What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:07:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?
I'm not seeing much of anything in my area. Then again, I barely leave the house.
On 11/13/2023 7:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:07:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?
I'm not seeing much of anything in my area. Then again, I barely leave the house.That explains a lot ... sorry to hear you are not well. I did not know
that.
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:07:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?I'm not seeing much of anything in my area. Then again, I barely leave the house.
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:02:44 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:07:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:I was very surprised by all of this anti-Jewish hatred in America. I truly do not understand it. I've read the reports about what those Hamas
What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?I'm not seeing much of anything in my area. Then again, I barely leave the house.
Muslims did to the 1,400 Israeli civilian men, women and children
they butchered, tortured and slaughtered.
Any one who could do that is purely evil. They are not even human.
This planet would be much better off without them and if Hell
does actually exist, it is where those Hamas Muslims belong.
Irish Mike
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 3:12:18 PM UTC-5, Irish Ranger wrote:.
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:02:44 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:07:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:I was very surprised by all of this anti-Jewish hatred in America. I truly do not understand it. I've read the reports about what those Hamas
What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?I'm not seeing much of anything in my area. Then again, I barely leave the house.
Muslims did to the 1,400 Israeli civilian men, women and children
they butchered, tortured and slaughtered.
Any one who could do that is purely evil. They are not even human.
This planet would be much better off without them and if Hell
does actually exist, it is where those Hamas Muslims belong.
Irish MikeFor once, I agree with you. However, the kids being bombed daily did nothing.
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:12:30 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 3:12:18 PM UTC-5, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:02:44 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:07:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:I was very surprised by all of this anti-Jewish hatred in America. I truly
What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?I'm not seeing much of anything in my area. Then again, I barely leave the house.
do not understand it. I've read the reports about what those Hamas Muslims did to the 1,400 Israeli civilian men, women and children
they butchered, tortured and slaughtered.
Any one who could do that is purely evil. They are not even human.
This planet would be much better off without them and if Hell
does actually exist, it is where those Hamas Muslims belong.
.Irish MikeFor once, I agree with you. However, the kids being bombed daily did nothing.
Nor did the Jewish kids that Hamas intentionally slaughtered. (Actual war crime)
On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 2:54:22 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:12:30 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 3:12:18 PM UTC-5, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:02:44 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:07:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:I was very surprised by all of this anti-Jewish hatred in America. I truly
What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?I'm not seeing much of anything in my area. Then again, I barely leave the house.
do not understand it. I've read the reports about what those Hamas Muslims did to the 1,400 Israeli civilian men, women and children
they butchered, tortured and slaughtered.
Any one who could do that is purely evil. They are not even human. This planet would be much better off without them and if Hell
does actually exist, it is where those Hamas Muslims belong.
.Irish MikeFor once, I agree with you. However, the kids being bombed daily did nothing.
Nor did the Jewish kids that Hamas intentionally slaughtered. (Actual war crime)
Absolutely. But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?.
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:39:46 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 2:54:22 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:12:30 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 3:12:18 PM UTC-5, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:02:44 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:07:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:I was very surprised by all of this anti-Jewish hatred in America. I truly
What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?I'm not seeing much of anything in my area. Then again, I barely leave the house.
do not understand it. I've read the reports about what those Hamas Muslims did to the 1,400 Israeli civilian men, women and children they butchered, tortured and slaughtered.
Any one who could do that is purely evil. They are not even human. This planet would be much better off without them and if Hell
does actually exist, it is where those Hamas Muslims belong.
.Irish MikeFor once, I agree with you. However, the kids being bombed daily did nothing.
.Nor did the Jewish kids that Hamas intentionally slaughtered. (Actual war crime)
Absolutely. But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?.
Depends. So why the original punch? To what end? (And it appears to be an intentional punch to the kid).
Now, 'in turn.' same thing. Is this an analogy of Israel defending itself by bombing kids, rather than Command & Control Centers and missile launching sites, where kids are forced to be in attendance?
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:42:45 AM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:39:46 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 2:54:22 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:12:30 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 3:12:18 PM UTC-5, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:02:44 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:07:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:I was very surprised by all of this anti-Jewish hatred in America. I truly
What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?I'm not seeing much of anything in my area. Then again, I barely leave the house.
do not understand it. I've read the reports about what those Hamas Muslims did to the 1,400 Israeli civilian men, women and children they butchered, tortured and slaughtered.
Any one who could do that is purely evil. They are not even human. This planet would be much better off without them and if Hell
does actually exist, it is where those Hamas Muslims belong.
.Irish MikeFor once, I agree with you. However, the kids being bombed daily did nothing.
.Nor did the Jewish kids that Hamas intentionally slaughtered. (Actual war crime)
Absolutely. But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?.
Depends. So why the original punch? To what end? (And it appears to be an intentional punch to the kid).
Now, 'in turn.' same thing. Is this an analogy of Israel defending itself by bombing kids, rather than Command & Control Centers and missile launching sites, where kids are forced to be in attendance?
I distrust both sides in this instance.
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:39:46 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 2:54:22 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:12:30 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 3:12:18 PM UTC-5, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:02:44 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:07:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:I was very surprised by all of this anti-Jewish hatred in America. I truly
What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?I'm not seeing much of anything in my area. Then again, I barely leave the house.
do not understand it. I've read the reports about what those Hamas Muslims did to the 1,400 Israeli civilian men, women and children they butchered, tortured and slaughtered.
Any one who could do that is purely evil. They are not even human. This planet would be much better off without them and if Hell
does actually exist, it is where those Hamas Muslims belong.
.Irish MikeFor once, I agree with you. However, the kids being bombed daily did nothing.
.Nor did the Jewish kids that Hamas intentionally slaughtered. (Actual war crime)
Absolutely. But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?.
Depends. So why the original punch? To what end? (And it appears to be an intentional punch to the kid)..
Now, 'in turn.' same thing. Is this an analogy of Israel defending itself by bombing kids, rather than Command.
& Control Centers and missile launching sites,
where kids are forced to be in attendance?
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 5:52:49 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:42:45 AM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:39:46 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 2:54:22 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:12:30 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 3:12:18 PM UTC-5, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:02:44 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:07:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:I was very surprised by all of this anti-Jewish hatred in America. I truly
What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?I'm not seeing much of anything in my area. Then again, I barely leave the house.
do not understand it. I've read the reports about what those Hamas
Muslims did to the 1,400 Israeli civilian men, women and children
they butchered, tortured and slaughtered.
Any one who could do that is purely evil. They are not even human.
This planet would be much better off without them and if Hell does actually exist, it is where those Hamas Muslims belong.
.Irish MikeFor once, I agree with you. However, the kids being bombed daily did nothing.
.Nor did the Jewish kids that Hamas intentionally slaughtered. (Actual war crime)
Absolutely. But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?.
.Depends. So why the original punch? To what end? (And it appears to be an intentional punch to the kid).
Now, 'in turn.' same thing. Is this an analogy of Israel defending itself by bombing kids, rather than Command & Control Centers and missile launching sites, where kids are forced to be in attendance?
I distrust both sides in this instance.I don't see what there is to distrust of the Israelis...
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 10:20:35 AM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 5:52:49 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:42:45 AM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:39:46 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 2:54:22 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:12:30 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 3:12:18 PM UTC-5, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:02:44 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:07:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:I was very surprised by all of this anti-Jewish hatred in America. I truly
What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?I'm not seeing much of anything in my area. Then again, I barely leave the house.
do not understand it. I've read the reports about what those Hamas
Muslims did to the 1,400 Israeli civilian men, women and children
they butchered, tortured and slaughtered.
Any one who could do that is purely evil. They are not even human.
This planet would be much better off without them and if Hell does actually exist, it is where those Hamas Muslims belong.
.Irish MikeFor once, I agree with you. However, the kids being bombed daily did nothing.
.Nor did the Jewish kids that Hamas intentionally slaughtered. (Actual war crime)
Absolutely. But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?.
Netanyahu and his cabinet. Even his own population were conducting mass protests..Depends. So why the original punch? To what end? (And it appears to be an intentional punch to the kid).
Now, 'in turn.' same thing. Is this an analogy of Israel defending itself by bombing kids, rather than Command & Control Centers and missile launching sites, where kids are forced to be in attendance?
I distrust both sides in this instance.I don't see what there is to distrust of the Israelis...
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 7:27:04 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 10:20:35 AM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 5:52:49 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:42:45 AM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:39:46 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 2:54:22 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:12:30 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 3:12:18 PM UTC-5, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:02:44 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:07:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:I was very surprised by all of this anti-Jewish hatred in America. I truly
What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?I'm not seeing much of anything in my area. Then again, I barely leave the house.
do not understand it. I've read the reports about what those Hamas
Muslims did to the 1,400 Israeli civilian men, women and children
they butchered, tortured and slaughtered.
Any one who could do that is purely evil. They are not even human.
This planet would be much better off without them and if Hell
does actually exist, it is where those Hamas Muslims belong.
.Irish MikeFor once, I agree with you. However, the kids being bombed daily did nothing.
.Nor did the Jewish kids that Hamas intentionally slaughtered. (Actual war crime)
Absolutely. But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?.
.Netanyahu and his cabinet. Even his own population were conducting mass protests..Depends. So why the original punch? To what end? (And it appears to be an intentional punch to the kid).
Now, 'in turn.' same thing. Is this an analogy of Israel defending itself by bombing kids, rather than Command & Control Centers and missile launching sites, where kids are forced to be in attendance?
I distrust both sides in this instance.I don't see what there is to distrust of the Israelis...
Distrusting what? The bombing of hospitals with C&C sites? Too many kids dying?
