Politics
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla explains Pfizer's new tech to Davos crowd: "ingestible pills" - a pill with a tiny chip that send a wireless signal to relevant authorities when the pharmaceutical has been digested. "Imagine the compliance," he says
https://twitter.com/loffredojeremy/status/1527521228688445442
Remember when it was 'only a mask for 30 seconds in a shop'?
https://twitter.com/loffredojeremy/status/1527521228688445442
Remember when it was 'only a mask for 30 seconds in a shop'?
Show More
Edy
It seems that frog doesn’t understand the concept of time.
Seems to think that 2018 was after 2020. Very strange.
How outrageous that doctors would want information about when a patient took medication. Can anybody think of a good reason why a doctor would want to prescribe medicine to somebody who is ill then find it useful to know when it has been taken.
Crazy.
It seems that frog doesn’t understand the concept of time.
Seems to think that 2018 was after 2020. Very strange.
How outrageous that doctors would want information about when a patient took medication. Can anybody think of a good reason why a doctor would want to prescribe medicine to somebody who is ill then find it useful to know when it has been taken.
Crazy.
I think frog generally does have a rough understanding of time and space, but he has truly fallen into free thinker circles. And as we all know, free thinkers are all massive disciples that diligently reshare stuff without a critical thought or a hint of research in sight.
Miles you travel will happen soon. The more you travel they more they will take from your bank.
The amount you bet as well. Lose more that a few hundred a month and limits could kick in.
The amount you bet as well. Lose more that a few hundred a month and limits could kick in.
That he only somewhat recentish fully converted to free thinkerism can be seen from him seemingly being unaware of the clip from when it last made the rounds in free thinker world as proof that Pfizer was putting microchips in vaccines.
frog1000 • May 21, 2022 6:19 PM BST
Miles you travel will happen soon. The more you travel they more they will take from your bank.
Not sure about the UK, but over here it has long been the way that using a train or plane serve for a longer travel is associated with higher fares.
Miles you travel will happen soon. The more you travel they more they will take from your bank.
Not sure about the UK, but over here it has long been the way that using a train or plane serve for a longer travel is associated with higher fares.
May 21, 2022 -- 6:19PM, frog1000 wrote:
Miles you travel will happen soon. The more you travel they more they will take from your bank.The amount you bet as well. Lose more that a few hundred a month and limits could kick in.
There are betting restrictions now.
Why would people need both QR codes and chips under their skin? Sounds kind of redundant. Only some Christian fundamentalist weirdo who doesn't know tech would suggest doing so.
How outrageous frog
First there is an idea that doctors have information about when their patients take their prescribed medication. Before we know it the bookies actually have to behave.
OMG so they may need to actually look at the people behind the accounts they have highlighted for special “VIP” treatment. If somebody wins 5 bets on obscure handicaps they will be looked at , yet lose £5k in a month on slots, bingo, and the Brazilian ice hockey league & they are sent a bar of chocolate and a £100 free bet.
Some flatearth school failures actually believe Bill Gates is the nasty guy in all this, obviously without providing any evidence.
First there is an idea that doctors have information about when their patients take their prescribed medication. Before we know it the bookies actually have to behave.
OMG so they may need to actually look at the people behind the accounts they have highlighted for special “VIP” treatment. If somebody wins 5 bets on obscure handicaps they will be looked at , yet lose £5k in a month on slots, bingo, and the Brazilian ice hockey league & they are sent a bar of chocolate and a £100 free bet.
Some flatearth school failures actually believe Bill Gates is the nasty guy in all this, obviously without providing any evidence.
My favourite recent free thinker thing is that Bill Gates is behind the baby formula shortage so he can sell his own....without him/the company he invested into having any such product ready and approved.
All the bookies are businesses. If someone was caught taking money regularly from your business, you would stop them somehow and they would be right to do so. Exchanges are different.
Mexico it is the government, not the bookies, that are looking at £100 monthly loss limits per customer checked via bank statement. 'Affordability' checks.
It would no longer be your choice how you spend your own money if this comes in.
