Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[notorial dissent]

Yes but back in the black and white days they didn't have access to horse de-wormer did they.

Actually a good plug of chawin' tobaccy works about as well and is/was a whole lot cheaper and was readily available.

[longdog]

Yes but back in the black and white days they didn't have access to horse de-wormer did they.

Actually a good plug of chawin' tobaccy works about as well and is/was a whole lot cheaper and was readily available.

I'd forgotten about the alleged de-worming properties of tobacco. I've had it suggested for my dogs. Because potentially fatal tobacco at how-fucking-much? per gramme is the obvious choice.

[notorial dissent]

Yes but back in the black and white days they didn't have access to horse de-wormer did they.

Actually a good plug of chawin' tobaccy works about as well and is/was a whole lot cheaper and was readily available.

I'd forgotten about the alleged de-worming properties of tobacco. I've had it suggested for my dogs. Because potentially fatal tobacco at how-fucking-much? per gramme is the obvious choice.

I wouldn't try it on anything other than equine, or bovine, maybe porcine, large animals, as tobacco is/nicotine is toxic. Dogs require something else due to their sensitivities and I don't remember what is used, but I'm pretty sure it isn't Ivermectin.

[eric]

Ivermectin is the standard de-wormer for livestock, sheep, horses, and poultry, also for dogs and cats. The primary difference between the different versions of it is the absorption rate of the drug, administration method, and making it palatable for oral administration. In my pig farming days (now retired) we used a version of it optimized for pigs and poultry in their drinking water. For horses it is supposed to have an artificial apple taste, what we used had a very sour lemony flavor which the pigs loved. The supposed anti-covid properties of ivermectin I believe is based on the fact that for pigs at least it decreases the immune response to certain infections which is supposed to help with covid if your pigs ever get it - no reported cases of porkers getting it as far as I know. Of course my dogs and cats haven't caught it either for that matter.

[longdog]

I wouldn't try it on anything other than equine, or bovine, maybe porcine, large animals, as tobacco is/nicotine is toxic. Dogs require something else due to their sensitivities and I don't remember what is used, but I'm pretty sure it isn't Ivermectin.

Nasty stuff and people have wound up nearly dead or really dead from home-made tobacco based insecticides. If you have no tolerance for nicotine it's very dangerous indeed.

[letissier14]

Ivermectin is the standard de-wormer for livestock, sheep, horses, and poultry, also for dogs and cats. The primary difference between the different versions of it is the absorption rate of the drug, administration method, and making it palatable for oral administration. In my pig farming days (now retired) we used a version of it optimized for pigs and poultry in their drinking water. For horses it is supposed to have an artificial apple taste, what we used had a very sour lemony flavor which the pigs loved. The supposed anti-covid properties of ivermectin I believe is based on the fact that for pigs at least it decreases the immune response to certain infections which is supposed to help with covid if your pigs ever get it - no reported cases of porkers getting it as far as I know. Of course my dogs and cats haven't caught it either for that matter.

Ivermectin is also a treatment for various human conditions. There are also many ongoing medical studies on Ivermectin being used to treat Covid-19

[Pottapaug1938]

Ivermectin is the standard de-wormer for livestock, sheep, horses, and poultry, also for dogs and cats. The primary difference between the different versions of it is the absorption rate of the drug, administration method, and making it palatable for oral administration. In my pig farming days (now retired) we used a version of it optimized for pigs and poultry in their drinking water. For horses it is supposed to have an artificial apple taste, what we used had a very sour lemony flavor which the pigs loved. The supposed anti-covid properties of ivermectin I believe is based on the fact that for pigs at least it decreases the immune response to certain infections which is supposed to help with covid if your pigs ever get it - no reported cases of porkers getting it as far as I know. Of course my dogs and cats haven't caught it either for that matter.

Ivermectin is also a treatment for various human conditions. There are also many ongoing medical studies on Ivermectin being used to treat Covid-19

Yet, no study has credibly shown that Ivermectin has any utility in treating COVID-19.

That being said, there is a danger of this thread devolving into a political battle; and if it happens, and someone else does not put a stop to it, I will.

[longdog]

Yet, no study has credibly shown that Ivermectin has any utility in treating COVID-19.

That being said, there is a danger of this thread devolving into a political battle; and if it happens, and someone else does not put a stop to it, I will.