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 11:03:19 AM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 7:27:04 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 10:20:35 AM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 5:52:49 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:42:45 AM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:39:46 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 2:54:22 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:12:30 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 3:12:18 PM UTC-5, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:02:44 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:07:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:I was very surprised by all of this anti-Jewish hatred in America. I truly
What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?I'm not seeing much of anything in my area. Then again, I barely leave the house.
do not understand it. I've read the reports about what those Hamas
Muslims did to the 1,400 Israeli civilian men, women and children
they butchered, tortured and slaughtered.
Any one who could do that is purely evil. They are not even human.
This planet would be much better off without them and if Hell
does actually exist, it is where those Hamas Muslims belong.
.Irish MikeFor once, I agree with you. However, the kids being bombed daily did nothing.
.Nor did the Jewish kids that Hamas intentionally slaughtered. (Actual war crime)
Absolutely. But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?.
.Netanyahu and his cabinet. Even his own population were conducting mass protests..Depends. So why the original punch? To what end? (And it appears to be an intentional punch to the kid).
Now, 'in turn.' same thing. Is this an analogy of Israel defending itself by bombing kids, rather than Command & Control Centers and missile launching sites, where kids are forced to be in attendance?
I distrust both sides in this instance.I don't see what there is to distrust of the Israelis...
Distrusting what? The bombing of hospitals with C&C sites? Too many kids dying?
I don't trust their reports, unless there is independent verification..
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 10:25:20 AM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 11:03:19 AM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 7:27:04 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 10:20:35 AM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 5:52:49 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:42:45 AM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:39:46 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 2:54:22 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:12:30 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 3:12:18 PM UTC-5, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:02:44 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:07:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:I was very surprised by all of this anti-Jewish hatred in America. I truly
What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?I'm not seeing much of anything in my area. Then again, I barely leave the house.
do not understand it. I've read the reports about what those Hamas
Muslims did to the 1,400 Israeli civilian men, women and children
they butchered, tortured and slaughtered.
Any one who could do that is purely evil. They are not even human.
This planet would be much better off without them and if Hell
does actually exist, it is where those Hamas Muslims belong.
.Irish MikeFor once, I agree with you. However, the kids being bombed daily did nothing.
.Nor did the Jewish kids that Hamas intentionally slaughtered. (Actual war crime)
Absolutely. But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?.
.Netanyahu and his cabinet. Even his own population were conducting mass protests..Depends. So why the original punch? To what end? (And it appears to be an intentional punch to the kid).
Now, 'in turn.' same thing. Is this an analogy of Israel defending itself by bombing kids, rather than Command & Control Centers and missile launching sites, where kids are forced to be in attendance?
I distrust both sides in this instance.I don't see what there is to distrust of the Israelis...
.Distrusting what? The bombing of hospitals with C&C sites? Too many kids dying?
I don't trust their reports, unless there is independent verification..
Okay. But it's hard to discount the actual evidence.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:33:23 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 10:25:20 AM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 11:03:19 AM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 7:27:04 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 10:20:35 AM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 5:52:49 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:42:45 AM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:39:46 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 2:54:22 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 7:12:30 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 3:12:18 PM UTC-5, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:02:44 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 10:07:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:I was very surprised by all of this anti-Jewish hatred in America. I truly
What is going on? Tim, are you seeing any anti-Jewish stuff in your area?I'm not seeing much of anything in my area. Then again, I barely leave the house.
do not understand it. I've read the reports about what those Hamas
Muslims did to the 1,400 Israeli civilian men, women and children
they butchered, tortured and slaughtered.
Any one who could do that is purely evil. They are not even human.
This planet would be much better off without them and if Hell
does actually exist, it is where those Hamas Muslims belong.
.Irish MikeFor once, I agree with you. However, the kids being bombed daily did nothing.
.Nor did the Jewish kids that Hamas intentionally slaughtered. (Actual war crime)
Absolutely. But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?.
.Netanyahu and his cabinet. Even his own population were conducting mass protests..Depends. So why the original punch? To what end? (And it appears to be an intentional punch to the kid).
Now, 'in turn.' same thing. Is this an analogy of Israel defending itself by bombing kids, rather than Command & Control Centers and missile launching sites, where kids are forced to be in attendance?
I distrust both sides in this instance.I don't see what there is to distrust of the Israelis...
.Distrusting what? The bombing of hospitals with C&C sites? Too many kids dying?
I don't trust their reports, unless there is independent verification..
Okay. But it's hard to discount the actual evidence.
Yes, and I don't trust Hamas at all. Remember the reports of babies being thrown out of incubators in the Iraqi..
invasion of Kuwait, which turned out to be spread by the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter?
But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?
On November 16, Tim Norfolk wrote:
But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?Berlin, 1940: https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/parade-of-the-wehrmacht-in-berlin-in-1940-general-fritz-fromm-to-the-picture-id545957627
Berlin, 1945:
https://tinyurl.com/berlin1222
Roosevelt and Churchill, war criminals... think of the MURDERED sons,
the INNOCENT civilians.
Of course, Berlin couldn't possibly be rebuilt...
Berlin, 1955: https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E006HP/the-brandenburg-gate-1955-E006HP.jpg
How many sons did you lose on October 7?
--
Rich
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 5:05:38 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
On November 16, Tim Norfolk wrote:
But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?Berlin, 1940:
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/parade-of-the-wehrmacht-in-berlin-in-1940-general-fritz-fromm-to-the-picture-id545957627
Berlin, 1945:
https://tinyurl.com/berlin1222
Roosevelt and Churchill, war criminals... think of the MURDERED sons,
the INNOCENT civilians.
Of course, Berlin couldn't possibly be rebuilt...
Berlin, 1955:
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E006HP/the-brandenburg-gate-1955-E006HP.jpg
How many sons did you lose on October 7?
--
Rich
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.
On 11/25/2023 4:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 5:05:38 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
On November 16, Tim Norfolk wrote:
But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?Berlin, 1940:
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/parade-of-the-wehrmacht-in-berlin-in-1940-general-fritz-fromm-to-the-picture-id545957627
Berlin, 1945:
https://tinyurl.com/berlin1222
Roosevelt and Churchill, war criminals... think of the MURDERED sons,
the INNOCENT civilians.
Of course, Berlin couldn't possibly be rebuilt...
Berlin, 1955:
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E006HP/the-brandenburg-gate-1955-E006HP.jpg
How many sons did you lose on October 7?
--
Rich
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?
Berlin, 1940:
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/parade-of-the-wehrmacht-in-berlin-in-1940-general-fritz-fromm-to-the-picture-id545957627
Berlin, 1945:
https://tinyurl.com/berlin1222
Roosevelt and Churchill, war criminals... think of the MURDERED sons,
the INNOCENT civilians.
Of course, Berlin couldn't possibly be rebuilt...
Berlin, 1955:
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E006HP/the-brandenburg-gate-1955-E006HP.jpg
How many sons did you lose on October 7?
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.
On November 25, Tim Norfolk wrote:
But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?
Berlin, 1940:
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/parade-of-the-wehrmacht-in-berlin-in-1940-general-fritz-fromm-to-the-picture-id545957627
Berlin, 1945:
https://tinyurl.com/berlin1222
Roosevelt and Churchill, war criminals... think of the MURDERED sons,
the INNOCENT civilians.
Of course, Berlin couldn't possibly be rebuilt...
Berlin, 1955:
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E006HP/the-brandenburg-gate-1955-E006HP.jpg
How many sons did you lose on October 7?
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.No, let's compare Berlin 1945: https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/adolf-hitler-bunker-11.jpg
The fuhrer was sheltered in an underground bunker.
The russians had no right to attack that target, there were lots
of INNOCENT CIVILIANS in the way! It was a WAR CRIME!
In fact, they had no right to invade Berlin. Think of THE CHILDREN!
How many sons did you lose on October 7?
--
Rich
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:57:47 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.”
On November 25, Tim Norfolk wrote:
No, let's compare Berlin 1945:But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?
Berlin, 1940:
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/parade-of-the-wehrmacht-in-berlin-in-1940-general-fritz-fromm-to-the-picture-id545957627
Berlin, 1945:
https://tinyurl.com/berlin1222
Roosevelt and Churchill, war criminals... think of the MURDERED sons,
the INNOCENT civilians.
Of course, Berlin couldn't possibly be rebuilt...
Berlin, 1955:
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E006HP/the-brandenburg-gate-1955-E006HP.jpg
How many sons did you lose on October 7?
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.
https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/adolf-hitler-bunker-11.jpg >>
The fuhrer was sheltered in an underground bunker.
The russians had no right to attack that target, there were lots
of INNOCENT CIVILIANS in the way! It was a WAR CRIME!
In fact, they had no right to invade Berlin. Think of THE CHILDREN!
How many sons did you lose on October 7?
--
Rich
“In examining these events in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian
https://web.archive.org/web/20130425044944/http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jpcl.htm
On 11/26/2023 10:39 PM, BillB wrote:population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.”
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:57:47 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
On November 25, Tim Norfolk wrote:
No, let's compare Berlin 1945:But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?
Berlin, 1940:
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/parade-of-the-wehrmacht-in-berlin-in-1940-general-fritz-fromm-to-the-picture-id545957627
Berlin, 1945:
https://tinyurl.com/berlin1222
Roosevelt and Churchill, war criminals... think of the MURDERED sons, >>>> the INNOCENT civilians.
Of course, Berlin couldn't possibly be rebuilt...
Berlin, 1955:
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E006HP/the-brandenburg-gate-1955-E006HP.jpg >>>
How many sons did you lose on October 7?
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.
https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/adolf-hitler-bunker-11.jpg
The fuhrer was sheltered in an underground bunker.
The russians had no right to attack that target, there were lots
of INNOCENT CIVILIANS in the way! It was a WAR CRIME!
In fact, they had no right to invade Berlin. Think of THE CHILDREN!
How many sons did you lose on October 7?
--
Rich
“In examining these events in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian
https://web.archive.org/web/20130425044944/http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jpcl.htmGo back to bed.
What do you think Israel should do?
On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your
own opinion.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his
access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden?
Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and
who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have
flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden >> as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which
Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his
access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden?
Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and
who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have
flattened London and everyone in it.
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and
other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:23:03 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.”
On 11/26/2023 10:39 PM, BillB wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:57:47 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
On November 25, Tim Norfolk wrote:
No, let's compare Berlin 1945:But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?
Berlin, 1940:
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/parade-of-the-wehrmacht-in-berlin-in-1940-general-fritz-fromm-to-the-picture-id545957627
Berlin, 1945:
https://tinyurl.com/berlin1222
Roosevelt and Churchill, war criminals... think of the MURDERED sons, >>>>>> the INNOCENT civilians.
Of course, Berlin couldn't possibly be rebuilt...
Berlin, 1955:
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E006HP/the-brandenburg-gate-1955-E006HP.jpg >>>>>
How many sons did you lose on October 7?
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.
https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/adolf-hitler-bunker-11.jpg >>>>
The fuhrer was sheltered in an underground bunker.
The russians had no right to attack that target, there were lots
of INNOCENT CIVILIANS in the way! It was a WAR CRIME!
In fact, they had no right to invade Berlin. Think of THE CHILDREN!
How many sons did you lose on October 7?
--
Rich
“In examining these events in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian
Go back to bed.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130425044944/http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jpcl.htm
What do you think Israel should do?
Comply with international humanitarian law. Was that supposed to be a trick question?
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
own opinion.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden >> as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which
Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his
access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden?
Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and
who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have
flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be.
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.
On 11/27/2023 10:46 AM, BillB wrote:population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.”
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 6:23:03 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 11/26/2023 10:39 PM, BillB wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:57:47 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
On November 25, Tim Norfolk wrote:
No, let's compare Berlin 1945:But, by a bad analogy, if you punch my son, and in turn I punch your son, what has been gained?
Berlin, 1940:
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/parade-of-the-wehrmacht-in-berlin-in-1940-general-fritz-fromm-to-the-picture-id545957627
Berlin, 1945:
https://tinyurl.com/berlin1222
Roosevelt and Churchill, war criminals... think of the MURDERED sons, >>>>>> the INNOCENT civilians.
Of course, Berlin couldn't possibly be rebuilt...
Berlin, 1955:
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/E006HP/the-brandenburg-gate-1955-E006HP.jpg >>>>>
How many sons did you lose on October 7?
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.
https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/adolf-hitler-bunker-11.jpg
The fuhrer was sheltered in an underground bunker.
The russians had no right to attack that target, there were lots
of INNOCENT CIVILIANS in the way! It was a WAR CRIME!
In fact, they had no right to invade Berlin. Think of THE CHILDREN! >>>> How many sons did you lose on October 7?
--
Rich
“In examining these events in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian
Go back to bed.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130425044944/http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jpcl.htm
What do you think Israel should do?
Comply with international humanitarian law. Was that supposed to be a trick question?And will the international humanitarian law expert actually answer the question ... not a trick question. Real stuff, not just another fake.
On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
own opinion.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which
Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his
access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden?
Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and
who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have
flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be.
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.More unmitigated bullshit
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
own opinion.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden >>>> as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which
Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his
access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden?
Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and
who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have
flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be.
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar.
On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your >>>> own opinion.
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which >>>> Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his >>>> access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden? >>>> Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and >>>> who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have
flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be.
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar.Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there
... or just go away.
On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your >>>> own opinion.
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which >>>> Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his >>>> access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden? >>>> Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and >>>> who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have
flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be.
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar.Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there
... or just go away.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:30:51 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there
On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your >>>>>> own opinion.
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which >>>>>> Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his >>>>>> access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden? >>>>>> Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and >>>>>> who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have
flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be.
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar.
... or just go away.
Because she is well-known for her deep knowledge of Goering's strategy?
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:30:51 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there
On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your >>>>>> own opinion.
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which >>>>>> Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his >>>>>> access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden? >>>>>> Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and >>>>>> who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have
flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be.
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar.
... or just go away.
Because she is well-known for her deep knowledge of Goering's strategy?
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:30:51 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there
On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your >>>>>> own opinion.
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which >>>>>> Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his >>>>>> access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden? >>>>>> Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and >>>>>> who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have
flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be.
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar.
... or just go away.
So was my Dad. He was even in a row house when one was hit by a doodlebug.
On 11/28/2023 11:48 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:30:51 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your >>>>>> own opinion.
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which >>>>>> Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his >>>>>> access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden? >>>>>> Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and >>>>>> who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have >>>>>> flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be. >>>>>
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar.
... or just go away.
Because she is well-known for her deep knowledge of Goering's strategy?How many Londoners died during blitz?
The Blitz | World War II, History, & Facts | Britannica
In the eight months of attacks, some 43,000 civilians were killed. This amounted to nearly half of Britain's total civilian deaths for the whole war. One of every six Londoners was made homeless at some point during
the Blitz, and at least 1.1 million houses and flats were damaged or destroyed.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:40:18 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:cult following on the right.
On 11/28/2023 11:48 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:30:51 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:How many Londoners died during blitz?
On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your >>>>>>>> own opinion.
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which >>>>>>>> Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his >>>>>>>> access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden? >>>>>>>> Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and >>>>>>>> who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have >>>>>>>> flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be. >>>>>>>
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar.
... or just go away.
Because she is well-known for her deep knowledge of Goering's strategy?
The Blitz | World War II, History, & Facts | Britannica
In the eight months of attacks, some 43,000 civilians were killed. This
amounted to nearly half of Britain's total civilian deaths for the whole
war. One of every six Londoners was made homeless at some point during
the Blitz, and at least 1.1 million houses and flats were damaged or
destroyed.
Geez, Hitler was obviously a real slacker when it came to blitzes. Israel killed over 10,000 civilians in a month and - get this - 4000 were children! Nonetheless, sounds like this Hitler guy was still a top notch war criminal. I bet he still has a
On 11/28/2023 1:22 PM, BillB wrote:cult following on the right.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:40:18 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 11/28/2023 11:48 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:30:51 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there >>>> ... or just go away.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
own opinion.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which
Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his
access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden?
Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and
who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have >>>>>>>> flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be. >>>>>>>
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar.
Because she is well-known for her deep knowledge of Goering's strategy? >> How many Londoners died during blitz?
The Blitz | World War II, History, & Facts | Britannica
In the eight months of attacks, some 43,000 civilians were killed. This >> amounted to nearly half of Britain's total civilian deaths for the whole >> war. One of every six Londoners was made homeless at some point during
the Blitz, and at least 1.1 million houses and flats were damaged or
destroyed.
Geez, Hitler was obviously a real slacker when it came to blitzes. Israel killed over 10,000 civilians in a month and - get this - 4000 were children! Nonetheless, sounds like this Hitler guy was still a top notch war criminal. I bet he still has a
You are just another Jew-hater ... the allies killed lots more civilians during WWII ... war is hell. You are just another asshole with a computer.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 1:28:26 PM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:cult following on the right.
On 11/28/2023 1:22 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:40:18 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 11/28/2023 11:48 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:30:51 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there >>>>>> ... or just go away.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
own opinion.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which >>>>>>>>>> Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his
access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden? >>>>>>>>>> Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and
who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have >>>>>>>>>> flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be. >>>>>>>>>
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar.
Because she is well-known for her deep knowledge of Goering's strategy? >>>> How many Londoners died during blitz?
The Blitz | World War II, History, & Facts | Britannica
In the eight months of attacks, some 43,000 civilians were killed. This >>>> amounted to nearly half of Britain's total civilian deaths for the whole >>>> war. One of every six Londoners was made homeless at some point during >>>> the Blitz, and at least 1.1 million houses and flats were damaged or
destroyed.
Geez, Hitler was obviously a real slacker when it came to blitzes. Israel killed over 10,000 civilians in a month and - get this - 4000 were children! Nonetheless, sounds like this Hitler guy was still a top notch war criminal. I bet he still has a
too dumb to differentiate the two. Judging by the comments I read on the internet, a shocking high percentage of other right-wingers are too. If there are things Joe Biden’s administration is doing that you hate, that doesn’t mean you hate Americans.You are just another Jew-hater ... the allies killed lots more civilians
during WWII ... war is hell. You are just another asshole with a computer.
No, I don’t hate Jewish people in the slightest. That kind of thinking isn’t even in my galaxy. It is illogical. I do however hate what the Israeli *government* has done, is doing and intends to do to Palestinian civilians, but you are apparently
On 11/28/2023 3:45 PM, BillB wrote:cult following on the right.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 1:28:26 PM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 11/28/2023 1:22 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:40:18 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/28/2023 11:48 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:30:51 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:How many Londoners died during blitz?
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
own opinion.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which
Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his
access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden?
Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and
who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have >>>>>>>>>> flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be. >>>>>>>>>
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar. >>>>>> Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there >>>>>> ... or just go away.
Because she is well-known for her deep knowledge of Goering's strategy?
The Blitz | World War II, History, & Facts | Britannica
In the eight months of attacks, some 43,000 civilians were killed. This >>>> amounted to nearly half of Britain's total civilian deaths for the whole
war. One of every six Londoners was made homeless at some point during >>>> the Blitz, and at least 1.1 million houses and flats were damaged or >>>> destroyed.
Geez, Hitler was obviously a real slacker when it came to blitzes. Israel killed over 10,000 civilians in a month and - get this - 4000 were children! Nonetheless, sounds like this Hitler guy was still a top notch war criminal. I bet he still has a
too dumb to differentiate the two. Judging by the comments I read on the internet, a shocking high percentage of other right-wingers are too. If there are things Joe Biden’s administration is doing that you hate, that doesn’t mean you hate Americans.You are just another Jew-hater ... the allies killed lots more civilians >> during WWII ... war is hell. You are just another asshole with a computer.
No, I don’t hate Jewish people in the slightest. That kind of thinking isn’t even in my galaxy. It is illogical. I do however hate what the Israeli *government* has done, is doing and intends to do to Palestinian civilians, but you are apparently
You can take the logical step and just kill yourself.
[If you have a final solution for Israel, you might share it.]
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 1:50:50 PM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:cult following on the right.
On 11/28/2023 3:45 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 1:28:26 PM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 11/28/2023 1:22 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:40:18 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/28/2023 11:48 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:30:51 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
own opinion.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which
Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his
access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden?
Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and
who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have >>>>>>>>>>>> flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be. >>>>>>>>>>>
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar. >>>>>>>> Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there >>>>>>>> ... or just go away.
Because she is well-known for her deep knowledge of Goering's strategy? >>>>>> How many Londoners died during blitz?
The Blitz | World War II, History, & Facts | Britannica
In the eight months of attacks, some 43,000 civilians were killed. This >>>>>> amounted to nearly half of Britain's total civilian deaths for the whole >>>>>> war. One of every six Londoners was made homeless at some point during >>>>>> the Blitz, and at least 1.1 million houses and flats were damaged or >>>>>> destroyed.
Geez, Hitler was obviously a real slacker when it came to blitzes. Israel killed over 10,000 civilians in a month and - get this - 4000 were children! Nonetheless, sounds like this Hitler guy was still a top notch war criminal. I bet he still has a
too dumb to differentiate the two. Judging by the comments I read on the internet, a shocking high percentage of other right-wingers are too. If there are things Joe Biden’s administration is doing that you hate, that doesn’t mean you hate Americans.You are just another Jew-hater ... the allies killed lots more civilians >>>> during WWII ... war is hell. You are just another asshole with a computer. >>>No, I don’t hate Jewish people in the slightest. That kind of thinking isn’t even in my galaxy. It is illogical. I do however hate what the Israeli *government* has done, is doing and intends to do to Palestinian civilians, but you are apparently
You can take the logical step and just kill yourself.
[If you have a final solution for Israel, you might share it.]
In other words you have nothing. At least you are consistent.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:40:18 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:.
On 11/28/2023 11:48 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:30:51 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there >> ... or just go away.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
own opinion.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which
Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his
access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden?
Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and
who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have >>>>>> flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be. >>>>>
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar.
Because she is well-known for her deep knowledge of Goering's strategy?How many Londoners died during blitz?
The Blitz | World War II, History, & Facts | Britannica
In the eight months of attacks, some 43,000 civilians were killed. This amounted to nearly half of Britain's total civilian deaths for the whole war. One of every six Londoners was made homeless at some point during
the Blitz, and at least 1.1 million houses and flats were damaged or destroyed.
Geez, Hitler was obviously a real slacker when it came to blitzes. Israel killed over 10,000 civilians in a
month and - get this - 4000 were children! Nonetheless, sounds like this Hitler guy was still a top notch
war criminal. I bet he still has a cult following on the right.
On 11/28/2023 6:25 PM, BillB wrote:a cult following on the right.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 1:50:50 PM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 11/28/2023 3:45 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 1:28:26 PM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/28/2023 1:22 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:40:18 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/28/2023 11:48 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:30:51 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:How many Londoners died during blitz?
On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:... or just go away.
On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
own opinion.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which
Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his
access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden?
Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and
who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have
flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be.
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar. >>>>>>>> Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there
Because she is well-known for her deep knowledge of Goering's strategy?
The Blitz | World War II, History, & Facts | Britannica
In the eight months of attacks, some 43,000 civilians were killed. This
amounted to nearly half of Britain's total civilian deaths for the whole
war. One of every six Londoners was made homeless at some point during
the Blitz, and at least 1.1 million houses and flats were damaged or >>>>>> destroyed.
Geez, Hitler was obviously a real slacker when it came to blitzes. Israel killed over 10,000 civilians in a month and - get this - 4000 were children! Nonetheless, sounds like this Hitler guy was still a top notch war criminal. I bet he still has
apparently too dumb to differentiate the two. Judging by the comments I read on the internet, a shocking high percentage of other right-wingers are too. If there are things Joe Biden’s administration is doing that you hate, that doesn’t mean you hateYou are just another Jew-hater ... the allies killed lots more civilians
during WWII ... war is hell. You are just another asshole with a computer.
No, I don’t hate Jewish people in the slightest. That kind of thinking isn’t even in my galaxy. It is illogical. I do however hate what the Israeli *government* has done, is doing and intends to do to Palestinian civilians, but you are
You can take the logical step and just kill yourself.
[If you have a final solution for Israel, you might share it.]
In other words you have nothing. At least you are consistent.So that is your suggestion for what Israel should do ... typical blab
blab blab and run run run ... at least you are consistent.
On Wednesday, November 29, 2023 at 6:06:36 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:has a cult following on the right.
On 11/28/2023 6:25 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 1:50:50 PM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 11/28/2023 3:45 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 1:28:26 PM UTC-8, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/28/2023 1:22 PM, BillB wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 10:40:18 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 11/28/2023 11:48 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:30:51 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:How many Londoners died during blitz?
On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:... or just go away.
On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
own opinion.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which
Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his
access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden?
Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and
who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have
flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be.
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar. >>>>>>>> Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there
Because she is well-known for her deep knowledge of Goering's strategy?
The Blitz | World War II, History, & Facts | Britannica
In the eight months of attacks, some 43,000 civilians were killed. This
amounted to nearly half of Britain's total civilian deaths for the whole
war. One of every six Londoners was made homeless at some point during
the Blitz, and at least 1.1 million houses and flats were damaged or
destroyed.
Geez, Hitler was obviously a real slacker when it came to blitzes. Israel killed over 10,000 civilians in a month and - get this - 4000 were children! Nonetheless, sounds like this Hitler guy was still a top notch war criminal. I bet he still
apparently too dumb to differentiate the two. Judging by the comments I read on the internet, a shocking high percentage of other right-wingers are too. If there are things Joe Biden’s administration is doing that you hate, that doesn’t mean you hateYou are just another Jew-hater ... the allies killed lots more civilians
during WWII ... war is hell. You are just another asshole with a computer.
No, I don’t hate Jewish people in the slightest. That kind of thinking isn’t even in my galaxy. It is illogical. I do however hate what the Israeli *government* has done, is doing and intends to do to Palestinian civilians, but you are
.You can take the logical step and just kill yourself.
[If you have a final solution for Israel, you might share it.]
In other words you have nothing. At least you are consistent.So that is your suggestion for what Israel should do ... typical blab
blab blab and run run run ... at least you are consistent.
You want me to make Israel’s war plan for them and publish it here? That seems unreasonable. I think it would be better if Israel’s military experts do that. But I gave them the all important first step and overarching principle. Whatever plan theycome up with, all of it must comply with humanitarian law. This is not controversial.
You must have noticed that over the last week Israel has be been given some not so subtle warnings from some of its closest allies, including Canada, France and the US. What are you arguing for? Genocide? That figures.water sites.
**********
Israel has said it will continue its war on Hamas after an ongoing temporary truce expires, but senior US administration officials told reporters the coming offensive must be "maximally deconflicted" and avoid hitting UN shelters, hospitals, power and
"You cannot have the sort of scale of displacement that took place in the north, replicated in the south," one US official told journalists late Monday, speaking on condition that the briefing be reported only Tuesday..
"It's very important that the conduct of the Israeli campaign when it moves to the south must be done in a way that is, to a maximum extent, not designed to produce significant further displacement of persons.".
The official added: "From the president down we have reinforced this in a very clear way for the government of Israel.".
Israel had been "receptive" to the warnings, the official said.
An estimated 1.7 million people in Gaza have been displaced by the offensive Israel launched in response to the October 7 attacks on Israel by Hamas, according to the United Nations.
On 11/28/2023 11:48 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:30:51 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there
On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of LondonOn Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits >>>>>>> your
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war
crime shortly after WWII.
own opinion.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of >>>>>>> Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which >>>>>>> Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal >>>>>>> his
access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden? >>>>>>> Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, >>>>>>> and
who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have >>>>>>> flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be. >>>>>>
and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar.
... or just go away.
Because she is well-known for her deep knowledge of Goering's strategy?
No, because she apparently knows more about the blitz than you.
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 1:36:52 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/28/2023 11:46 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:30:51 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits your >>>>>>>> own opinion.
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war crime shortly after WWII.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which >>>>>>>> Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal his >>>>>>>> access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden? >>>>>>>> Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, and >>>>>>>> who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have >>>>>>>> flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be. >>>>>>>
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar.
... or just go away.
So was my Dad. He was even in a row house when one was hit by a doodlebug. >> I would never say anything wrong about your dad, but you are full of shit.
You live happily in your head, definitively making facts out of your opinions, even when are were completely and demonstrably wrong.
What exactly do you/did you do for a living?
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 4:31:20 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 11/28/2023 12:37 PM, da pickle wrote:.
On 11/28/2023 11:48 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I noticed that the Blab clone answered for you ... or maybe not ... you
On Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 8:30:51 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>> On 11/27/2023 6:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:No, because she apparently knows more about the blitz than you.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:43:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/27/2023 2:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Check out Julie Andrews personal accounts when she was actually there >>>>> ... or just go away.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:23:55 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2023 2:21 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:More unmitigated bullshit
Actually, most accounts show that the original bombings of London >>>>>>>> and other civilian targets in the UK were accidents.On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:40:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Just like most of your "ideas" ... you select an idea that suits >>>>>>>>> your
You should have compared Coventry and Dresden.Why?
Much more apropos, and the retaliation was even called a war >>>>>>>>>> crime shortly after WWII.
own opinion.
It is oft repeated that Churchill “ordered” the firebombing of >>>>>>>>> Dresden
as a “vicious payback” for the German bombing of Coventry (which >>>>>>>>> Churchill is often accused of allowing to burn rather than reveal >>>>>>>>> his
access to the German codes -see FH 35). Who’s right about Dresden? >>>>>>>>> Before we get into that, let us remember that there was a war on, >>>>>>>>> and
who the enemy was. Had he the means, Hitler would cheerfully have >>>>>>>>> flattened London and everyone in it.
Your "idea" is just more crap from whoever you really want to be. >>>>>>>>
Check out the accounts in Dan Carlin's podcasts on the airwar.
Because she is well-known for her deep knowledge of Goering's strategy? >>>
really should answer from the correct troll name sometimes. Even Jerry
is on to your goofiness.
See, Tim? He couldn't answer you, only dodge and lie and make up shit about me.
He's one of those, "If I post last, it must mean I win!" So we watch you play Bop-A-Mole with these
guy, who's not smart enough to stay down. So keep up the torture, I'll start a new batch of popcorn...
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:27:22 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
Or maybe you are just another sock puppet ... that is possible ... maybe
more likely.
I have proven you wrong time and time again on your assertions on probability, about which you appear to understand nothing at all, but still expound at length.
I don't believe that you have said it, but something in your attitudes suggests to me that you support Trump, who has similar habits.
On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 12:07:48 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/1/2023 12:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:27:22 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:No you have not ... you ran from a bet when you found out I had an
Or maybe you are just another sock puppet ... that is possible ... maybe >>>> more likely.
I have proven you wrong time and time again on your assertions on probability, about which you appear to understand nothing at all, but still expound at length.
advantage that you would lose and you denied it ... I still will play
Say Red with you for $100 chips. Are you still running?
I don't believe that you have said it, but something in your attitudes suggests to me that you support Trump, who has similar habits.I am not a Trump supporter. You still think your opinions are "the
truth" ... there is another on this dead newsgroup that has the same
thoughts about "his" opinion on ... pick a subject.
People like you are what is driving this country into ruin.
You have lied and dodged throughout, carefully deleting the information that I gave you. You simply lack the background to grasp the ignorance of what you write on the subject.
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 9:07:44 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/2/2023 11:23 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 12:07:48 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:I still will play Say Red with you for $100 chips. Why are you still
On 12/1/2023 12:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:27:22 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:No you have not ... you ran from a bet when you found out I had an
Or maybe you are just another sock puppet ... that is possible ... maybe >>>>>> more likely.
I have proven you wrong time and time again on your assertions on probability, about which you appear to understand nothing at all, but still expound at length.
advantage that you would lose and you denied it ... I still will play
Say Red with you for $100 chips. Are you still running?
I don't believe that you have said it, but something in your attitudes suggests to me that you support Trump, who has similar habits.I am not a Trump supporter. You still think your opinions are "the
truth" ... there is another on this dead newsgroup that has the same
thoughts about "his" opinion on ... pick a subject.
People like you are what is driving this country into ruin.
You have lied and dodged throughout, carefully deleting the information that I gave you. You simply lack the background to grasp the ignorance of what you write on the subject.
dodging and running? Why will you not play? How long will it take me
to win $100 (probably)?
No wonder you don't understand everything I have written to you. Your questions keep slightly changing because reality doesn't give you the results that you want.
To answer your question, you need to be precise.
1. What is your initial bankroll?
2. How much are you betting on each single trial of the game?
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 3:35:01 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 10:01:22 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/4/2023 11:51 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Care to actually answer the question?
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 9:07:44 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:1. I have a million $100 chips. You only need one.
On 12/2/2023 11:23 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 12:07:48 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/1/2023 12:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I still will play Say Red with you for $100 chips. Why are you still >>>>> dodging and running? Why will you not play? How long will it take me >>>>> to win $100 (probably)?
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:27:22 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>No you have not ... you ran from a bet when you found out I had an >>>>>>> advantage that you would lose and you denied it ... I still will play >>>>>>> Say Red with you for $100 chips. Are you still running?
Or maybe you are just another sock puppet ... that is possible ... maybe
more likely.
I have proven you wrong time and time again on your assertions on probability, about which you appear to understand nothing at all, but still expound at length.
I don't believe that you have said it, but something in your attitudes suggests to me that you support Trump, who has similar habits.I am not a Trump supporter. You still think your opinions are "the >>>>>>> truth" ... there is another on this dead newsgroup that has the same >>>>>>> thoughts about "his" opinion on ... pick a subject.
People like you are what is driving this country into ruin.
You have lied and dodged throughout, carefully deleting the information that I gave you. You simply lack the background to grasp the ignorance of what you write on the subject.
No wonder you don't understand everything I have written to you. Your questions keep slightly changing because reality doesn't give you the results that you want.
To answer your question, you need to be precise.
1. What is your initial bankroll?
2. How much are you betting on each single trial of the game?
2. We bet one chip on each single trial.
How many plays before my million gets lost before I get ahead a million
plus one? [Try for a thousand, if you like.] [Or a hundred.] [Or ten.]
As written above, you want a bankroll of 1 million chips, and want to get to 2,000,001
No wonder you can't understand the very precise answers that I have given you.
I will go with what you have stumbled through a bunch of times: Start with $100, bet $1 per time, and stop when you have $101
The probability of succeeding is 100/101. If you do so, it should take, based on a couple of approximations that I made, about 500 individual trials, on average.
I am sorry. I am mixing apples and oranges. My approximation is 5 trials to win a net $1, 500 to win a net $100, if you put the winnings to the side every time.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 7:21:17 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/5/2023 10:42 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 3:35:01 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:I am glad you realized "you were wrong" about the entire 5000 times you
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 10:01:22 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>> On 12/4/2023 11:51 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 9:07:44 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/2/2023 11:23 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:1. I have a million $100 chips. You only need one.
On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 12:07:48 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/1/2023 12:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I still will play Say Red with you for $100 chips. Why are you still >>>>>>> dodging and running? Why will you not play? How long will it take me >>>>>>> to win $100 (probably)?
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:27:22 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>No you have not ... you ran from a bet when you found out I had an >>>>>>>>> advantage that you would lose and you denied it ... I still will play >>>>>>>>> Say Red with you for $100 chips. Are you still running?
Or maybe you are just another sock puppet ... that is possible ... maybe
more likely.
I have proven you wrong time and time again on your assertions on probability, about which you appear to understand nothing at all, but still expound at length.
I don't believe that you have said it, but something in your attitudes suggests to me that you support Trump, who has similar habits.I am not a Trump supporter. You still think your opinions are "the >>>>>>>>> truth" ... there is another on this dead newsgroup that has the same >>>>>>>>> thoughts about "his" opinion on ... pick a subject.
People like you are what is driving this country into ruin.
You have lied and dodged throughout, carefully deleting the information that I gave you. You simply lack the background to grasp the ignorance of what you write on the subject.
No wonder you don't understand everything I have written to you. Your questions keep slightly changing because reality doesn't give you the results that you want.
To answer your question, you need to be precise.
1. What is your initial bankroll?
2. How much are you betting on each single trial of the game?
2. We bet one chip on each single trial.
How many plays before my million gets lost before I get ahead a million >>>>> plus one? [Try for a thousand, if you like.] [Or a hundred.] [Or ten.] >>>> Care to actually answer the question?
As written above, you want a bankroll of 1 million chips, and want to get to 2,000,001
No wonder you can't understand the very precise answers that I have given you.
I will go with what you have stumbled through a bunch of times: Start with $100, bet $1 per time, and stop when you have $101
The probability of succeeding is 100/101. If you do so, it should take, based on a couple of approximations that I made, about 500 individual trials, on average.
I am sorry. I am mixing apples and oranges. My approximation is 5 trials to win a net $1, 500 to win a net $100, if you put the winnings to the side every time.
have been saying I did not have the advantage in the Say Red game if I
only wanted to win one bet.
I am glad you admitted [finally] that I do have the advantage and that
is why you will not play with $100 dollar chips.
Thank you for your admission of error. I know it was hard for you.
Everyone else (all three of them) are glad you admitted your MISTAKE.
Then you are a complete idiot who has not read any of the posts.
On several occasions, you stated that you could 'win every time' with a bankroll of $100. That is a false statement.
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 9:47:03 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/6/2023 10:20 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 7:21:17 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:You will not give up will you. I said I had an advantage in the Say Red
On 12/5/2023 10:42 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 3:35:01 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 10:01:22 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/4/2023 11:51 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I am glad you realized "you were wrong" about the entire 5000 times you >>>> have been saying I did not have the advantage in the Say Red game if I >>>> only wanted to win one bet.
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 9:07:44 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2023 11:23 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:1. I have a million $100 chips. You only need one.
On Saturday, December 2, 2023 at 12:07:48 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:I still will play Say Red with you for $100 chips. Why are you still >>>>>>>>> dodging and running? Why will you not play? How long will it take me >>>>>>>>> to win $100 (probably)?
On 12/1/2023 12:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You have lied and dodged throughout, carefully deleting the information that I gave you. You simply lack the background to grasp the ignorance of what you write on the subject.