Flutter (Betfair's parent company) already brought in a blanket max deposit for under 25s of £500 in an attempt to look responsible.
It would no longer be your choice how you spend your own money if this comes in.
Flutter (Betfair's parent company) already brought in a blanket max deposit for under 25s of £500 in an attempt to look responsible.
£500 a month that is. Good luck being a young matched bettor or arbing starting out with those regs.
May 21, 2022 -- 7:07PM, frog1000 wrote:
£500 a month that is. Good luck being a young matched bettor or arbing starting out with those regs.
No problem at all. Use the exchanges instead.
There are only two bookmakers that will still accept my bets, one of which restricts me, the other is fine. It doesn't stop me betting, trading, arbing etc because I just use the exchanges.
Just to be clear Mexico the £500 a month under 25s thing is for Flutter companies in UK I think. So Betfair (Sportsbook and Exchange) and Paddy Power. That is their own thing.
The government blanket £100 a month deposit limit that could result from the white paper would apply to all bookmakers and Exchanges in the UK.
The government blanket £100 a month deposit limit that could result from the white paper would apply to all bookmakers and Exchanges in the UK.
How is it possible to restrict you on the exchange also? Do they add up all your money placed in Flutter companies including the Betfair exchange?
Bookmakers restricting winners is a completely different topic. This is about government limiting how much individuals can deposit each month.
It's the online fruit machines, blackjack, roulette etc that is the problem.
However no way they will give up that cash cow
However no way they will give up that cash cow
Is the suggestion that the bank will check your account and somehow restrict you to £100 a month deposit total in all companies associated with gambling?
https://igamingbusiness.com/flutter-launches-500-loss-limit-for-under-25s-in-uk-and-ireland/
Flutter Entertainment's UK & Ireland arm today (6 September) launched a new £500 (€583/$692) maximum monthly deposit limit for all customers under the age of 25.
Designed to strengthen protections for younger players and encourage sensible spending, the new measure will apply across Flutter’s Paddy Power, Betfair and Sky Betting & Gaming brands in the UK and Ireland.
Flutter said the limit is based on a recognition that early adulthood is characterised by a range of major life changes. It aims to bring its operations in line with businesses in other areas that recognise this, similar to the way finance and car insurance companies recognise younger customers have a higher risk profile.
The operator said its own research suggested support for the scheme, with 77% of regular gamblers approving additional measures for younger people, while 78% of 18-24-year-olds polled backed the new restrictions.
Flutter added that the deposit limit could be removed for certain customers who are able to demonstrate income to sustain an increased level of spend, though they would be subject to a detailed process before an alternative limit could be set.
This, it said, forms part of its Affordability Triple Step, a risk-based framework that uses real-time data to monitor customer activity and behaviours to ensure that gambling remains safe and enjoyable.
“People under the age of 25 are likely to be experiencing a number of significant life changes, such as gaining independence for the first time and learning how to manage their finances,” Flutter UK & Ireland chief executive Conor Grant explained.
“We want anyone who decides to gamble when they come of age to get in the habit of setting sensible spending limits and this measure is the latest we are introducing to help make this happen.”
Grant added that it would share details of the scheme with the government to support with the review of the 2005 Gambling Act, with the aim of providing further ideas, evidence and potential solutions for future laws.
“The review provides a once in a generation opportunity to bring gambling rules into the digital age, and while we believe that the changes it will bring are critical, we won’t wait to implement ground-breaking policies that will make a difference for our customers,” Grant added.
Flutter Entertainment's UK & Ireland arm today (6 September) launched a new £500 (€583/$692) maximum monthly deposit limit for all customers under the age of 25.
Designed to strengthen protections for younger players and encourage sensible spending, the new measure will apply across Flutter’s Paddy Power, Betfair and Sky Betting & Gaming brands in the UK and Ireland.
Flutter said the limit is based on a recognition that early adulthood is characterised by a range of major life changes. It aims to bring its operations in line with businesses in other areas that recognise this, similar to the way finance and car insurance companies recognise younger customers have a higher risk profile.