Sorry but I fail to see how the discussion of science and evidence based medicine is even close to a political issue in the UK forum other than in the widest sense of the word "political".

The fact it has become a politically partisan issue in the less developed parts of a certain colony doesn't mean it is here. The only significant partisan divide in the UK is between rationalists and morons.

Much like the way religion and politics is inextricably linked in the US but in the UK that link is mostly the realm of the crank... Religious, political or both.

[The Observer]

Sorry but I fail to see how the discussion of science and evidence based medicine is even close to a political issue in the UK forum other than in the widest sense of the word "political".

The issue is that we already have two sides on this board lining up on opposite sides of the ivermectin issue and ready to debate the pros and cons. It doesn't take a mental giant to see where this will probably lead, and neither side will be willing to give in, since they think the science is on their side. At that point it becomes political and pointless. The moderators are just heading the combatants off the pass. There are plenty of places to debate the viability or lack thereof of ivermectin. But not here.

[longdog]

The issue is that we already have two sides on this board lining up on opposite sides of the ivermectin issue and ready to debate the pros and cons.

Isn't that the whole point of forums? Are you seriously suggesting we steer clear of any issue that might be contentious and all agree that puppies are rather sweet but some people find kittens sweeter? That sounds like a very good way to kill the forum stone dead to me.

I mean... Imagine there being two sides to an issue... Oh the horror... Oh the humanity!

It doesn't take a mental giant to see where this will probably lead, and neither side will be willing to give in, since they think the science is on their side.

You clearly have a far lower opinion of my fellow Quatloosians than I do.

At that point it becomes political and pointless.

No... It really doesn't. It only becomes political if you arbitrarily decide it is. And you can do that with the thorny cute puppies vs cute kittens issue too.

The moderators are just heading the combatants off the pass. There are plenty of places to debate the viability or lack thereof of ivermectin. But not here.

There are plenty of places to debate a lot of the off-topic stuff that gets debated here... What of it?

[Pottapaug1938]

What of it? I'll tell you what of it -- threads get bogged down by political arguments which have little or nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which in this case is Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh. Unless Waugh is pushing quack remedies for the coronavirus, discussions of coronavirus treatments and medical policies have no place here.

[longdog]

What of it? I'll tell you what of it -- threads get bogged down by political arguments which have little or nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which in this case is Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh. Unless Waugh is pushing quack remedies for the coronavirus, discussions of coronavirus treatments and medical policies have no place here.

Mate... Seriously... You have just made a comment on Jacquie Phoenix's personal attractiveness which has precisely fuck all to do with the topic of that thread and doesn't exactly cast you in very good light. We all know she's an idiot. The fact she doesn't give you the horn is of supreme irrelevance to the PLD thread.

Glass houses? Stones?

The only "redress" which Jacquie will get is when she takes one dress off, and puts another dress on.

Be thankful that she is putting another dress on.

I am -- I don't want to be struck blind.

Strangely enough I think borderline misogyny and not-borderline objectification of women is a political issue where as clearly you don't. So that's a big QED for my puppies vs kittens = politics analogy.

[Pottapaug1938]

What of it? I'll tell you what of it -- threads get bogged down by political arguments which have little or nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which in this case is Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh. Unless Waugh is pushing quack remedies for the coronavirus, discussions of coronavirus treatments and medical policies have no place here.

Mate... Seriously... You have just made a comment on Jacquie Phoenix's personal attractiveness which has precisely fuck all to do with the topic of that thread and doesn't exactly cast you in very good light. We all know she's an idiot. The fact she doesn't give you the horn is of supreme irrelevance to the PLD thread.

Glass houses? Stones?

Be thankful that she is putting another dress on.

I am -- I don't want to be struck blind.

Strangely enough I think borderline misogyny and not-borderline objectification of women is a political issue where as clearly you don't. So that's a big QED for my puppies vs kittens = politics analogy.

Actually, I don't know what Jacquie looks like -- I never watch her videos. "Giving the horn" is a slang term unknown to me; but if it means what I think that it means, I would not be interested in getting the horn even if she were drop-dead gorgeous. I'm happily married, and choose to remain so.

At any rate, I deleted the post in question. I disagree that it's a QED; but that disagreement is not a good subject for further debate.

[The Observer]

Isn't that the whole point of forums?