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 7:27:22 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:No you have not ... you ran from a bet when you found out I had an >>>>>>>>>>> advantage that you would lose and you denied it ... I still will play
Or maybe you are just another sock puppet ... that is possible ... maybe
more likely.
I have proven you wrong time and time again on your assertions on probability, about which you appear to understand nothing at all, but still expound at length.
Say Red with you for $100 chips. Are you still running? >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that you have said it, but something in your attitudes suggests to me that you support Trump, who has similar habits.
I am not a Trump supporter. You still think your opinions are "the >>>>>>>>>>> truth" ... there is another on this dead newsgroup that has the same
thoughts about "his" opinion on ... pick a subject.
People like you are what is driving this country into ruin. >>>>>>>>>>
No wonder you don't understand everything I have written to you. Your questions keep slightly changing because reality doesn't give you the results that you want.
To answer your question, you need to be precise.
1. What is your initial bankroll?
2. How much are you betting on each single trial of the game?
2. We bet one chip on each single trial.
How many plays before my million gets lost before I get ahead a million >>>>>>> plus one? [Try for a thousand, if you like.] [Or a hundred.] [Or ten.] >>>>>> Care to actually answer the question?
As written above, you want a bankroll of 1 million chips, and want to get to 2,000,001
No wonder you can't understand the very precise answers that I have given you.
I will go with what you have stumbled through a bunch of times: Start with $100, bet $1 per time, and stop when you have $101
The probability of succeeding is 100/101. If you do so, it should take, based on a couple of approximations that I made, about 500 individual trials, on average.
I am sorry. I am mixing apples and oranges. My approximation is 5 trials to win a net $1, 500 to win a net $100, if you put the winnings to the side every time.
I am glad you admitted [finally] that I do have the advantage and that >>>> is why you will not play with $100 dollar chips.
Thank you for your admission of error. I know it was hard for you.
Everyone else (all three of them) are glad you admitted your MISTAKE.
Then you are a complete idiot who has not read any of the posts.
On several occasions, you stated that you could 'win every time' with a bankroll of $100. That is a false statement.
game. You said I did not. When you found out my "advantage" was to
quit when I won one bet, you ran like a scared cat.
So I offered a side bet of $100 that if I played with you for $1 bets
with a 100 bet limit on my side, but I only wanted to get ahead one
dollar, you said only a fool would take that bet.
So I offered to play the game for $100 chips because I only wanted to
win one chip ... you finally admitted I would likely only need about
five plays to win your $100 chip (if I did not win on the first try).
Running ever since ... it is the size of the bet that makes leaving with
one bet "an advantage" ... only I can leave with the $100 ... just go
back in your hole.
[Would you really like to play again for another $100 chip to see if you
could get that hundred back, if you could not leave when you did win it
back? I might decide to try again, would you? It might take me another
five tries or so, eh?]
You are an idiot. I have repeatedly described what your advantage is, as a probability of 100/101 with a $100 bankroll.
Play your way enough, and you will lose your bankroll. The net expectation for your version of the game is 0.
HAVING A LARGE ADVANTAGE DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU CAN WIN EVERY SINGLE TIME.
You appear incapable of understanding this fact.
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 8:26:12 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/7/2023 7:16 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
You appear incapable of understanding this fact.
You can't handle the "fact".
The "advantage" I have with "my version" of the game is that I only have
to win ONE TIME. I will win one time when I play with you for $100
chips ... I will win $100. That is why I will win every "single" time I
play. That is why you will NOT PLAY when I only need to win one chip.
It does indeed mean I have an advantage.
BTW ... if I leave with a single $100 chip ... are the odds of the next
guy in line? 50/50? 49/51 or 50/50 every single time ... what has
bankroll got to do with the odds of each coin toss? I thought if you
play long enough everyone goes back and forth until they even up again
and again and again ... ... and again.
Don't redefine the game again, Tim just answer the simple question.
I will win your single $100 chip and walk away ... every single time we
play ... that is why you will not play ... you "can't" walk away one
chip ahead ... I can.
You have no idea what you are talking about. 'Expectation' is a single value which depends on the probability distribution involved.
I will write this one more time:
With a bankroll of $B, playing one chip at a time, you quit when you win $1, or lose $B
You win your $1 with a probability of B/(B+1), and lose $B with a probability of 1/(B+1), so you are much more likely to win than lose.
However, the expectation is (+1)*100/101+(-B)*1/101 = $0
No amount of bluster will change that.
This is indeed one case of the Gambler's Ruin problem, as you can see in the section on Huygen's result ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin )
just choose one amount to be $B, and the other $1, since all you want to do is win $1
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:45:03 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/8/2023 2:38 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
This is indeed one case of the Gambler's Ruin problem, as you can see in the section on Huygen's result ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin )
just choose one amount to be $B, and the other $1, since all you want to do is win $1
No amount of changing the bet helps you at all.
QUESTION: Given enough time, what are the chances I can come out ahead
in a coin toss contest?
ANSWER #1: 100%, for the same reason as the 1-D walk
In fact (again for the same reason), your chances are 100% of eventually
reaching X-greater heads than tails (or tails than heads), where X is
any non-negative integer.
ANSWER #2: The question can be answered using Catalan numbers. Let C_n
denote the number of sequences of 2n coin tosses in which you are never
ahead. Formally, we count sequences in which every prefix has no less
T's than H's. We call this property A.
The number of total sequences of length 2n is 22n
. We then show that as n→∞, the ratio Cn/22n
tends to 0. This means that in almost every sequence you will
eventually be ahead (the chances of a random sequence having property A
tend to 0 as the sequence gets longer).
Indeed,
Cn=(2n)!(n+1)!n!
so
Cn/22n=(2n)!22n⋅1(n+1)!n!
and it can be shown that this tends to 0 by Stirling's approximation
(multiply and divide by (2n/e)2n
).
Want to deny the "advantage" any more?
[He who can STOP will win.]
Will you play me for your $100 chip? Yes or No?
Nice try. Did you write this yourself, or copy it from somewhere?
There is no contradiction with what I told you, since the analysis you have implicitly assumes an infinite bankroll.
On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 7:06:17 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/9/2023 8:50 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:45:03 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:No answer.
On 12/8/2023 2:38 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
This is indeed one case of the Gambler's Ruin problem, as you can see in the section on Huygen's result ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin )
just choose one amount to be $B, and the other $1, since all you want to do is win $1
No amount of changing the bet helps you at all.
QUESTION: Given enough time, what are the chances I can come out ahead >>>> in a coin toss contest?
ANSWER #1: 100%, for the same reason as the 1-D walk
In fact (again for the same reason), your chances are 100% of eventually >>>> reaching X-greater heads than tails (or tails than heads), where X is
any non-negative integer.
ANSWER #2: The question can be answered using Catalan numbers. Let C_n >>>> denote the number of sequences of 2n coin tosses in which you are never >>>> ahead. Formally, we count sequences in which every prefix has no less
T's than H's. We call this property A.
The number of total sequences of length 2n is 22n
. We then show that as n→∞, the ratio Cn/22n
tends to 0. This means that in almost every sequence you will
eventually be ahead (the chances of a random sequence having property A >>>> tend to 0 as the sequence gets longer).
Indeed,
Cn=(2n)!(n+1)!n!
so
Cn/22n=(2n)!22n⋅1(n+1)!n!
and it can be shown that this tends to 0 by Stirling's approximation
(multiply and divide by (2n/e)2n
).
Want to deny the "advantage" any more?
[He who can STOP will win.]
Will you play me for your $100 chip? Yes or No?
Nice try. Did you write this yourself, or copy it from somewhere?I copied it from a Mathematics site.
There is no contradiction with what I told you, since the analysis you have implicitly assumes an infinite bankroll.No, it does not ... what it says is that each player gets ahead one bet
over and over again. It is the player that "quits" after one bet that
"wins".
Will you play me for your $100 chip? You could win a hundred hundreds?
You could likely win 2 or 3 or even 4 hundreds ... if you could quit ...
but you cannot ... only I can quit while I am ahead one (or two?). It
will happen every time we play. I'll let the next guy in line try to
win more than one or two. You are the house ... keep playing. Maybe
someday you will win hundreds ... but I doubt it.
Answer a simple question ... or run away.
Beautiful. Now you don't even understand what you wrote.
On 12/9/2023 8:50 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:45:03 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/8/2023 2:38 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
This is indeed one case of the Gambler's Ruin problem, as you can
see in the section on Huygen's result (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin )
just choose one amount to be $B, and the other $1, since all you
want to do is win $1
No amount of changing the bet helps you at all.
QUESTION: Given enough time, what are the chances I can come out ahead
in a coin toss contest?
ANSWER #1: 100%, for the same reason as the 1-D walk
In fact (again for the same reason), your chances are 100% of eventually >>> reaching X-greater heads than tails (or tails than heads), where X is
any non-negative integer.
ANSWER #2: The question can be answered using Catalan numbers. Let C_n
denote the number of sequences of 2n coin tosses in which you are never
ahead. Formally, we count sequences in which every prefix has no less
T's than H's. We call this property A.
The number of total sequences of length 2n is 22n
. We then show that as n→∞, the ratio Cn/22n
tends to 0. This means that in almost every sequence you will
eventually be ahead (the chances of a random sequence having property A
tend to 0 as the sequence gets longer).
Indeed,
Cn=(2n)!(n+1)!n!
so
Cn/22n=(2n)!22n⋅1(n+1)!n!
and it can be shown that this tends to 0 by Stirling's approximation
(multiply and divide by (2n/e)2n
).
Want to deny the "advantage" any more?
[He who can STOP will win.]