The operator said its own research suggested support for the scheme, with 77% of regular gamblers approving additional measures for younger people, while 78% of 18-24-year-olds polled backed the new restrictions.
Flutter added that the deposit limit could be removed for certain customers who are able to demonstrate income to sustain an increased level of spend, though they would be subject to a detailed process before an alternative limit could be set.
This, it said, forms part of its Affordability Triple Step, a risk-based framework that uses real-time data to monitor customer activity and behaviours to ensure that gambling remains safe and enjoyable.
“People under the age of 25 are likely to be experiencing a number of significant life changes, such as gaining independence for the first time and learning how to manage their finances,” Flutter UK & Ireland chief executive Conor Grant explained.
“We want anyone who decides to gamble when they come of age to get in the habit of setting sensible spending limits and this measure is the latest we are introducing to help make this happen.”
Grant added that it would share details of the scheme with the government to support with the review of the 2005 Gambling Act, with the aim of providing further ideas, evidence and potential solutions for future laws.
“The review provides a once in a generation opportunity to bring gambling rules into the digital age, and while we believe that the changes it will bring are critical, we won’t wait to implement ground-breaking policies that will make a difference for our customers,” Grant added.
Irrespective of the balance of your account or what is being deposited monthly?
Peter Webb of Betangel talks through it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gSUu1sIVt8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gSUu1sIVt8
How can they stop anyone under the age of 25 walking into a Paddy Power shop and sticking a grand in a FOBT?
How can any bank stop them withdrawing their money from their account then walking across the road and placing their bets in a high street bookmakers shop?
Frog
The government blanket £100 a month
Has f all to do with an interview in 2018 about doctors having information about when medication is taken.
The £100 a month hasn’t come in. Who is saying it is a blanket ban? You?
Perhaps there may be a “loophole “ where those not scrounging for years can deposit more?
So frog, is it Bill Gates bringing in affordable checks or is that the Zionists? Maybe both? Maybe Ukraine?
Oh we muct protect the bookies especially now that people can spend £100 every 20 seconds in fobt.
The government blanket £100 a month
Has f all to do with an interview in 2018 about doctors having information about when medication is taken.
The £100 a month hasn’t come in. Who is saying it is a blanket ban? You?
Perhaps there may be a “loophole “ where those not scrounging for years can deposit more?
So frog, is it Bill Gates bringing in affordable checks or is that the Zionists? Maybe both? Maybe Ukraine?
Oh we muct protect the bookies especially now that people can spend £100 every 20 seconds in fobt.
Affordability checks probably make it a lot harder to come back under new accounts registered with the details of someone else, so I can understand why some people in this thread are strongly opposed.
Mexico it is all the way things are going with the increase tracking a digitisation of the world.
With betting, food shopping, medical information, travel information all going online everything is tracked.
We are in a hybrid time. Right now Betfair will not let a 21 year old deposit over £500 a month without going through extreme checks. But they could go into the betting ring at Cheltenham and bet thousands in cash. Or go to the high street and bet in many shops.
But once the cash option goes. Shops betting with linked loyalty cards only all tracked then that option is done.
The corporations and governments would be able to limit what people spend on gambling.
No reason they could not do the same with anything going forward as cash is phased out.
With betting, food shopping, medical information, travel information all going online everything is tracked.
We are in a hybrid time. Right now Betfair will not let a 21 year old deposit over £500 a month without going through extreme checks. But they could go into the betting ring at Cheltenham and bet thousands in cash. Or go to the high street and bet in many shops.
But once the cash option goes. Shops betting with linked loyalty cards only all tracked then that option is done.
The corporations and governments would be able to limit what people spend on gambling.
No reason they could not do the same with anything going forward as cash is phased out.
When it starts to effect you and your life you will finally realise that your insistence that governments and corporates are doing these things for your own good will be over.
I feel like InsiderFrog doesn't want to go back in topic with you, Mexico.
As cash is phased out? From going in to a bookies? Nope.
When I got started on Betfair in my 20s in 2000 used a credit card to get started and make a living as I had no income or savings.
Kids these days get stopped at £500 a month off a debit card.
