Commonly used dangerous goods - WorkSafe

hazardous goods examples

hazardous goods examples - win

[HEL-Verse] Still Untitled Spinoff Story [Chapters 1-3]

Happy Lunar New Year's eve to all my readers who are celebrating and feasting! Some notes for clarity on today's post...
-----
Q: What is this story?
A: This is a spinoff that I have been dabbling around with for the last few months on and off, based on the events of a commission from last January: The First Juggernaut
-----
Q: Why haven't I seen this story before if the 4th chapter is releasing today?
A: This story falls under the category of "one shots", which is content made available, at least initially, only to certain subscribers of my patreon. I am making prior chapters available to everyone today both on my patreon and below.
-----
Q: I am a patron, where can I read the latest installment in the untitled goose snake saga?
A: I will be posting it to patreon shortly after finishing this post and I will link it at the bottom of this chapter.
-----
Q: I am a patron, why can't I read the latest chapter?
A: Latest installment is available to anyone supporting me to the tune of $10/month or greater. As with the prior chapters, chapter 4 will eventually be released to the public.
-----
Q: Is this considered canon for HEL Jumper purposes?
A: Yes, unless something explicitly conflicts with the HEL Jumper in which case I made an oopsie.
-----
Q: Who is Drake and what is this snake of which you speak?
A: Read on to find out!
-----
Chapter 1
September 17th 2035, Human Dreadnought HMV Resplendent Dawn, Shuttle Bay
“Mr. Thane! Good of you to join us here in Udanis. How was your journey? Uneventful I hope,” the incredibly tall, dark-skinned man called out across the cavernous metal room. Delta Division shuttles could be seen darting in and out of the space almost constantly, ferrying goods and personnel between the dreadnoughts, cruisers, destroyers, and support ships that currently made up humanity’s presence in what was, effectively, a star-system wide DMZ declared by the Ghaelen and enforced by humans. Unable to stomach the reality of warfare in hostile conditions against even more hostile foes, the ‘space elk’ presence had long since fled the system. Taking his bearings, the stockier, tanned individual with unkempt black hair and a civilian’s uniform nodded to the approaching figure.
“I’m afraid you have me at a disadvantage, Rear Admiral. Until just now I didn’t even know the identity of my destination. Though I understand the need for secrecy now that I’m here. Drake Thane, it’s a pleasure.” The two men engaged in a firm handshake, the squeeze of the palm a tried and true test of such men. Beta Division did not have many Admirals, and Udanis did not have many civilians.
“You’ll have to forgive Admiral Freidrich, but our resident Juggernaut seems to be giving him the runaround again. Victory will go to a young woman’s head though, won’t it?” the taller man laughed. “I am Rear Admiral Natori Kaczynski, at your service. And yes, that is a Beta Division insignia. Though perhaps you might be able to appreciate such a thing? After all, Delta called you out here too, didn’t they?”
“With all due respect Rear Admiral, I don’t even know why I’m here,” Thane replied. “Only that the pay is better than the FBI was offering.”
“Mmm, significantly better I’d suspect. The HEL does have its means,” Natori agreed. “Right this way then, Mr. Thane. Perhaps you’ll understand better once you’re brought up to speed. Ah, how rude of me!” the Rear Admiral suddenly exclaimed as though set upon by a novel idea. “Can I get you something to eat or drink?”
“I indulged in a ‘final meal’ on the transport, sir. But thank you,” Drake replied. Natori cast a knowing smile his way.
“Very good then. I see you packed light so let’s head to the nearest briefing room then. Mary?”
‘How may I be of assistance, Rear Admiral Kaczynski?’ the ship’s VI requested.
“Has a briefing room been set aside for Mr. Thane’s arrival?”
‘Yes sir, forwarding the location to you now.’
“Useful little tool, isn’t she?” Natori asked as he turned on his heel and led Drake straight in the opposite direction down the corridor.
“I’m only familiar with the civilian models, sir. The US government hasn’t gotten around to upgrading its systems yet.”