But that really isn't the format for this forum, unless we have someone like Michael of Bernicia or his adherents coming here to debate what he is pushing.

Are you seriously suggesting we steer clear of any issue that might be contentious and all agree that puppies are rather sweet but some people find kittens sweeter?

That is pretty much what I am suggesting. The background on this is that a decade or ago, this site came very close to being shut down because we allowed people to get into irrelevant arguments over politics and religion. This usually happened due to topic drift that injected a political/religious issue or event into the thread. That comment would cause someone from the "other side" to react and express their argument or opposition. That subsequently led to more people from both "sides" joining in. It only took one or two uncivilized persons to toss in an ad hominem or personal insult at the opposition and the topic denigrated into anger, hostility and some vulgar exchanges at the expense of the target's gender, sexual preference, religion, race, etc. We lost members, particularly from law enforcement and the legal field (whom were valued contributors as well as providing them research info for their own work) simply due to the toxic environment that the site had become.

A few of the worse offenders (including a moderator) were banned from the site and a bright line was established against politics and religious topics or comments being posted. That rule has allowed the site to continue and some of its reputation to be cleaned up.

That sounds like a very good way to kill the forum stone dead to me.

As I think you can see from above, your argument would have resulted in the site being closed. Even if your opinion that the site will die has some merit, I'd rather have it die a lingering death over time rather than being killed and going out with a bad reputation.

You clearly have a far lower opinion of my fellow Quatloosians than I do.

I probably do, since Quatloosians are made of human beings and I have seen continual proof of what humans are capable of doing to bring about the worst of circumstances. Of course the argument can be made, and it's a valid one, that it's only a handful of people that are responsible for much of the bad behavior. There are a number of people on this site that I have had political discussions with, such as wserra and Pottapaug who are diametrically opposed to me, but they were civil and respectful discussions and we didn't end up carrying grudges against each other. And I enjoyed those exchanges. But having gone through the ugly escapade of 10 years ago, I'd rather not risk repeating it for the sake of the site.

No... It really doesn't. It only becomes political if you arbitrarily decide it is.

Yes it does. I have experienced it here. You haven't experienced it here.

There are plenty of places to debate a lot of the off-topic stuff that gets debated here... What of it?

That was a polite suggestion from me that if a person really need to make posts about these kinds of banned topics, then you can do so at those other sites and not have to worry about your comments being deleted. Off-topic does happen - but just because it does doesn't justify allowing it to continue to the detriment of the thread.

So at this point, this discussion about what is politics/religion is now closed. We have a rule that is not up for debate and the moderators and administrators do enforce it. We just ask that members respect that rule and keep their posts on-topic.

[Burnaby49]

Years ago the British contributions suddenly sprung up out of nowhere in massive volumes. We can thank Tom Crawford for that. In any case we had the identical argument then. This is what I posted at the time

Quatloos Rules

No political discussions.

No religious discussions

No commercial advertising

No misquoting people

No racist or sexist comments

No accusing another memberof lying or CoC violations with providing proof at time of accusation

No temper tantrums

No changing history (editing your posts for anything other than grammar, punctuation or formatting

Do not quote dissent unless 1) it later became law OR you are arguing FOR a change of law

No cross-posting

Do not register and/or use multiple logins without the express permission of an admin.

Do not attempt to circumvent a ban or other punishment

There are few formal stated rules but just guidelines to keep things civil and at least semi-professional. The two big ones are the ban on discussions of religion and politics.

A little background for you UK contributors who weren't here for the great purge of 2012. I joined up in late 2011 and Quatloos was largely focused on its mission exposing of scams, tax fraud, sovereigns, freemen etc. We even allowed flame wars, some of which got quite vile. One contributor, in particular, seemed to post here for no other purpose than to be grossly offensive. When arguments got out of hand they were transferred to a specific section called "Flame Wars and Other Pissing Contests". Great fun I suppose, I didn't participate in them.

But it all went to hell with the 2012 American presidential election. Things just somehow blew up into one partisan acrimonious argument after another about Obama and Romney, some of it very offensive. Political squabbling overwhelmed the site and threatened to destroy Quatloos's reputation as an objective investigative source of information on it's primary goals. A lot of previous followers just stopped reading it. So Jay, the site's founder and owner, took action and had a purge. All the political postings were deleted and many contributors who participated here for no other purpose than to argue about issues irrelevant to Quatloos's purpose were banned and all their postings, on any topics, deleted. I'd say over half of the listed contributors were purged. The individual I noted above was one of them. Along with that Jay did some housekeeping and deleted the mass of casual posters who had just dabbled a few times but had contributed nothing.

