur in people over age 65. The number of deaths among people over age 65 is 97 times higher than the number of deaths among people ages 18-29 years.
Diabetics
Is COVID worse for diabetics?
A: People with diabetes are more likely to have serious complications from COVID-19. In general, people with diabetes are more likely to have more severe symptoms and complications when infected with any virus. Your risk of getting very sick from COVID-19 is likely to be lower if your diabetes is well-managed.
So... Bob A.'s linked article says:
""Both surgical masks and unvented KN95 respirators, even without fit-testing, reduce the outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74% on average during speaking and coughing, respectively, compared to wearing no mask, corroborating their effectiveness at reducing outward emission."
That's pretty specific and convincing. But then Sid's linked article says...
"These diseases included influenza and COVID-19 during the pandemic, and these researchers failed to find even a “modest effect” on infection or illness rates from any type of mask."
In conclusion, reducing outward particle rates during speaking and coughing by a minimum of 74% does not have even a modest effect on infection or illness rates.
And the conclusion from THAT is: during a pandemic, we need even BETTER masks OR even STRONGER lockdowns and social distancing mandates.
Meanwhile, I will take the scientific study from Bob A.'s article much more meaningful than the one done on infection and illness rates, simply because the latter is much more broad and general and is much more subject to either bias or data corruption. A study on masks is very specific and reproducible.
Oh, and Sid .... I love that you admit that "the effects that masking is having on health, childhood development, speech development, etc. are unknown". Thank you for specifically spelling that out.
UNKNOWN! That means you shouldn't even be bringing it up. It is UNKNOWN! It could be ZERO!
Some scientist YOU are! LOL
And than you add that more government funding is needed to find out how much masking is affecting health....
MORE GOVERNMENT FUNDING!
WE'RE NOT GONNA GET THAT FROM A LAISSEZ-FAIRE GOVERNMENT ARE WE SID?
I guess that means we'll have to rely on SMART HARD-WORKING ENTREPRENEURS to do these studies! LOL LOL
That's a two-in-one Whack-a-mole! -- got both Sid and Dilip! LOL
Hey, Pargat What-An-Asshole, Please wear three masks around your mouth and nose 24/7 and follow in Bob's footsteps and inject yourself nine(!!!) times.
Bob, have you ever read any posts here???? Seriously, you blab on with your moronic statements with no clue what you are talking about. Here is post 3292 https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...938#post224938
The Cochrane database is as mainstream as it gets and does Meta-analysis on many peer-reviewed studies, not just one.
The 2023 Cochrane Review on Physical Interventions Against Respiratory Viruses
But does science matter anymore?
What is the Cochrane Library?
“The Cochrane Library contains high-quality, independent evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. It includes reliable evidence from Cochrane and other systematic reviews, clinical trials, and more. Cochrane reviews bring you the combined results of the world’s best medical research studies, and are recognized as the gold standard in evidence-based health care.”
This is not some short-term project, but a long-term, serious meta-analysis review. As stated above, the Cochran reviews are considered the gold standard for health care agencies and professionals.
Doctors training at Harvard in Global Clinical Research, the Cochran methodology for medical research meta-analysis is taught as the preferred method.
"The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection."
This large group of international researchers reviewed dozens of rigorously correct, randomized clinical trials of "physical interventions" against respiratory diseases. These diseases included influenza and COVID-19 during the pandemic, and these researchers failed to find even a “modest effect” on infection or illness rates from any type of mask.
Furthermore, the effects that masking is having on health, childhood development, speech development, etc. are unknown and are under-investigated. Ergo - governments aren’t funding this research. Without government funding, the answer to the damage done will never be answered."
So... Bob A.'s linked article says:
""Both surgical masks and unvented KN95 respirators, even without fit-testing, reduce the outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74% on average during speaking and coughing, respectively, compared to wearing no mask, corroborating their effectiveness at reducing outward emission."
That's pretty specific and convincing. But then Sid's linked article says...
"These diseases included influenza and COVID-19 during the pandemic, and these researchers failed to find even a “modest effect” on infection or illness rates from any type of mask."
In conclusion, reducing outward particle rates during speaking and coughing by a minimum of 74% does not have even a modest effect on infection or illness rates.
And the conclusion from THAT is: during a pandemic, we need even BETTER masks OR even STRONGER lockdowns and social distancing mandates.
Meanwhile, I will take the scientific study from Bob A.'s article much more meaningful than the one done on infection and illness rates, simply because the latter is much more broad and general and is much more subject to either bias or data corruption. A study on masks is very specific and reproducible.
Oh, and Sid .... I love that you admit that "the effects that masking is having on health, childhood development, speech development, etc. are unknown". Thank you for specifically spelling that out.