“Surprising absolutely no one, but perhaps we should be thankful,” Kaczynski suggested as he turned a corner and carried on, saluting various soldiers and support personnel as they moved at a leisurely pace. “Were it not for the bureaucratic incompetence of Terran governments, who would want to join the HEL?”
“That’s one way of looking at it, I suppose,” Thane agreed. “And while it may not be my place Rear Admiral, isn’t playing escort below your station?”
Natori looked him over with an appraising eye. “How tactful, but such is to be expected from a crisis negotiator I suppose. Allow me to assure you, Mr. Thane, the current situation is very much the concern of men like me.”
-----
Over the next couple hours, seated across a polished wooden table from one another, Natori reviewed with Drake the timeline of the pacification of Udanis IV, from the discovery of life in the system in early 2035, to first contact, and eventual full blown war by the end of May of the same year. The conflict had ended on June 6th, with the first truly successful battlefield deployment of Beta and Delta division’s latest collaboration, the Juggernaut program.
“So you brought me here to deal with Lieutenant Lavinaga, sir? Was it something about the, what did you call it, Queen’s nest operation? How many of those… stimulants is she still on?”
“No and yes. Fortunately, Lieutenant Lavinaga is quite well,” Natori replied, reaching for the pitcher of water and glasses in the middle of the table. He unhurriedly poured for them both, and the two men paused to soothe their throats. “While it is true that you were brought here to negotiate with veterans of this conflict… perhaps it’s better that I show you. This way please,” the Rear Admiral proposed, leading Drake on a short walk that nevertheless felt like a mile. The Marines and other combat personnel he’d seen up to that point appeared to be in high spirits, already swapping stories about gallantry during the operation while reminiscing fondly about the fallen. Maybe years later they might need someone like him, but not then and not there.
Eventually they arrived at their destination, given away by the fact that Natori was required to provide biometric identification in two forms as well as enter a combination PIN to pass through a set of imposing steel bulkheads. Drake recognized the area immediately as an interrogation facility, with the Rear Admiral escorting him all the way to the back. It was a cell constructed for long term confinement, and the two men found themselves alone in front of what Drake was sure was a one way mirror. The only other humans in the area were the Marine guards stationed back at the entrance. It didn’t help his nerves that they were in full armor intended for combat in hazardous environments. “Who’s on the other side of that wall, Rear Admiral?”
“Not who, Mr. Thane,” Natori corrected with an unsettling fire in his eyes. “But what.”
With the flick of a switch light suddenly poured through the opening, allowing Thane to see the interior of the spacious but barren room. “Jesus fucking Christ!” he whispered. “Are you mad, Rear Admiral?”
“Quite, Mr. Thane. But so are most who labor for the advancement of humanity. I daresay if you accept this job you’ll be rather similar.”
“I speak Farsi and Arabic, Rear Admiral. I deal with veterans of the Middle Eastern conflicts. What in God’s good name do you expect me to do with a Gorgon?!”
“An excellent question!” Natori agreed. “For starters I’d like you to see if you could bring us to the point where she does not spit acid at anything that moves. The fact that they store them in the approximate location of human mammary glands lost its humor… rather quickly.”
Drake swallowed heavily and took a closer look at the alien. Its entire body screamed danger to him. Natural rock-like armor covered its entire, serpentine form, which took after the Nagas or Lamias of human mythology. Her yellowish-green skin was the same color as the acidic environments of her homeworld, and her whiplike tail seemed to be constantly searching for something to coil around, or perhaps lash out at like a flail. “How long has she been here?”
“Since June 7th, Mr. Thane.”
“It’s been more than three months? Rear Admiral, surely this is in violation of… something!”
Natori licked his lips and hung his head. “This is why we sent for you, Mr. Thane. We have tried everything, and I mean everything, to establish some sort of diplomatic relationship, or even communication. She eats heartily and tries to kill us whenever she can. She is one of the only survivors of the Queen’s nest, and we believe that such authority will be key in any sort of eventual alliance.”
“You really are mad,” Thane whispered as Natori placed his hands behind his back and looked at the Gorgon.
“Am I mad for seeking powerful allies for our species, Mr. Thane? The Ghaelen possess powerful technology, but the price of its acquisition was steep. We will only bring ruin to ourselves if ‘galactic policeman’ is to be our role. Let our own country’s history be an example on that matter. No, one day we will come across a challenge we cannot surmount alone. I would much prefer it if the acid spitting snake women were on our side in that event, Mr. Thane. After coming this far, I hope you’ll at least humor me.”
“And Admiral Freidrich, sir?”
Natori met Drake’s eyes. “Approved this operation personally, Mr. Thane.”
The crisis negotiator breathed deeply and ran a hand through his mop of hair. “Just… how many people have died before me?”
“None, Mr. Thane! And I have no intention of making you the first.” The civilian shot Natori a dubious look that obviously conveyed his opinion on that particular statement. “Yes well, there were a couple of men who needed emergency medical treatment and reconstructive surgery, but we have equipment that is rather resistant to Gorgon acid thanks to their sacrifices, among many others. Shall I fetch one for you?”
“With all due respect, Rear Admiral-”
“Ah, you know what they say about that little lead in,” Natori chuckled, the casual hand on his hip indicating he fully understood why Drake had afforded him his ‘due respect’.
“Then you’ll have to consider the month-long journey to be my gesture of good faith. I’d like to see everything you have on the Gorgons, ideally in printed form. And yes, that includes the classified bits. I’ll sign whatever NDA’s you deem reasonable. And a cup of coffee… maybe two. You can keep your acid-resistant suits for now. I don’t think she’s going anywhere.”
After a moment of consideration, Natori offered Drake his hand again. They shook. “I appreciate your consideration, Mr. Thane. I will oversee the preparation of said documents, as well as the necessary security clearances. In the meantime you are free to observe our captive, though might I suggest taking a pitstop in your cabin first?”
“You’re the type to get mixed up in the affairs of his subordinates, aren’t you, Rear Admiral?” Thane ventured cautiously. Natori’s smile was different somehow that time, almost unsettlingly so.
“Perhaps your keen eye will succeed where I have failed, Mr. Thane? We will be in touch and Mary is, of course, at your disposal. Welcome to the Resplendent Dawn,” Kaczynski finished, turning quickly on his heel and departing, saluting the Marine door guards as he left.
“Apparently he’s also one to leave civilians alone with alien captives,” Drake muttered, looking down at the control panel for the one way glass. Left there was a post-it note, a vintage technology that still found itself in use even in the era of shield generators, FTL travel, and VI’s.
Don’t activate the two way functionality. We’re running low on materials to manufacture more polarized glass.
Thane chuckled in disbelief and ran a hand over his face, captivated momentarily by the holes he could see in the alien’s forearms, a natural biological gap between the Gorgon analogs of the radius and ulna. At least he assumed she had bones. “What have I gotten myself into?”
-----
As it turned out, the answer to that question was a bit more complex than one on one prisoner or hostage negotiation, something that became readily apparent after an hour or so of reading in front of the alien’s cell. The coffee was surprisingly adequate, as was the insulated mug that kept it warm as he labored. He would glance up on occasion to observe his subject, not wanting to fully depend on unreliable witness testimony, more reliable autopsy reports, combat records, and the gruesome video feeds from the suit of one Lieutenant Lanvinaga. If Kaczynski’s tale was true, and he had no grounds to assert it wasn’t, the alien before him had not only retained the will to live after more than three months in solitary, she also retained the desire to kill and fight. She was sane and hostile. That was more than could be said for some of the veterans he’d talked down in the past.
“Or failed to talk down,” Drake allowed with a mutter, shaking his head. Movement caught his eye and he refocused on the alien, watching as she curled up on herself only to adjust and re-adjust, picking at the rock-like armor that seemed to grow from her very body. Scratching his head, the human consulted several images that he would have rather not dealt with, various post-mortem shots of Gorgons that had been killed during the pacification. Very few sported natural armor to the level of his subject, but not because she was some sort of unique specimen. Near as he could tell the Gorgon before him was quite typical for her species, but her natural armor was jagged and reminded him of a volcanic rock field. Much of his reference material depicted Gorgons with relatively smooth plating that rested underneath manufactured metallic armor. “It’s worth a shot,” Than shrugged, noting that it was 21:00 shipboard time. “Mary, is Rear Admiral Kaczynski still awake?”
‘Good evening Mr. Drake Thane,’ came Mary’s synthesized but pleasant enough voice. ‘The Rear Admiral has retired for the evening. Are you experiencing an emergency?’
“No no, nothing like that,” Thane clarified quickly. “I’ll just leave him a message then.”
‘Very well, you may begin recording when ready.’
“Rear Admiral, this is Drake Thane. In the morning I’d appreciate it if you could track down a couple of rocks and an industrial sander for me. I have an idea.”
-----
“I believe I’ve waited long enough to sate my curiosity?” Natori stated as he watched Drake sanding down one surface of the chunks of Udanian crust he’d been given.
“Fair enough. How familiar are you with the anatomy of beavers, Rear Admiral?”
“How familiar are you with the anatomy of beavers?” Natori barked with laughter. “Oh I definitely picked the right man for this job.”
“Save that for when I actually get somewhere, sir. The answer, I suppose, is that I’m familiar enough to know that beavers don’t just cut down trees to build themselves shelter. Left alone long enough without anything to gnaw on their teeth will continue to grow and grow, injuring or even leading to the death of the animal. These Gorgon appear to possess the same quality when it comes to their natural armor,” Thane postulated. Natori’s eyes lit up.
“You propose a gift?”
“I hope you don’t mind the loss of a belt sander,” Drake said shortly.
“Let’s not wait then. Her first meal of the day is scheduled around this time.”
“Good enough for me. Where’s this suit, the one that will stop me from getting my face melted off?”
“Storage locker on the left. We haven’t personally delivered anything for some time, so be prepared for resistance,” Kaczynski warned. “She seems to consider eating her meal off the floor worth the chance at an attack.”
“Duly noted,” Drake replied in a tense voice, finding a heavily fortified hazardous environment suit that would have looked more at home on a space walk where the Admiral indicated. A short time later, sweat beading on his brow, he unlocked the door to the Gorgon’s cell. The moment he entered, the alien puffed out her chest and spat a stream of sickly green acid from her mouth. Though the attack was exemplary in its aim and velocity, that also made it relatively easy to dodge if one was willing to simply drop to the floor. Well protected as he was, Drake did just that, squashing whatever manufactured nutrient cubes had been intended for her. In return, he chucked the first rock at her, earning a momentary reprieve as the alien tried to process the fact that one of the legged beings keeping her hostage had thrown a rock at her. It was enough time for him to roll the second one to the base of her body, a couple feet below where her torso met her tail, which carried on behind her for a good six feet or so. The fact that the second rock was ‘presented’ instead of ‘chucked’ was not lost on the alien, but that didn’t prevent her from compressing the venom sacks in her chest again.
“Oh for the love of-” Thane cursed, retreating out the door as the second biological attack splattered onto the surface just behind him. To his amazement, Natori was applauding even as two Marines rushed at him with decontamination equipment.
“A magnificent swan dive if I’ve ever seen one, Mr. Thane! And before you believe I’m having a laugh at your expense, come look at what our guest is already up to.”
At Natori’s insistence Thane shucked the enviro-suit as quickly as he could and returned to the one-way mirror. There, he could see the Gorgon ignoring her smushed breakfast entirely. After a brief contemplation of the rocks that had been given to her, she began banging at her own body with one of them, chipping off pointy bits of rock that clearly agitated her. At least Drake considered it could be fully fledged rock; he had no idea if aliens producing natural rock armor atop their own dermis was reasonable. Whatever it was, it was certainly tougher than keratin. The Rear Admiral ran a hand over his short, close cropped hair. “I would certainly call this progress, Mr. Thane. What is your next step?”
“To see if I can get her to look at a human for longer than a second without trying to dissolve him,” he replied tersely. “Do you have more of those rocks?”
Natori cocked a brow his way. “Mr. Thane, this is a Delta Division Liberation-class dreadnought. We have plenty of rocks.”
Chapter 2
“You have got to be fucking kidding me,” Drake Thane cursed, hauling himself to his feet after another harrowing trip into the Gorgon’s cell. She had accepted his gift of rocks, but had not made any sort of connection between the smooth and jagged varieties, instead using both to chip away at and then grind down the excess armor growing from her skin. That was how she spent most of her days when not eating or attempting to fight anyone who entered her enclosure. He had only been aboard the Resplendent Dawn for forty eight hours, but he’d read more than enough to make it clear that the Gorgon’s were highly intelligent and capable of advanced battlefield tactics. Humanity’s swift victory was primarily a technological feat, not a tactical one.
“Which leaves pride, an absurd amount of pride,” he muttered, debating whether to remove the helmet from his head and return to study or attempt something new. Exactly what, he did not know. Not willing to throw his life away or test the durability of the hazardous environment suit further, he began removing it in a process that took several minutes and assistance from one of the Marine sentries on duty. “Thank you. Let’s leave it out for now. I might try again later today.”
“As you say, Mr. Thane,” the Marine replied. “Not sure what you could do though. Nothing gets through to them.”
“Something will,” Drake insisted. “But I understand where you’re coming from.”
“Shall I inform the Admiral of this morning’s result?” the soldier asked
“No need. It’s status quo for now,” he said, heading back to the table that had become his workstation and opening up a portable computer he’d been provided with to review the various multimedia files that humanity possessed on the Gorgons. Ongoing attempts at communicating with the planetside populace had borne no fruit, with the various kingdoms going to ground the moment anyone tried to make contact. He had already checked once, but he double checked to make sure there were no records of torture, starvation, or unusual punishment of his current subject. He doubted they would have actually been logged, but there was continuity in the timetable. That was enough for him.
“How long can you keep this up?” he wondered of his new adversary. It was practically against the code of his profession to consider an interlocutor an enemy, but given that she had attempted to dissolve him without fail every time he stuck his nose in the door, he was willing to make an exception. “Yeah, don’t remind me. The answer is at least a couple months. At least the coffee’s still hot.”
Caffeine in hand, Thane instead opened up various combat records. He did his best to avoid the more gruesome ones, but a few caught his interest. There were several instances where gear had been retrieved and the combat logs analyzed to discover that the deceased had been engaged in one on one combat by individual Gorons, sometimes in the presence of entire enemy units. “Dear Lord in heaven,” he muttered. “They’re going to make a movie out of this, if it’s even declassified.”
The ‘this’ in question was a helmet recording from a Marine private who had been surrounded by an enemy platoon. With no ammunition remaining, he had fixed his bayonet and stood to face his death with courage. Instead of immediately spitting acid at him or ganging up on him, one of the Gorgons had stepped, or was it slithered, forward. After a long moment that took Thane’s breath away, the Marine realized that the spear-wielding, armored alien was challenging him to something of a duel. Most remarkable was what happened when the Marine proved victorious, ramming his bayonet into a gap between the alien’s armor and bringing her down in a writhing mass of rock and flesh after several minutes of testing each other. The remaining enemies retreated, and the victorious Marine had survived the hostile environment of Udanis IV long enough to call for backup.
“Only problem is I doubt I could land a hit on her to save my life, even if she’s unarmed and unarmored… well, no extra armor,” he mused. The idea of asking another to fight in his stead was equally unpalatable, especially since he wasn’t sure the Gorgon would submit to anything short of death. “This is getting me nowhere.”
Recognizing his own limits, Drake sorted his affairs and left the interrogation bloc, wandering around the ship and letting his mind drift until he drifted right into an imposing blonde soldier whose rolled up sleeves revealed several mechanical interface points embedded in her arms. “Who the hell are you?” she demanded.
“Drake Thane, crisis negotiator. I’m here at the request of Admiral Freidrich and Rear Admiral Kaczynski. It’s an honor to meet you, Lieutenant Lavinaga.”
“Christ, is it that fucking obvious?” she asked, glancing down at her arms. “Guess it is. You lost, Thane?”
“Physically? No. But maybe you can help me? I’ve got a bit of a Gorgon problem,” he admitted.
“The survivor? Should just space her if you ask me,” Lavinaga said dismissively. “Assuming you want that thing alive I’m not your woman.”
“And what if I want someone to go in there and wear her down so I can actually attempt to communicate with her and not get a face full of acid?”
“And I thought I was insane,” she laughed.
“It’s my job at the moment,” he shrugged.
“Would I get to wear my armor?”
“Of course. Don’t see how else you’d survive. You're still mostly flesh and blood.”
“I’m going to let that insult pass cause it’s been way too long. She’s in the interrogation cells, right? Meet you there in a few.”
“I actually don’t have approval for this yet,” he admitted. “I just had the idea when I ran into you.”
“Well you don’t worry your little head about that, Drake,” she simpered, clapping a hand down on his shoulder so hard he thought his collarbone might fracture. “You let me handle those Admirals.”
-----
Drake didn’t want to know how Lavinaga had gotten permission, but true to her word she appeared in her full star spangled glory about an hour after leaving him in one of the Resplendent Dawn’s many corridors. The hum of the ship and overhead lighting was drowned out by the heavy footfalls and hissing hydraulics of her suit. When she reached his side, the visor of her helmet slid open.
“You have no idea how awful this feels,” she said affectionately. “So, what do you need me and Ares to do?”
“I don’t really know. Just wear her down enough that I can show her how this works without dying,” he suggested, holding up the portable belt sander he’d used to smooth over a few rocks that were now the sole possessions of the Gorgon. Lavinaga just shook her head.
“If that’s what you want. Should be fun. I wonder how long she can go,” Lavinaga said with a bit too much anticipation in her voice. “Well, enough standing around! Let’s go see if she remembers me.”
Drake readied himself at the observation port as Lavinaga hefted her enormous shield and casually threw open the door to the cell. “Sup bitch? Long time no see!”
Thane watched, horrified, as the Gorgon assaulted the Juggernaut with a zeal and fury that she had never shown him. Her venom sacs were depleted within seconds, only scratching the paint of the wall of metal that made up Lavinaga’s shield. She threw what rocks she had and slammed her tail against the hulking monstrosity to no avail, the borderline psychotic laughter of Lavinaga her only reward for her efforts. Sweat dripped from Drake’s brow as his thesis slowly proved itself correct and the Gorgon’s blows slowly weakened and became lethargic. The juggernaut drove the point home by casually pushing her to the ground after about half an hour. “Now why don’t you just get comfortable down there? You’re lucky someone other than me is running the shots or I’d be testing my boot against your skull,” she warned.
“Lieutenant please, we don't know how much of our language she understands,” Drake said over the intercom. “Thank you for your restraint. I’ll be right in.”
On account of the mobile metal wall that stood between him and the broken alien, Drake steadied himself and managed to summon enough courage to enter the area without any protection other than the jeans and shirt he was wearing. In his hands were two stones and the sander. The Gorgon watched his every move, her acid green eyes still alert even as her body failed her. With no acid left to spit, she bore witness to him demonstrating the ability of the sander to grind down and polish rock. He didn’t belabor the point. Instead setting the tool down a couple feet from her. “I want to talk,” he said before turning to leave with the juggernaut. “Lieutenant, whenever you’re ready.”
“You eggheads think up the craziest things,” Lavinaga shrugged. “Am I allowed to taunt it again?”
“Please don’t.”
“Fine, but only because you’re handsome,” she insisted when they were safely outside. “Oh, also you owe me a few beers on account of the time I’m about to spend in the armory. See ya, Thane.”
Drake was so struck by her antics he barely had time to rush back into the cell when he was the Gorgon lifting the tool he’d left her to the one place on her body she had no armor, her neck. “Stop!” he roared, snatching it from her grasp before leaping back several feet as his brain finally caught up with what his body had done. “Why? You’ve been trying to kill us all for months!”
