If they choose not to focus on certain issues, that's fine but Scoglio IS taking a stance on the nanotech stuff and it's all BS for him. Unfortunately Coppolino stifled any debate in the comments section and Scoglio didn't even bother to engage with commenters. Very disappointing.
If they choose not to focus on certain issues, that's fine but Scoglio IS taking a stance on the nanotech stuff and it's all BS for him. Unfortunately Coppolino stifled any debate in the comments section and Scoglio didn't even bother to engage with commenters. Very disappointing.
You can always put the info in your own post and send it out. If you link it in my comments I will restack it or paste the link into a new post for you. You would get > 3,000 persons to see it without having to collect subscribers and get the debate going on your and/or my comment section. I'm assuming you are allowed to copy that interview I dont know. As long as I (and you) dont monetize myself and call this SS "For educational purposes" I am able to put anything on it as long as referenced.
He'd just done a long interview with Coppolino (who I think published his paper) so I assume he would be interested in the feed back. I noticed he engaged quite a bit with commenters on his Nov22 interview with Torsten Engelbrecht published by Off-Guardian. I asked Coppolino if he'd be commenting and he replied "he's free to" or something like that.
So if someone comments on 1 platform they're obligated to comment on all platforms, and are sketchy in your mind if they don't? Again, he doesn't even have a SS account that I know of. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it.
Not obligated but as it must have been one of the first interviews he'd done since his paper was published in English, maybe even the first, that Coppolino had also published it on his site and that Scoglio's stated aim in giving the interview was to foster further discussion on the subject ("we need to have a discussion with those who are on our side who take GO for granted, believe it"), yes I would have expected him to comment. I can't remember if you need to open a SS account to comment but I imagine it's not hard to do.
And discussing on SS is the only way to have a discussion?
I don't open accounts on every platform so that I can respond to comments under my interviews. Life's too short. And Stefano is a busy man, not someone who spends much time on social media that I can see.
I didn't say "discussing on SS is the only way to have a discussion" but that given it was his first interview on the subject after his paper was published in English by Coppolino on his site and that both he and Coppolino explicitly invited comments at the end of the interview, one might expect he would respond to at least some of the comments. Instead of that, Coppolino shut down the GO discussion, tried to shift the debate to virus/no virus issue (which just about everyone agreed on anyway), ignored important comments challenging Scoglio's claims - like those of John Lukash, but others too and banned or threatened to ban those he didn't agree with or couldn't answer. In reply to a comment, Coppolino said "He knows where this is published...Let's see if he shows up for the party" so I imagine he was hoping he would turn up. Anyway, as busy as he may be, I'm guessing Scoglio read the comments and realised a number of the commenters had researched the subject more thoroughly than himself.
You have clearly said/implied that Stefano should have commented on SS, and wrote on another thread "But that's a debate to have on Coppolino's show" - after I gave you Stefano's 20 page pdf on the topic of "graphene" that you apparently hadn't read yet even though it was included in Eric's article with the interview (https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/another-year-another-war-stefano#details).
Were you aware (as PM and I were) that that interview was conducted months before Eric finally published it?
Should Stefano have cleared his scheduled for months, waiting for Eric to finally publish so that he could be available to start commenting when you think he should?
How is Stefano responsible for Eric shutting down the comments? And how do you know that Stefano wouldn't have eventually chimed in if they hadn't been shut down?
I don't see any evidence that "graphene" actually exists in his articles, just references to "graphene" that he seems to assume exists.
Elsewhere in the comments under Eric's article I see people citing blogs about "graphene", patents and company websites as proof that "graphene" is real. Well we know there are "virus" patents and zillions of articles and companies discussing "viruses", even though they've never been shown to exist.
So can you point me to actual evidence of "graphene" existing, from these people who you say have researched the subject more thoroughly than Stefano?
"You have clearly said/implied that Stefano should have commented on SS, and wrote on another thread "But that's a debate to have on Coppolino's show" - after I gave you Stefano's 20 page pdf on the topic of "graphene" that you apparently hadn't read yet even though it was included in Eric's article with the interview(https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/another-year-another-war-stefano#details)."
"Clearly said" or "implied"? Can't be both and it was neither actually. I simply expected/hoped he would. I would never presume to advise Scogtlio on what he should/shouldn't do. I did ask Coppolino if he would be forwarding to SS though. When I made my initial comments to Coppolino, I told him I hadn't read it but intended to. When I went looking for it I found it posted by a commenter under article/interview, not in the article itself. Either he added it later or I (& others) missed it. So thank you for linking the article but I had already read it thoroughly and also shared with a couple of people whom I thought might be interested but they thought it was a joke and they weren't going to waste their precious time commenting on it. I disagree with that so I may comment on Coppolino's SS - yes, because that is the most appropriate place to comment, rather than here and he just lifted my ban.
"Were you aware (as PM and I were) that that interview was conducted months before Eric finally published it?"
I don't recall him saying the interview was pre-recorded, but maybe he did and I missed it as I fast-forwarded to the interview which is wedged between unrelated segments, musical interludes etc. It surprises me that PM was aware it was pre-recorded. His responses to me made me think this was all new to him, both interview & paper. Ditto for you, very clearly. But I may be mistaken of course.
"Should Stefano have cleared his scheduled [sic] for months, waiting for Eric to finally publish so that he could be available to start commenting when you think he should?"
As mentioned, I was unaware it was recorded months in advance and I would never presume to advise Scoglio on how to manage his schedule. I imagine Coppolino read his paper/listened to his presentations in Italian, then booked him in for around time he expected the translation to be available. I can't imagine he didn't copy it to Scoglio all the same.
"How is Stefano responsible for Eric shutting down the comments? And how do you know that Stefano wouldn't have eventually chimed in if they hadn't been shut down?"
I didn't say Scoglio was responsible for Coppolino shutting down comments. That doesn't make sense. If I said "shut down" I meant he shut down discussion, i.e. he, Coppolino, banned or threatened to ban certain commenters, ignored others, changed subject etc. Not the way to foster open discussion as he claimed to be doing. The comments section is not closed and I see he has just lifted my ban. That's great because I also need to warn him about ingredients in the Christian Dior lippy he's so fond of.
Re. JL, comments, see my separate reply - https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/proton-magic-falls-for-fan-wu/comment/43832448?r=12zfs2. Re. Bio-API articles - they are thoroughly researched and he assumes nothing. He is not out to prove "graphene" exists but his articles are very relevant to discussion here and well worth taking the time to read all the same. If you have the time that is.
"Elsewhere in the comments under Eric's article I see people citing blogs about "graphene", patents and company websites as proof that "graphene" is real. Well we know there are "virus" patents and zillions of articles and companies discussing "viruses", even though they've never been shown to exist."
Graphene is not "isolated" - as Scoglio claims - by "taking scotch tape and trying to peel off the thinnest layer you could". It is produced "using microwave irradiation of solution phase graphite oxide (GO) using a chemical reducing agent, or of solid GO under the effect of microwave plasma without the use of a chemical reducing agent...The method also encompasses the simultaneous reduction, using microwave energy, of solution or solid phase graphite oxide together with a variety of metals, resulting in the dispersion of metallic nanoparticles supported on the large surface area of the thermally stable 2D graphene sheets. The graphene supported metal nanoparticles are advantageously used as catalysts, and, when produced from solid reactants without chemical reducing agents and solvents, such nanocatalysts are not contaminated with residual solvent or reducing agent." See patent posted by JL https://patents.google.com/patent/US8871171B2/en?q=(creating+graphene+hydroxide+using+microwaves)&oq=creating+graphene+hydroxide+using+microwaves
"So can you point me to actual evidence of "graphene" existing, from these people who you say have researched the subject more thoroughly than Stefano?
.......My recommendation would be ARRC Seminar Series, March 2023 - Prof. Ian F. Akyildiz "These Covid Vaccines Are Nothing More Than Bio-Nano Machines, They Are Programmed And Then Injected Into The Body" - Graphene-based Plasmonic Nano-Antenna for Terahertz Band Communication in Nanonetworks https://youtu.be/YAtQFkEg5-w His bio is in show notes and you can generate transcript if you can't be bothered listening to whole video. Precisely where he said this I can't recall and didn't note unfortunately, but it's fairly early on I think.
If they choose not to focus on certain issues, that's fine but Scoglio IS taking a stance on the nanotech stuff and it's all BS for him. Unfortunately Coppolino stifled any debate in the comments section and Scoglio didn't even bother to engage with commenters. Very disappointing.
You can always put the info in your own post and send it out. If you link it in my comments I will restack it or paste the link into a new post for you. You would get > 3,000 persons to see it without having to collect subscribers and get the debate going on your and/or my comment section. I'm assuming you are allowed to copy that interview I dont know. As long as I (and you) dont monetize myself and call this SS "For educational purposes" I am able to put anything on it as long as referenced.
Sounds strange and I would just ignore what the Scog says then.
Is Stefano even on Substack? If he is, it's news to me.
I think it's Eric's interview someplace I may have seen it, I do not recall Stefano on SS as poster or commenter.
Right, so there's no surprise Stefano didn't engage in the comments if/when he's not even on ss.
He'd just done a long interview with Coppolino (who I think published his paper) so I assume he would be interested in the feed back. I noticed he engaged quite a bit with commenters on his Nov22 interview with Torsten Engelbrecht published by Off-Guardian. I asked Coppolino if he'd be commenting and he replied "he's free to" or something like that.
So if someone comments on 1 platform they're obligated to comment on all platforms, and are sketchy in your mind if they don't? Again, he doesn't even have a SS account that I know of. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it.
Not obligated but as it must have been one of the first interviews he'd done since his paper was published in English, maybe even the first, that Coppolino had also published it on his site and that Scoglio's stated aim in giving the interview was to foster further discussion on the subject ("we need to have a discussion with those who are on our side who take GO for granted, believe it"), yes I would have expected him to comment. I can't remember if you need to open a SS account to comment but I imagine it's not hard to do.
And discussing on SS is the only way to have a discussion?
I don't open accounts on every platform so that I can respond to comments under my interviews. Life's too short. And Stefano is a busy man, not someone who spends much time on social media that I can see.
I didn't say "discussing on SS is the only way to have a discussion" but that given it was his first interview on the subject after his paper was published in English by Coppolino on his site and that both he and Coppolino explicitly invited comments at the end of the interview, one might expect he would respond to at least some of the comments. Instead of that, Coppolino shut down the GO discussion, tried to shift the debate to virus/no virus issue (which just about everyone agreed on anyway), ignored important comments challenging Scoglio's claims - like those of John Lukash, but others too and banned or threatened to ban those he didn't agree with or couldn't answer. In reply to a comment, Coppolino said "He knows where this is published...Let's see if he shows up for the party" so I imagine he was hoping he would turn up. Anyway, as busy as he may be, I'm guessing Scoglio read the comments and realised a number of the commenters had researched the subject more thoroughly than himself.
You have clearly said/implied that Stefano should have commented on SS, and wrote on another thread "But that's a debate to have on Coppolino's show" - after I gave you Stefano's 20 page pdf on the topic of "graphene" that you apparently hadn't read yet even though it was included in Eric's article with the interview (https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/another-year-another-war-stefano#details).
Were you aware (as PM and I were) that that interview was conducted months before Eric finally published it?
Should Stefano have cleared his scheduled for months, waiting for Eric to finally publish so that he could be available to start commenting when you think he should?
How is Stefano responsible for Eric shutting down the comments? And how do you know that Stefano wouldn't have eventually chimed in if they hadn't been shut down?
I found your comment with the links to John Lukash's articles (https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/another-year-another-war-stefano/comments).
I don't see any evidence that "graphene" actually exists in his articles, just references to "graphene" that he seems to assume exists.
Elsewhere in the comments under Eric's article I see people citing blogs about "graphene", patents and company websites as proof that "graphene" is real. Well we know there are "virus" patents and zillions of articles and companies discussing "viruses", even though they've never been shown to exist.
So can you point me to actual evidence of "graphene" existing, from these people who you say have researched the subject more thoroughly than Stefano?
"You have clearly said/implied that Stefano should have commented on SS, and wrote on another thread "But that's a debate to have on Coppolino's show" - after I gave you Stefano's 20 page pdf on the topic of "graphene" that you apparently hadn't read yet even though it was included in Eric's article with the interview(https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/another-year-another-war-stefano#details)."
"Clearly said" or "implied"? Can't be both and it was neither actually. I simply expected/hoped he would. I would never presume to advise Scogtlio on what he should/shouldn't do. I did ask Coppolino if he would be forwarding to SS though. When I made my initial comments to Coppolino, I told him I hadn't read it but intended to. When I went looking for it I found it posted by a commenter under article/interview, not in the article itself. Either he added it later or I (& others) missed it. So thank you for linking the article but I had already read it thoroughly and also shared with a couple of people whom I thought might be interested but they thought it was a joke and they weren't going to waste their precious time commenting on it. I disagree with that so I may comment on Coppolino's SS - yes, because that is the most appropriate place to comment, rather than here and he just lifted my ban.
"Were you aware (as PM and I were) that that interview was conducted months before Eric finally published it?"
I don't recall him saying the interview was pre-recorded, but maybe he did and I missed it as I fast-forwarded to the interview which is wedged between unrelated segments, musical interludes etc. It surprises me that PM was aware it was pre-recorded. His responses to me made me think this was all new to him, both interview & paper. Ditto for you, very clearly. But I may be mistaken of course.
"Should Stefano have cleared his scheduled [sic] for months, waiting for Eric to finally publish so that he could be available to start commenting when you think he should?"
As mentioned, I was unaware it was recorded months in advance and I would never presume to advise Scoglio on how to manage his schedule. I imagine Coppolino read his paper/listened to his presentations in Italian, then booked him in for around time he expected the translation to be available. I can't imagine he didn't copy it to Scoglio all the same.
"How is Stefano responsible for Eric shutting down the comments? And how do you know that Stefano wouldn't have eventually chimed in if they hadn't been shut down?"
I didn't say Scoglio was responsible for Coppolino shutting down comments. That doesn't make sense. If I said "shut down" I meant he shut down discussion, i.e. he, Coppolino, banned or threatened to ban certain commenters, ignored others, changed subject etc. Not the way to foster open discussion as he claimed to be doing. The comments section is not closed and I see he has just lifted my ban. That's great because I also need to warn him about ingredients in the Christian Dior lippy he's so fond of.
"I found your comment with the links to John Lukach's articles (https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/another-year-another-war-stefano/comments). I don't see any evidence that "graphene" actually exists in his articles, just references to "graphene" that he seems to assume exists."
Re. JL, comments, see my separate reply - https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/proton-magic-falls-for-fan-wu/comment/43832448?r=12zfs2. Re. Bio-API articles - they are thoroughly researched and he assumes nothing. He is not out to prove "graphene" exists but his articles are very relevant to discussion here and well worth taking the time to read all the same. If you have the time that is.
"Elsewhere in the comments under Eric's article I see people citing blogs about "graphene", patents and company websites as proof that "graphene" is real. Well we know there are "virus" patents and zillions of articles and companies discussing "viruses", even though they've never been shown to exist."
Graphene is not "isolated" - as Scoglio claims - by "taking scotch tape and trying to peel off the thinnest layer you could". It is produced "using microwave irradiation of solution phase graphite oxide (GO) using a chemical reducing agent, or of solid GO under the effect of microwave plasma without the use of a chemical reducing agent...The method also encompasses the simultaneous reduction, using microwave energy, of solution or solid phase graphite oxide together with a variety of metals, resulting in the dispersion of metallic nanoparticles supported on the large surface area of the thermally stable 2D graphene sheets. The graphene supported metal nanoparticles are advantageously used as catalysts, and, when produced from solid reactants without chemical reducing agents and solvents, such nanocatalysts are not contaminated with residual solvent or reducing agent." See patent posted by JL https://patents.google.com/patent/US8871171B2/en?q=(creating+graphene+hydroxide+using+microwaves)&oq=creating+graphene+hydroxide+using+microwaves
"So can you point me to actual evidence of "graphene" existing, from these people who you say have researched the subject more thoroughly than Stefano?
.......My recommendation would be ARRC Seminar Series, March 2023 - Prof. Ian F. Akyildiz "These Covid Vaccines Are Nothing More Than Bio-Nano Machines, They Are Programmed And Then Injected Into The Body" - Graphene-based Plasmonic Nano-Antenna for Terahertz Band Communication in Nanonetworks https://youtu.be/YAtQFkEg5-w His bio is in show notes and you can generate transcript if you can't be bothered listening to whole video. Precisely where he said this I can't recall and didn't note unfortunately, but it's fairly early on I think.