UNKNOWN! That means you shouldn't even be bringing it up. It is UNKNOWN! It could be ZERO!
Some scientist YOU are! LOL
And than you add that more government funding is needed to find out how much masking is affecting health....
MORE GOVERNMENT FUNDING!
WE'RE NOT GONNA GET THAT FROM A LAISSEZ-FAIRE GOVERNMENT ARE WE SID?
I guess that means we'll have to rely on SMART HARD-WORKING ENTREPRENEURS to do these studies! LOL LOL
That's a two-in-one Whack-a-mole! -- got both Sid and Dilip! LOL
Democratic Marxism has not yet had to develop a set of laws dealing with pandemics.....but DM respects mainstream science, adequately reviewed against opposing science.
Bob, have you ever read any posts here???? Seriously, you blab on with your moronic statements with no clue what you are talking about. Here is post 3292 https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...938#post224938
The Cochrane database is as mainstream as it gets and does Meta-analysis on many peer-reviewed studies, not just one.
The 2023 Cochrane Review on Physical Interventions Against Respiratory Viruses
But does science matter anymore?
What is the Cochrane Library?
“The Cochrane Library contains high-quality, independent evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. It includes reliable evidence from Cochrane and other systematic reviews, clinical trials, and more. Cochrane reviews bring you the combined results of the world’s best medical research studies, and are recognized as the gold standard in evidence-based health care.”
This is not some short-term project, but a long-term, serious meta-analysis review. As stated above, the Cochran reviews are considered the gold standard for health care agencies and professionals.
Doctors training at Harvard in Global Clinical Research, the Cochran methodology for medical research meta-analysis is taught as the preferred method.
"The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection."
This large group of international researchers reviewed dozens of rigorously correct, randomized clinical trials of "physical interventions" against respiratory diseases. These diseases included influenza and COVID-19 during the pandemic, and these researchers failed to find even a “modest effect” on infection or illness rates from any type of mask.
Furthermore, the effects that masking is having on health, childhood development, speech development, etc. are unknown and are under-investigated. Ergo - governments aren’t funding this research. Without government funding, the answer to the damage done will never be answered."
(Should likely be under COVID-19 thread, but, oh well, here goes)
Proper masks (Like the N 95) - found to be effective in mitigating the transmission/catching of airborne diseases, such as COVID-19.
Transmission (In-flow) (23/2/23)
"N95 mask has emerged as a potential measure to mitigate the airborne transmission of respiratory disease such as COVID-19. Herein, we experimentally investigated the impact and interaction of pure water droplets as surrogate to respiratory droplets with the different layers of a commercially available N95 mask to demonstrate the penetration and passage-capability of respiratory fluids through the different layers. The penetration of an impacting droplet through the mask layers was characterized by elucidating the ejection of secondary droplets from the rear-side surface of the target mask material. In addition, the passage of respiratory fluids through the mask layers was characterized by capillary imbibition of the droplet liquid through the pores, as a function of wettability of the mask material. Droplet impact at Weber numbers We = 208 and 416 has been considered in the present study; the chosen We range corresponds to that of cough droplets realized in real respiratory events. Each layer of the N95 mask is hydrophobic that prevents capillary imbibition through the pores: a sessile droplet placed over the surface exhibits classical diffusion-limited evaporation. Droplet impact experiments on N95 mask layer surfaces reveal that a single layer allows liquid penetration at We = 416; while a combination of five layers, as is the case of a commercially available N95 mask, blocks the penetration completely, consistent with the widely known effectiveness of N95 masks. Herein, we devote special attention to compare the so-obtained efficiency of N95 masks to that of a recently designed two-layer cloth mask containing an intermediate High-Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter layer (Narayan et al. in Phys Fluids 34:061703, 2022). We conclusively show that the performance of the designed cloth mask is identical to that of a commercially available N95 mask. The assessment of mask effectiveness further includes examination of breathability and comfort by means of passage of air through them. A comparative study has been presented herein for a clear demonstration of effectiveness of different masks in preventing air-borne transmission of COVID-19."
"Both surgical masks and unvented KN95 respirators, even without fit-testing, reduce the outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74% on average during speaking and coughing, respectively, compared to wearing no mask, corroborating their effectiveness at reducing outward emission. These masks similarly decreased the outward particle emission of a coughing superemitter, who for unclear reasons emitted up to two orders of magnitude more expiratory particles via coughing than average."
Democratic Marxism has not yet had to develop a set of laws dealing with pandemics.....but DM respects mainstream science, adequately reviewed against opposing science.
Bob A (Dem. Marxist)
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Wednesday, 13th March, 2024, 03:51 PM.
Leave a comment: