Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: [OT] Solution Proposed for Big Physics Question
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 08:01:25 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <pan$ac061$eff3efbc$52944ad4$19e5894c@cpacker.org>
References: <ka6m6j170c7uio09c0necu5pvqou7rv0g4@4ax.com>
	<pan$cc75c$24f8b8bb$6c45541$77052a9b@cpacker.org>
	<ul1o6j15v2psab74bgnnubennsteick81f@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:01:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b77b70f4ec85dd718deb7b72f9213ba0";
	logging-data="3551726"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Gt0XedttTZlIuBSMvVx+U"
User-Agent: Pan/0.158 (Avdiivka; )
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bh857AI/18h6eCvj+jPD9ffRyCQ=
Bytes: 2514

On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 03:03:54 -0600, John Savard wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:05:27 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer
> <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
> 
>>I scrolled down through this page and found this "See also"
>>
>>Pentagon's UAP Task Force to Gain Broader Access to Intelligence on UFOs
>>
>>https://thedebrief.org/pentagons-uap-task-force-to-gain-broader-access-
to-
>>intelligence-on-aerial-threats/
>>
>>Others may get a different "See also" -- Does mine say something about
>>me?
> 
> Yes, it does. But what it says is not clear. It could say any one of the
> following things:
> 
> 1. You are a true believer that the Earth is currently being visited by
> alien spacecraft.
> 
> 2. You could like your privacy, and have configured your browser to
> block all tracking cookies; therefore, the "See also" was chosen
> completely at random.
> 
> 3. Although you don't take UFOs at all seriously, sometime in the last
> year or so, on one occasion, you broke down and clicked on a lilnk about
> them because you were curious about what crazy notion they came up with
> this time, and thought it would be good for a laugh.
> 
> In my opinion, alternative 3 is the most probable.


Today I got this one instead:
 Annexation Won’t Help Russian Industry Recover Staggering Losses of 
Military Drones, Moscow Admits 

What does this say about the quality of the website -- and the
content of the article in question?