Then the moderators (I wasn't one at the time) got together and set up some firm rules about allowed topics and contributor conduct to get things back on track. No flame wars, no politics, no religion are the primary ones. Topics are expected to stick to the intent of the site. In my opinion entirely beneficial. I pretty much dropped out of the site in mid 2012 because of all the pointless arguing and political ranting. None of it had anything to do with why I'd been contributing. Also offensive racial, sexual and religious comments are right out and can get you banned entirely if egregious enough.

Religion, as a general topic, is out for the same reason as politics. Again, in 2012, posters started totally pointless religious squabbles. They often got quite heated and were irrelevant to the site's purpose. However religion is an acceptable topic in the context of scams and Freemen discussion but only in respect to how religion is an integral part of the scam. If you read my Ed Belanger postings it is all about Christianity and the King James bible because these are the foundations of Belanger's ploys to entice suckers to follow his scams. I don't given my opinion of Christianity or any other religion but I discuss how Belanger uses it to manipulate people like the Volks into screwing up their lives.

One issue that has divided the moderators is the banning of certain contributors. Philosophically we are against it, the site welcomes diverse opinions. You won't get banned here for arguing in favour of scammers like Ceylon or disagreeing with other posters as long as you keep it civil. The relatively few posters who have been banned after the Great Purge were not kicked out because of their opinions but because of their conduct or because they were just trolls. Even those were the subject of much moderator discussion and warnings first.

As you can tell from my postings some laxity is allowed as long as it doesn't touch banned topics. I'm often off topic babbling on about beer or aircraft, or my recent New York trip, but just as aside, not as a primary discussion. I try to add value rather than give my opinions.

So those are the basics. As you British posters are aware we moderators take a very light hand on policing opinions and behaviour which is why many of you probably post here. I've only used my moderator powers three times, this one, a flame war I deleted, and a third deletion of postings at the poster's own requests. But I'm lurking in the background watching.

[longdog]

I get that but my point is that if the definition of politics is "anything even vaguely contentious" then that could include anything at all.

You could argue, with some justification, that the whole PLD "movement" is a political issue.

A point I have made before is that in the US gun control is a very hot political issue. In the UK it's not really a political issue at all. The same goes for religion which is very political in the US but nowhere near so much in the UK.

So where does that leave UK posters? Having to worry about whether something is a political issue somewhere in the world?

[Burnaby49]

So where does that leave UK posters? Having to worry about whether something is a political issue somewhere in the world?

let's not blow the restrictions on your liberties out of proportion. Nobody seems to be concerned about limits on postings apart from yourself. I hadn't posted that rules and restrictions boilerplate in years. But, as repeatedly stated, we're not going back to 2021 2012 and we've found that if we don't step in early things can get nasty fast. It's not as if you'll find yourself suddenly banned for an innocuous comment on an excluded topic. How often have you seen a discussion on prohibited topics since you joined Quatloos?

You could argue, with some justification, that the whole PLD "movement" is a political issue.

Yes, it is very subjective, arbitrary if you want, and is at the whim of individual moderators. it has to be that way because, as you note, relevant Qutloos topics can be very political. As I wrote my Belanger topics are almost entirely based on one man's claimed religious beliefs. But he's also been identified as a con man in a decision by Alberta's Queen's Bench and his CERI movement is a classic scam, as is PLD which is entirely political. The most significant sovereign scam in Canada, Robert Menard's Freeman movement (if it can be called a movement), was entirely based on his claimed political rights.

Bottom line, that's how it is. You've been free to pretty well post what you want but when, in the entirely subjective opinion of a moderator, you or anyone else has veered too far into banned areas, we'll step in. Feel free to vent on it but it won't change anything.

[JamesVincent]

.....going back to 2021....

Going back to today eh?

[Burnaby49]

Bastards! Always somebody mocking a decrepit senile old wreck.

[longdog]

Bastards! Always somebody mocking a decrepit senile old wreck.

You missed a trick there. You could have just claimed you are ahead of your time