Kids these days get stopped at £500 a month off a debit card.
https://www.gamblinginsider.com/news/10343/analysis-what-could-an-100-affordability-limit-mean-for-uk-operators
Analysis: What could an £100 affordability limit mean for UK operators?
Earlier this week, the Gambling Commission launched a new consultation looking for feedback into a set of new measures for online operators. The 10-week consultation will see both industry members and consumers come together to give their take on regulatory reform. As part of this consultation, participants will reportedly consider introducing a £100 ($130) per month affordability threshold for all customers of UK online operators.
With the Government set to review the Gambling Act 2005, it is clear the Commission is aiming to introduce new regulation itself. Although this might be concerning for operators in the short term, it could see the UK industry avoid more intense restrictions under the directive of the UK Government.
Already this year, we have seen the effect of a similar consultation into VIP betting in the UK. This saw the Commission publish a series of checks which must take place before an operator makes a customer a VIP, including funds, occupation and identity verification. Operators are also now expected to assign a senior executive to oversee VIP schemes, making that individual personally accountable for the safety of customers.
If this VIP reform is anything to go by, this most recent consultation could see some serious and permanent changes for online operators; so with that in mind, does the industry need to be worried?
According to the Commission, the current thresholds for customer protection action are too high to be effective in preventing harm to vulnerable customers. For that reason, the new requirements will dictate affordability measures with thresholds set out by the Commission. Other requirements will also be debated, such as mandatory time limits for gambling – after which customers must be contacted to question their behaviour.
While the Gambling Commission has suggested some online operators are already meeting its standards for customer protection, or have made efforts in an attempt to do so, the regulatory body has deemed new restrictions necessary to bring the whole industry into line.
A statement from Gambling Commission executive director Tim Miller read: “While some operators have continued to improve their customer interaction processes, our evidence shows that many online operators are not setting thresholds for action at appropriate levels. We are clear on the need for gambling companies to take further action and that the Commission must set firm requirements to set consistent standards.”
According to consultation documents seen by The Daily Telegraph this week, the Commission has deemed thresholds of “tens of thousands of pounds” ineffective in combating gambling-related harm. The Commission is also quoted as describing a £2,000 limit as “neither realistic nor appropriate.” Instead, as a result of evidence-based research and lived experience, the Commission is considering the introduction of loss limits as low as £100 per calendar month before action is necessary.
It is important to consider the Gambling Commission’s reasoning for this. According to the consultation documents, this minimum threshold amount is based on the fact 50% of the UK population has a “discretionary” £250 per month of spend after all other monthly bills are paid. The regulatory body has said any affordability threshold must take into account other spend such as travel, sport and leisure.
While it might be shocking for operators to see a potential £100 spending limit dominating newspaper headlines, it is also important to take stock of the facts. Rather than limiting all customers to £100 per week, this is the spending limit before action would be necessary to assess whether a customer was at risk. Once deemed not at risk, it is assumed a customer can be permitted to spend more in the month. This is also the lowest limit the Commission is considering, meaning it would be a worst-case-scenario for online operators; equally, it would be a loss limit not a deposit limit, so handle could still remain high if customers wagered £500 and got £450 back.
Ultimately, rather than being significantly detrimental to operator revenue, it seems these new requirements would cost more in terms of operational efforts. Operators may have to employ more staff to ensure they are meeting the customer protection standards set out by the Gambling Commission. There will undoubtedly be more frequent customer contact and this will make life more difficult for operators – particularly those who currently invest very little in responsible gambling. But if the result is genuinely greater player protection, this is no bad thing.
The only real financial cost other than this may come from customers frustrated by the greater number of account blocks and frequency of communication. This could see operators lose customers, particularly those who have considerably more than the “discretionary” £250 per month to play with. If a bettor’s recreational funds are closer to £10,000 each month, they will not be best pleased if they are asked for proof of funds after they spend £100 on a bet.
That said, it is also true that the Commission will only introduce any limits after the 10-week consultation. Certainly those industry minds partaking in the consultation will have a thing or two to say about such a low limit of affordability – and it is clear the Commission is willing to take all opinions into consideration. Ultimately, while a regulatory consultation may seem daunting, it doesn’t seem the industry has too much to be concerned about just yet.
Analysis: What could an £100 affordability limit mean for UK operators?
Earlier this week, the Gambling Commission launched a new consultation looking for feedback into a set of new measures for online operators. The 10-week consultation will see both industry members and consumers come together to give their take on regulatory reform. As part of this consultation, participants will reportedly consider introducing a £100 ($130) per month affordability threshold for all customers of UK online operators.
With the Government set to review the Gambling Act 2005, it is clear the Commission is aiming to introduce new regulation itself. Although this might be concerning for operators in the short term, it could see the UK industry avoid more intense restrictions under the directive of the UK Government.
Already this year, we have seen the effect of a similar consultation into VIP betting in the UK. This saw the Commission publish a series of checks which must take place before an operator makes a customer a VIP, including funds, occupation and identity verification. Operators are also now expected to assign a senior executive to oversee VIP schemes, making that individual personally accountable for the safety of customers.
If this VIP reform is anything to go by, this most recent consultation could see some serious and permanent changes for online operators; so with that in mind, does the industry need to be worried?
According to the Commission, the current thresholds for customer protection action are too high to be effective in preventing harm to vulnerable customers. For that reason, the new requirements will dictate affordability measures with thresholds set out by the Commission. Other requirements will also be debated, such as mandatory time limits for gambling – after which customers must be contacted to question their behaviour.
While the Gambling Commission has suggested some online operators are already meeting its standards for customer protection, or have made efforts in an attempt to do so, the regulatory body has deemed new restrictions necessary to bring the whole industry into line.
A statement from Gambling Commission executive director Tim Miller read: “While some operators have continued to improve their customer interaction processes, our evidence shows that many online operators are not setting thresholds for action at appropriate levels. We are clear on the need for gambling companies to take further action and that the Commission must set firm requirements to set consistent standards.”
According to consultation documents seen by The Daily Telegraph this week, the Commission has deemed thresholds of “tens of thousands of pounds” ineffective in combating gambling-related harm. The Commission is also quoted as describing a £2,000 limit as “neither realistic nor appropriate.” Instead, as a result of evidence-based research and lived experience, the Commission is considering the introduction of loss limits as low as £100 per calendar month before action is necessary.
It is important to consider the Gambling Commission’s reasoning for this. According to the consultation documents, this minimum threshold amount is based on the fact 50% of the UK population has a “discretionary” £250 per month of spend after all other monthly bills are paid. The regulatory body has said any affordability threshold must take into account other spend such as travel, sport and leisure.
While it might be shocking for operators to see a potential £100 spending limit dominating newspaper headlines, it is also important to take stock of the facts. Rather than limiting all customers to £100 per week, this is the spending limit before action would be necessary to assess whether a customer was at risk. Once deemed not at risk, it is assumed a customer can be permitted to spend more in the month. This is also the lowest limit the Commission is considering, meaning it would be a worst-case-scenario for online operators; equally, it would be a loss limit not a deposit limit, so handle could still remain high if customers wagered £500 and got £450 back.
Ultimately, rather than being significantly detrimental to operator revenue, it seems these new requirements would cost more in terms of operational efforts. Operators may have to employ more staff to ensure they are meeting the customer protection standards set out by the Gambling Commission. There will undoubtedly be more frequent customer contact and this will make life more difficult for operators – particularly those who currently invest very little in responsible gambling. But if the result is genuinely greater player protection, this is no bad thing.
The only real financial cost other than this may come from customers frustrated by the greater number of account blocks and frequency of communication. This could see operators lose customers, particularly those who have considerably more than the “discretionary” £250 per month to play with. If a bettor’s recreational funds are closer to £10,000 each month, they will not be best pleased if they are asked for proof of funds after they spend £100 on a bet.
That said, it is also true that the Commission will only introduce any limits after the 10-week consultation. Certainly those industry minds partaking in the consultation will have a thing or two to say about such a low limit of affordability – and it is clear the Commission is willing to take all opinions into consideration. Ultimately, while a regulatory consultation may seem daunting, it doesn’t seem the industry has too much to be concerned about just yet.
Well, going by your political bets, as insider trader, you still have no income or savings.
Are they going to put a £500 per month deposit limit on the ingestible pills?
Which charlatan initially led you to this clip that you mindlessly shared, InsiderFrog?
Omg frog is on a different planet. Affordable checks on betting have nothing to do with
Doctors being informed when somebody has taken medicines
The bookies behaviour has been very poor and f all to do with chips in medicines.
Cam image frog on newsnight.
Q so mr frog, please explain your reaction to this 2018 interview with Pfizer?
Frog. Geoff Hurst 1966.
Ummm thank you Mr frog , we have run out of time.
Doctors being informed when somebody has taken medicines
The bookies behaviour has been very poor and f all to do with chips in medicines.
Cam image frog on newsnight.
Q so mr frog, please explain your reaction to this 2018 interview with Pfizer?
Frog. Geoff Hurst 1966.
Ummm thank you Mr frog , we have run out of time.
Mexico you were the one who started commenting in detail on bookmakers at 6.40pm.
I had just used it as example of how things are going with increased digital control by the governments and corporations.
Do you really believe that the increased use of data to control populations is benign? You see no draw backs from it?
I had just used it as example of how things are going with increased digital control by the governments and corporations.
Do you really believe that the increased use of data to control populations is benign? You see no draw backs from it?
He really, really doesn't want to talk about the video anymore.
Why did you decide against doing a very basic less than 5 minute research before you posted misinformation, InsiderFrog?
I know you read all these messages because you always answer when you find it convenient.
Frog
Wtf are you on about
The amount you bet as well. Lose more that a few hundred a month and limits could kick in.
At 6.19pm
This seems to be the first mention of affordability checks for betting.
Then again in a flatearth universe where 2018 is after 2020 maybe 6.40pm is before 6.19pm
Meanwhile affordability checks for betting have f all to do with new Pfizer medicines.
Frog - 4-2 aet.
Wtf are you on about
The amount you bet as well. Lose more that a few hundred a month and limits could kick in.
At 6.19pm
This seems to be the first mention of affordability checks for betting.
Then again in a flatearth universe where 2018 is after 2020 maybe 6.40pm is before 6.19pm
Meanwhile affordability checks for betting have f all to do with new Pfizer medicines.
Frog - 4-2 aet.
Posting gross misinformation is really bad, InsiderFrog. Why do you do it?
Denzil
Another post from you which has absolutely f all to do with the thread subject about doctors having information about when patients take their medication.
What a surprise.
Do THEY teach you that in flatearth school?
Is it another conspiracy?
Another post from you which has absolutely f all to do with the thread subject about doctors having information about when patients take their medication.
What a surprise.
Do THEY teach you that in flatearth school?
Is it another conspiracy?
I can wonder why InsiderFrog chooses to post misinformation while I fawn over men.
British singer Mika, Australian actor Brett Tucker and American Actor Matt Bomer are the most fawn-inspiring men for me at the moment while I wonder why InsiderFrog chose to share gross misinformation when he opened this thread.
Frog ignore these trolling clowns as I posted earlier all these can do is remove your posts and ban you they are genuine sad cases.
Mexxy Mitty is clueless,conflates posts and tells lies,edybot has his mind on other things (see 9:42PM post).
Regarding your OP no way back now plenty more to come.
Mexxy Mitty is clueless,conflates posts and tells lies,edybot has his mind on other things (see 9:42PM post).
Regarding your OP no way back now plenty more to come.
mika i know but never heard of the other two.
are they super hot guys?
are they super hot guys?
May 21, 2022 -- 8:28PM, Mexico wrote:
Omg frog is on a different planet.
'Doctors being informed when somebody has taken medicines'
why do doctors need to know if someone has taken their medicines for 'compliance'? What happened to my body my choice?
why does the government need to limit the amount of your own money in your own bank account you deposit into betting companies?
Mexico I suspect that you will only see an issue when your personal data is used against you in something you care about. Right now you appear blind to the dangers.
why do doctors need to know if someone has taken their medicines for 'compliance'? What happened to my body my choice?
why does the government need to limit the amount of your own money in your own bank account you deposit into betting companies?
Mexico I suspect that you will only see an issue when your personal data is used against you in something you care about. Right now you appear blind to the dangers.
Oh yes, northanlite, they are super hot.
More importantly, they have good integrity and would not grossly and maliciously share misinformation like InsiderFrog has chosen to do with this thread.
More importantly, they have good integrity and would not grossly and maliciously share misinformation like InsiderFrog has chosen to do with this thread.
I will elaborate that with InsiderFrog directly if he wishes to talk about.
If you don't see it yourself btw., you are quite spectacularly not so smart.
May 22, 2022 -- 10:46AM, DenzilPenberthy wrote:
What is misinformation edybottominspector?
Seems like he uses this forum as some kind of procuring agency
Wonder what happened to Aaron?
Is he decomposing in a barrel somewhere?
Is he decomposing in a barrel somewhere?
I wonder how you even know someone like Aaron, and are deeply concerned about him, when he stopped posting more than a year before you appeared....with this account.
May 22, 2022 -- 10:48AM, edy wrote:
If you don't see it yourself btw., you are quite spectacularly not so smart.
I read the OP which includes an interview I've watched so it isn't that.
Use the collective power of all your massive amount of great brain cells. Maybe drink some fine sugar water for some extra brain power.
This tech has been spoken about openly for a long time.
That is not the interview. That is a 25 second segment that coincidentally omits the question and even the start of the answer for some very mysterious reason. Here is a much longer video of the podium discussion
https://youtu.be/Uio8X1h0H-E
https://youtu.be/Uio8X1h0H-E
Are you trying to say the clip from The Pfizer guy saying what he said ISN'T him saying what he said because it's a short clip?
He said it the tech is promoted heavily by the WEF stop lying and harrassing people.
He said it the tech is promoted heavily by the WEF stop lying and harrassing people.
As I said, I will elaborate the details with InsiderFrog if he finally mans up.
But really, Denzil, if you don't see it, you need to do some more brain training.
May 22, 2022 -- 10:50AM, Stickywickets wrote:
Wonder what happened to Aaron?Is he decomposing in a barrel somewhere?
You got the barrell bit right it's in edybot-tominspectors basement with a small hole drilled in the side.
Aye 100% as is Mexxy Mitty you don't have to be Sherlock to sniff these rats out.
Someone who keeps coming back under new names is more likely to have some nefarious motives and background imo.
I mean, that needs ressources and a huge will to spread things for one reason or another.....
He's spent the last 15 to 20 years on here all day every day
Dedication is what you need.... if you want to be a record breaker
Dedication is what you need.... if you want to be a record breaker
Dedication is what you need.... if you want to be a record breakerLaugh
He's got that alright but it is part of his job
I bet he doesn't even gamble Crazy
Deffo not on the exchange anyway
He's got that alright but it is part of his job
I bet he doesn't even gamble Crazy
Deffo not on the exchange anyway
We better ease up we might get banned for telling the truth
Do you bet, Sticky? It must be a hassle to register e-wallet accounts under fake names to deposit with.
Which makes it all the weirder to keep making new accounts because someone has been banned from the forum as the betting accounts will still work. Going through all that hassle just to post your love for Satan on a forum.
How many forums do you patrol edybot? I used to go against people who patrolled several and had a multi name twatter gig.
You know the saying 'Jack Of All Trades Master Of None'
May 22, 2022 -- 11:38AM, edy wrote:
Sure do. Wanna tell me something with that?
It's self explanatory.
How many forums do you patrol edybot? I used to go against people who patrolled several and had a multi name twatter gig.
none.
Oh, you wanna tell me you are a Jack of All Trades, Master of None?
Oh, you wanna tell me you are a Jack of All Trades, Master of None?
I'm only a master of a few - Are you wondering now if aaronh said anything about you?
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539