Will you play me for your $100 chip? Yes or No?
No answer.
Nice try. Did you write this yourself, or copy it from somewhere?
I copied it from a Mathematics site.
There is no contradiction with what I told you, since the analysis you
have implicitly assumes an infinite bankroll.
No, it does not ... what it says is that each player gets ahead one bet
over and over again. It is the player that "quits" after one bet that "wins".
Will you play me for your $100 chip? You could win a hundred hundreds?
You could likely win 2 or 3 or even 4 hundreds ... if you could quit ...
but you cannot ... only I can quit while I am ahead one (or two?). It
will happen every time we play. I'll let the next guy in line try to
win more than one or two. You are the house ... keep playing. Maybe someday you will win hundreds ... but I doubt it.
Answer a simple question ... or run away.
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 10:46:02 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
You should have read the others first. Now run away again.
Or just say I will win the Say Red game.
I think I am done with this. When you post stuff that you don't comprehend and declare victory, that is a symptom of complete divorce from reality.
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 5:33:56 PM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:bet over and over again. It is the player that "quits" after one bet
No, it does not ... what it says is that each player gets ahead one
Will you play me for your $100 chip? You could win a hundredhundreds? You could likely win 2 or 3 or even 4 hundreds ... if you
Answer a simple question ... or run away.
Answer a simple question ... or run away.Still no answer. Still running.
You have issues.
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:07:17 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:16:04 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 12/11/2023 7:49 PM, BillB wrote:.
On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 5:33:56 PM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:bet over and over again. It is the player that "quits" after one bet
No, it does not ... what it says is that each player gets ahead one
that "wins".
hundreds? You could likely win 2 or 3 or even 4 hundreds ... if you
Will you play me for your $100 chip? You could win a hundred
could quit ... but you cannot ... only I can quit while I am ahead one
(or two?). It will happen every time we play. I'll let the next guy in
line try to win more than one or two. You are the house ... keep
playing. Maybe someday you will win hundreds ... but I doubt it.
Answer a simple question ... or run away.
Still no answer. Still running.
So, Tim uses Blab this time to cut the meat and dodge away!Answer a simple question ... or run away.Still no answer. Still running.
You have issues.
Tim finally realized this is not a Martingale situation ... it is simply >>> a roulette wheel red and black WITHOUT a 0 and/or double 0.
There is a reason why those 0's are there. Someone "could" walk away a
winner betting $100 on red until he/she/it was ahead $100.
Maybe Tim's Jerry version will arrive. This is a dead group because of
you three.
Even a REAL gambling idea gets dodged.
*** AND AGAIN ***
LOL. You're the idiot gift that keeps on giving and giving and giving and giving...
Just to be clear, I take no immediate pleasure from someone else being wrong. I want to teach people to be correct.
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:44:41 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: There are well-established studies which go back centuries which say that you are wrong. Go and argue with them, or just remain a crank.
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 2:04:23 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/14/2023 12:01 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:44:41 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>> There are well-established studies which go back centuries which say that you are wrong. Go and argue with them, or just remain a crank.You never posted even one study.
I bet you $100 that I would win your $1 chip if I limited my bankroll to
$100. You said only a fool would take my bet. WHY, but cause I had an
advantage over you.
I did indeed. Go look up Huygens and the Gambler's Ruin problem
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:but long term, it is expectation 0.
On 12/14/2023 8:30 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 2:04:23 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:That bet was to finally shake you back to reality. That is not the bet
On 12/14/2023 12:01 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:44:41 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>> There are well-established studies which go back centuries which say that you are wrong. Go and argue with them, or just remain a crank.You never posted even one study.
I bet you $100 that I would win your $1 chip if I limited my bankroll to >>>> $100. You said only a fool would take my bet. WHY, but cause I had an
advantage over you.
I did indeed. Go look up Huygens and the Gambler's Ruin problem
you are still dodging. Just stick to the first proposition.
Say Red for $1 ... I will stop when I net your starting $1 chip ... I
have a secret bankroll ... I have an advantage to get ahead a net $1
chip ... I will quit when I get that net $1 (every time) which is the
first time it happens ... I will let another try "next" time, if you
will let them. It could be only one play ... it will not take me long
... maybe ... you could win a lot of money if you get my bankroll ...
why not take the chance that you will stay ahead after the first play
for a long, long, long, long time and win LOTS of money.
[We all know you will not even start when it is a $100 chip I am after.]
He who can leave ahead wins 50/50 games almost every single time, if
their bankroll is "enough" to play for a "while". What are the odds?
I have carefully explained this several times. If you bet $1 per trial with a bankroll of $B, you will manage to get to $(B+1) exactly B/(B+1) of the time, and lose your whole bankroll 1/(B+1) of the time. You have the advantage doing your game once,
On 12/15/2023 9:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/14/2023 8:30 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 2:04:23 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/14/2023 12:01 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:44:41 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:You never posted even one study.
There are well-established studies which go back centuries which say
that you are wrong. Go and argue with them, or just remain a crank.
I bet you $100 that I would win your $1 chip if I limited my bankroll to
$100. You said only a fool would take my bet. WHY, but cause I had an advantage over you.
I did indeed. Go look up Huygens and the Gambler's Ruin problemThat bet was to finally shake you back to reality. That is not the bet you are still dodging. Just stick to the first proposition.
Say Red for $1 ... I will stop when I net your starting $1 chip ... I have a secret bankroll ... I have an advantage to get ahead a net $1
chip ... I will quit when I get that net $1 (every time) which is the first time it happens ... I will let another try "next" time, if you
will let them. It could be only one play ... it will not take me long
... maybe ... you could win a lot of money if you get my bankroll ...
why not take the chance that you will stay ahead after the first play
for a long, long, long, long time and win LOTS of money.
[We all know you will not even start when it is a $100 chip I am after.]
He who can leave ahead wins 50/50 games almost every single time, if their bankroll is "enough" to play for a "while". What are the odds?
I have carefully explained this several times. If you bet $1 per trial with a bankroll of $B, you will manage to get to $(B+1) exactly B/(B+1) of the time, and lose your whole bankroll 1/(B+1) of the time. You have the advantage doing your game once, but long term, it is expectation 0.
Quote: "You have the advantage doing your game once"
Finally, you admit that I have an "advantage" if I quit while I am ahead
and never play you again. Thanks, Tim.
On Dec 16, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<[email protected]>):
On 12/15/2023 9:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/14/2023 8:30 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 2:04:23 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 12/14/2023 12:01 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:That bet was to finally shake you back to reality. That is not the bet >>>> you are still dodging. Just stick to the first proposition.
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:44:41 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
There are well-established studies which go back centuries which say >>>>>>> that you are wrong. Go and argue with them, or just remain a crank. >>>>>> You never posted even one study.
I bet you $100 that I would win your $1 chip if I limited my bankroll to >>>>>> $100. You said only a fool would take my bet. WHY, but cause I had an >>>>>> advantage over you.
I did indeed. Go look up Huygens and the Gambler's Ruin problem
Say Red for $1 ... I will stop when I net your starting $1 chip ... I
have a secret bankroll ... I have an advantage to get ahead a net $1
chip ... I will quit when I get that net $1 (every time) which is the
first time it happens ... I will let another try "next" time, if you
will let them. It could be only one play ... it will not take me long
... maybe ... you could win a lot of money if you get my bankroll ...
why not take the chance that you will stay ahead after the first play
for a long, long, long, long time and win LOTS of money.
[We all know you will not even start when it is a $100 chip I am after.] >>>>
He who can leave ahead wins 50/50 games almost every single time, if
their bankroll is "enough" to play for a "while". What are the odds?
I have carefully explained this several times. If you bet $1 per trial with >>> a bankroll of $B, you will manage to get to $(B+1) exactly B/(B+1) of the >>> time, and lose your whole bankroll 1/(B+1) of the time. You have the
advantage doing your game once, but long term, it is expectation 0.
Quote: "You have the advantage doing your game once"
Finally, you admit that I have an "advantage" if I quit while I am ahead
and never play you again. Thanks, Tim.
Like I said in my other reply just now, you have become Jerry, and you cannot read. You claimed to have an advantage in the say red game. You do not, and have been told that over and over. You have wrapped a risk of ruin proposition around that game by giving one player 100 bets, and the other 1 bet. The player with 100 bets has what a silly person would call an advantage in that it is 100:1 that he will win that one chip before his opponent wins his 100 chips, but it remains a ZERO EV game. But that “advantage" has nothing to do with the say red game. I am pretty sure that you are one of the two people who insisted that they could get an advantage in say red by tracking the red/black cards to look for a surplus of red cards, just like card counting. That is a very common error and no big deal, but I believe that you finally realized that you were mistaken, and couldn’t live with it, and just kept trying to weasel out of the claim by changing and changing and changing the story about how you could get an advantage. You failed.
On 12/16/2023 10:35 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 16, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<[email protected]>):
On 12/15/2023 9:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/14/2023 8:30 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 2:04:23 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/14/2023 12:01 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:44:41 AM UTC-5, da pickleYou never posted even one study.
wrote:
There are well-established studies which go back centuries which say
that you are wrong. Go and argue with them, or just remain a crank.
I bet you $100 that I would win your $1 chip if I limited my bankroll
to
$100. You said only a fool would take my bet. WHY, but cause I had an
advantage over you.
I did indeed. Go look up Huygens and the Gambler's Ruin problemThat bet was to finally shake you back to reality. That is not the bet
you are still dodging. Just stick to the first proposition.
