I don't know if he and any link to anything he has said but project echelon has been around for a while and near as I can tell, records the audio and uses a computer to search for key words. If the key word was found, it was sent to a live person for further review and any actions if necessary. This setup necessarily required recording in order to preserve the calls for review.

There was no discretion in the calls either. The only difference between these claims and Echelon is that echelon used foreign agents to collect US data in order to skirt constitutional issues.

So you're doubling down on your accusations of lies, because your Sauron-class Morton's demon convinced you that you have very damned good reason to believe you were telling the truth. Just like you've doubled down on almost every other absurd claim you've made (an astonishingly vast collection- you're like a nonsense firehose). And like most of those other times, you reasonably should have known that. So once again, I'm not surprised that you can't recognize that your libelous accusations are baseless.

But how could you possibly not recognize that you're Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar posing as a woman on the internet?

In 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Googling things.titanez.net showed that it's Lonny Eachus's website.

Jane could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but Jane's charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if Jane's domain name was also a deliberate message. Was it a cry for help? Part of Jane's comedy act? It couldn't be an unintentional rookie mistake, because Jane's a skilled web developer.

It would probably be easier to have a couple cameras capable of seeing infrared and ultraviolet. You will see the laser on target and can just remove yourself from the area before the trigger is pulled.

To the masses, there is no difference. Even to you, there is likely no difference for the most part. People claim they talk to God all the time, they say God told them to do something. God telling several people to do something is little different to someone who doesn't posess the knowlege,, skill, resources, or time to verify everything science says. It's just more people in robes (lab coats) telling them something is true.

) The scientists making the claims have access to particle colliers, arrays of telescopes, etc., with which they CAN AND DO objectively recreate the claims being made.

And the people making the claims in the bible had access to God or so the claim is. People to this day believe God told them to do things.

2) The religious leaders making religious claims have nothing more than dusty old books, with which they CANNOT AND DO NOT recreate the miracles that the books claim, nor do they objectively demonstrate the existence of God.

Dusty old books just like science text books. The science teachers (preachers) rely largely on the exact same principles and your students do too. The point is not that one is right or wrong, it was that the process of dissemination is not much different and the weight you place on it is mooted because few people will ever be able to do the science or invalidate any claims.

So, humans that are alive and working TODAY can demonstrate the claims of science, whereas no living breathing human can demonstrate the claims of religion.

Yes, a small few people can say they can demonstrate the claims of science. The rest of us have to believe what they say. It's not much different.

To what "accusations" are you referring? You have kept saying that, but I have no idea what you mean. Certainly, I have criticized climate science, when I thought it deserved criticism. But where are these "accusations" that YOU are accusing ME of making? [Jane Q. Public]

Again, your accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies are baseless, and you should have reasonably known that. You made those libelous accusations as Jane Q. Public, and as Lonny Eachus. Because, once again, you're a man dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Is that really so difficult to understand, or are you still trying to pretend that you aren't Lonny Eachus?

So section 5 was basically the bills as passed and title 15 section 45 is the act in the US code. Do I have that right?

In that case, they are claiming the entire section 45 as the basis of the illegality which makes some sense. After reading it, I saw several places in which it should apply.

Thanks for the explanation. For a minute there, I thought Amazon would be able to get off on a technicality and the FTC was incompetent or something. Turns out it was just me.

You think you are mimicking my own behavior but I assure you, there are some very large differences. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-09]

Jane's telepathy isn't working correctly, but some very large differences are listed below.

It is pretty easy to show, even on your own blog, that while I have been wrong at times, I have used logic and logical arguments, while your arguments have demonstrated straw-man, ad-hominem, "moving the goalposts", and other logical fallacies to the point of utter ridiculousness. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-11]

"Apparently you think *I* am an idiot. Try reading the goddamned thread. If you really don’t want to be perceived as a “brainwashed idiot”, maybe you could bother to figure out what the argument is about before you put in your irrelevant 2 cents. As for the rest, you are one of those lazy asses I mentioned. But you are too damned lazy to look any of them up? And yes, that to me means “brainwashed idiot”. get off your lazy ass and LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!! since you insist on being spoon-fed There are many more, very easily found, but I am not going to do your homework for you. Now go away. You disgust me." [Jane Q. Public, 2009-07-09]

"My personal opinion might be that you are an insufferable, hypocritical asshole, and that your arguments are frequently contradictory, facetious, hypocritical, or disingenuous, but actual "fraud" never crossed my mind. An opinion that my claim was "ridiculous" is yours to have if you wish, and I don't give a damn, but stating that I made one or more statements that were "obviously fraudulent" is serious enough that you had best either back it up with evidence NOW, or back the hell off. You have very much gone over the line." [Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-18]

"... you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic ... I told you to get stuffed and told you that UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES I would sue you. You are a pompous ass, and you distort other peoples’ statements in order to try to make yourself look good. Then you use that as a self-advertisement to try to bolster your reputation as a “scientist”. When in fact all it proves is you are a pompous ass." [Jane Q. Public, 2012-06-07]

"Or maybe -- just a guess -- you are trying to be a vindictive asshole again, just as you have been before?" [Jane Q. Public, 2012-09-07]

"... I didn't call you a vindictive asshole because you asked me a question. I called you that because of your habit of being annoying, rude, insulting." ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-10-29]

"... you're a clueless asshole. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2013-09-15]

"... you're such a flaming, large-bore asshole. ... " [Jane Q. Public, 2013-12-21]

"... you just make yourself look more like an ass. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-01-18]

It is not reasonable or logical to say in one sentence that it is "obvious" that I don't believe my statements are baseless, and then just a short time later accuse me of deliberately lying. The two are mutually exclusive. [Jane Q. Public]

Again, you're deliberately lying about your own gender. I've long assumed that your other misinformation isn't deliberate, that you're just an honest victim of cognitive biases. (Even though, once again, you should have reasonably known that your accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies were baseless.)

Whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

Once again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that. Obviously, this is not an admission that your comments aren't baseless. It's an admission that your Sauron-class Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you'll probably never be able to recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.

"I am curious: is there something wrong with calling a liar and a bully a liar and a bully? Fact and libel are different things." [Lonny Eachus, 2013-04-08]

And the exact same thing happens with science. Most people do not posess the knowlege,, skill, resources, or time to verify everything science says. They have to take the word for it from some authoritive figure. It is no differnt. The more true something is, the more it might be repeated and hence we are on par with religion again.

Every explaination either becomes turtles all the way down or ends with an i don't know.

Now, i'm not sure a creator is "needed". But it is part of the religion so we got one. Religion doesn't typically search for something to believe, it is told.

No, God did give msn knowlege. Before Adam tasted the apple, God brought all the animals and stuff before him snd told him to name them. He had quite a bit of knowlege before the apple came into play.

Why is that ssme answer that is used to explain the mass for the explosion in the big bang not sufficient to explain a god's existance?

I'll go one better and give you an answer thst ypu cannot refute. We don't know.

You mean just like you? Seriously, thats the most short sided stupid thing anyone could have said given the context.

You do not get to ignore reality in order to impose your own.

They already do this. Check points in Iraq and other countries like Israel are known for being blown up. Buses are more typical because they are enclosed making the blast more effective. The thing is that the death toll usually isn't much higher than a bad car wreck compared to other methods so i think they are targeting the mechanism moreso than what we consider terrorist goals to be. But thats just my limited guess to why they aren't more popular in weatern nations.