Say Red for $1 ... I will stop when I net your starting $1 chip ... I have a secret bankroll ... I have an advantage to get ahead a net $1 chip ... I will quit when I get that net $1 (every time) which is the first time it happens ... I will let another try "next" time, if you will let them. It could be only one play ... it will not take me long ... maybe ... you could win a lot of money if you get my bankroll ... why not take the chance that you will stay ahead after the first play for a long, long, long, long time and win LOTS of money.
[We all know you will not even start when it is a $100 chip I am after.]
He who can leave ahead wins 50/50 games almost every single time, if their bankroll is "enough" to play for a "while". What are the odds?
I have carefully explained this several times. If you bet $1 per trial with
a bankroll of $B, you will manage to get to $(B+1) exactly B/(B+1) of the
time, and lose your whole bankroll 1/(B+1) of the time. You have the advantage doing your game once, but long term, it is expectation 0.
Quote: "You have the advantage doing your game once"
Finally, you admit that I have an "advantage" if I quit while I am ahead and never play you again. Thanks, Tim.
Like I said in my other reply just now, you have become Jerry, and you cannot
read. You claimed to have an advantage in the say red game. You do not, and have been told that over and over. You have wrapped a risk of ruin proposition around that game by giving one player 100 bets, and the other 1 bet. The player with 100 bets has what a silly person would call an advantage
in that it is 100:1 that he will win that one chip before his opponent wins his 100 chips, but it remains a ZERO EV game. But that “advantage" has nothing to do with the say red game. I am pretty sure that you are one of the
two people who insisted that they could get an advantage in say red by tracking the red/black cards to look for a surplus of red cards, just like card counting. That is a very common error and no big deal, but I believe that you finally realized that you were mistaken, and couldn’t live with it, and just kept trying to weasel out of the claim by changing and changing
and changing the story about how you could get an advantage. You failed.
Tim just admitted I have an advantage ... did you miss that.
[Say Red ... I am only playing the last card in the deck with a fair automatic shuffler ... I am presuming it is very close to 50/50 ... I am
NOT "tracking" the cards.]
Let us do it this way. You have 100 bets and I have a 100 bets. I am
leaving when I have 101 (on maybe more, but you only know about the
hundred) ... you cannot leave when you have 101 or 102 or 103 or any
other amount. I will play for $100 chips but you do not need but one.
You might win all my chips if I run out completely. Why will you not
jump on this deal?
I really do believe you just misunderstand the whole idea.
On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 11:35:36 AM UTC-5, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 16, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<[email protected]>):
On 12/15/2023 9:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/14/2023 8:30 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 2:04:23 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/14/2023 12:01 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:44:41 AM UTC-5, da pickleYou never posted even one study.
wrote:
There are well-established studies which go back centuries which say
that you are wrong. Go and argue with them, or just remain a crank.
I bet you $100 that I would win your $1 chip if I limited my bankroll
to
$100. You said only a fool would take my bet. WHY, but cause I had an
advantage over you.
I did indeed. Go look up Huygens and the Gambler's Ruin problemThat bet was to finally shake you back to reality. That is not the bet
you are still dodging. Just stick to the first proposition.
Say Red for $1 ... I will stop when I net your starting $1 chip ... I have a secret bankroll ... I have an advantage to get ahead a net $1 chip ... I will quit when I get that net $1 (every time) which is the first time it happens ... I will let another try "next" time, if you will let them. It could be only one play ... it will not take me long ... maybe ... you could win a lot of money if you get my bankroll ... why not take the chance that you will stay ahead after the first play for a long, long, long, long time and win LOTS of money.
[We all know you will not even start when it is a $100 chip I am after.]
He who can leave ahead wins 50/50 games almost every single time, if their bankroll is "enough" to play for a "while". What are the odds?
I have carefully explained this several times. If you bet $1 per trial with
a bankroll of $B, you will manage to get to $(B+1) exactly B/(B+1) of the
time, and lose your whole bankroll 1/(B+1) of the time. You have the advantage doing your game once, but long term, it is expectation 0.
Quote: "You have the advantage doing your game once"
Finally, you admit that I have an "advantage" if I quit while I am ahead and never play you again. Thanks, Tim.Like I said in my other reply just now, you have become Jerry, and you cannot
read. You claimed to have an advantage in the say red game. You do not, and have been told that over and over. You have wrapped a risk of ruin proposition around that game by giving one player 100 bets, and the other 1 bet. The player with 100 bets has what a silly person would call an advantage
in that it is 100:1 that he will win that one chip before his opponent wins his 100 chips, but it remains a ZERO EV game. But that “advantage" has nothing to do with the say red game. I am pretty sure that you are one of the
two people who insisted that they could get an advantage in say red by tracking the red/black cards to look for a surplus of red cards, just like card counting. That is a very common error and no big deal, but I believe that you finally realized that you were mistaken, and couldn’t live with it, and just kept trying to weasel out of the claim by changing and changing
and changing the story about how you could get an advantage. You failed.
I have been at this with him for months.
Assuming that he is not a troll, it appears that
1. He equates 'having an advantage in a single trial' as 'winning every single time'
2. He honestly thinks that he can always win, even with negative expectation games.
On Dec 16, 2023, da pickle wrote
I really do believe you just misunderstand the whole idea.
No, Jerry, I understand. What I will never understand is why you are so obsessed with trying to get Tim to admit that you are right, and he is wrong, and why you are claiming that he actually did that. You have become totally dishonest in this thread, and I never expected that from you.
On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 11:35:36 AM UTC-5, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 16, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<[email protected]>):
On 12/15/2023 9:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Like I said in my other reply just now, you have become Jerry, and you cannot
On Friday, December 15, 2023 at 9:11:16 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/14/2023 8:30 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 2:04:23 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/14/2023 12:01 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:That bet was to finally shake you back to reality. That is not the bet >>>>> you are still dodging. Just stick to the first proposition.
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:44:41 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
There are well-established studies which go back centuries which say >>>>>>>> that you are wrong. Go and argue with them, or just remain a crank. >>>>>>> You never posted even one study.
I bet you $100 that I would win your $1 chip if I limited my bankroll to
$100. You said only a fool would take my bet. WHY, but cause I had an >>>>>>> advantage over you.
I did indeed. Go look up Huygens and the Gambler's Ruin problem
Say Red for $1 ... I will stop when I net your starting $1 chip ... I >>>>> have a secret bankroll ... I have an advantage to get ahead a net $1 >>>>> chip ... I will quit when I get that net $1 (every time) which is the >>>>> first time it happens ... I will let another try "next" time, if you >>>>> will let them. It could be only one play ... it will not take me long >>>>> ... maybe ... you could win a lot of money if you get my bankroll ... >>>>> why not take the chance that you will stay ahead after the first play >>>>> for a long, long, long, long time and win LOTS of money.
[We all know you will not even start when it is a $100 chip I am after.] >>>>>
He who can leave ahead wins 50/50 games almost every single time, if >>>>> their bankroll is "enough" to play for a "while". What are the odds?
I have carefully explained this several times. If you bet $1 per trial with
a bankroll of $B, you will manage to get to $(B+1) exactly B/(B+1) of the >>>> time, and lose your whole bankroll 1/(B+1) of the time. You have the
advantage doing your game once, but long term, it is expectation 0.
Quote: "You have the advantage doing your game once"
Finally, you admit that I have an "advantage" if I quit while I am ahead >>> and never play you again. Thanks, Tim.
read. You claimed to have an advantage in the say red game. You do not, and >> have been told that over and over. You have wrapped a risk of ruin
proposition around that game by giving one player 100 bets, and the other 1 >> bet. The player with 100 bets has what a silly person would call an advantage
in that it is 100:1 that he will win that one chip before his opponent wins >> his 100 chips, but it remains a ZERO EV game. But that “advantage" has
nothing to do with the say red game. I am pretty sure that you are one of the
two people who insisted that they could get an advantage in say red by
tracking the red/black cards to look for a surplus of red cards, just like >> card counting. That is a very common error and no big deal, but I believe
that you finally realized that you were mistaken, and couldn’t live with >> it, and just kept trying to weasel out of the claim by changing and changing >> and changing the story about how you could get an advantage. You failed.
I have been at this with him for months.
Assuming that he is not a troll, it appears that
1. He equates 'having an advantage in a single trial' as 'winning every single time'
2. He honestly thinks that he can always win, even with negative expectation games.
On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 9:30:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/16/2023 12:43 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 16, 2023, da pickle wroteTim said
I really do believe you just misunderstand the whole idea.
No, Jerry, I understand. What I will never understand is why you are so
obsessed with trying to get Tim to admit that you are right, and he is wrong,
and why you are claiming that he actually did that. You have become totally >>> dishonest in this thread, and I never expected that from you.
"You have the advantage doing your game once"
When you play a 50/50 game, the one bet ahead goes back and forth from
one side to the other ... if you only play to win one bet, you get it on
the first try or maybe the one after the even money return.
What if you never get ahead?
On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 2:27:05 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/17/2023 12:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2023 at 9:30:20 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/16/2023 12:43 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 16, 2023, da pickle wroteTim said
I really do believe you just misunderstand the whole idea.
No, Jerry, I understand. What I will never understand is why you are so >>>>> obsessed with trying to get Tim to admit that you are right, and he is wrong,
and why you are claiming that he actually did that. You have become totally
dishonest in this thread, and I never expected that from you.
"You have the advantage doing your game once"
When you play a 50/50 game, the one bet ahead goes back and forth from >>>> one side to the other ... if you only play to win one bet, you get it on >>>> the first try or maybe the one after the even money return.
What if you never get ahead?
Would you like to try? It would only cost you $100 and you could win
thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars!
So, you can't answer a simple question?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 714 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 134:05:33 |
| Calls: | 12,087 |
| Files: | 14,997 |
| Messages: | 6,517,351 |