The alien’s eyes were narrow and downcast, and bits of her natural armor littered the cell where they’d been broken against the unyielding armor of Lavinaga’s suit. Small areas of her body were discolored, a deeper green than the rest. He could only assume bruising. “Maybe I am fucking insane,” Drake admitted, walking forward and turning the sander back on. “I didn’t defeat you, so I’m not going to be the one who kills you.”
The Gorgon hissed violently at him, but was unable to physically harm or stop him from grinding down and polishing one of her shoulders. With no other recourse, she simply refused to look at him instead. When Drake left, he took the sander and every rock with him, not wanting to leave her anything that might be used as a tool for suicide. As soon as the door to the cell closed, his legs gave way and he collapsed to the floor, feeling only the racing of his heart and the damp cling of his sweat-soaked clothing to his body. He did not return to the interrogation blocks that day.
-----
“You wanted to see me, Rear Admiral?”
“Yes indeed, Mr. Thane. I daresay you did something, I’m just not sure that something was good,” Natori explained as Drake entered the interrogation wing the next day, having spent more time than necessary grooming and feeding himself. His mind weighed heavily with the pain he’d inflicted upon his charge. The language of the Gorgons remained an inscrutable mess of low pitched hissing and other sounds, but hopelessness was a universal concept. It seemed that their captive was finally allowing that darkness to permeate her mind and influence her actions. Per Kaczynski’s report, gone were the consistent attacks against those bringing her food as well as efforts to eat it. “I am not usually one for threats, Mr. Thane, and I don’t precisely intend this to be one but I know you’ll likely interpret it as such. We cannot afford to lose her. Her potential is too great.”
“I understand, sir. I’ll head in right away,” Thane replied, acknowledging the Admiral’s concern. Instead of stopping by the locker containing his protective gear, he instead grabbed his coffee and walked straight to the cell door. Natori held out a hand but remained silent.
“Well I suppose I did threaten him,” he mused, nevertheless ensuring his sidearm was loaded, a round chambered, and the safety off. Precautions in place, Kaczynski settled in to observe what he was sure, one way or another, would be an eventful ‘session’ with the prisoner. To his most welcome surprise, Drake Thane managed to enter the cell and stand just past the threshold for several moments without getting attacked, dissolved, or impaled. The man took a long draught of his coffee before jerking his head upward in a moment of recollection. The Gorgon watched him all the while, almost unblinkingly, as he left the drink on her untouched breakfast tray and retreated to retrieve the portable sanding device he’d used on her the prior afternoon. He paused to speak with the Rear Admiral.
“Well, I’d call that an improvement,” he insisted. “You ever notice what it smells like in there?”
Natori cocked an eyebrow his way. “I can’t say that I have. I assume you’re about to share?”
Drake shrugged and tilted his head. “Nearest I can describe it is the Devil’s perfume, like if fire and brimstone smelled appealing, or at least rather inoffensive.”
“How curious,” Natori replied, leaning slightly to the right so he could look around Drake. “Though perhaps we should ruminate on that once we secure your coffee?”
Drake spun around fast enough to tweak his neck, finding the Gorgon with his coffee in hand. Her long, thin, black, serpent-like tongue was extended several inches and lapping at the dark brown liquid. The two men stared. “Has she ever been given coffee before, sir?”
“Just water, Mr. Thane. Curious as I am, I would like you to go and stop her now.”
Thane needed no further encouragement, bolting back into the room to snatch back his drink. The Gorgon replaced the disposable lid and offered it to him. Her eyes were still as menacing as ever, but the telltale contractions of her chest muscles that foretold a gout of deadly acid were missing. He tentatively reached out and accepted it, earning a low, complex hiss in return. Glancing down, he pointed at her untouched meal and then the sander. The Gorgon cracked her whip-like tail against the ground in frustration but complied, taking the food to a far corner of the room and beginning to eat piece by piece. Her eyes never left him even during her retreat as she demonstrated a rather remarkable ability to slither backwards.
Drake figured that was good enough, sitting against the opposite wall and opening his coffee. While it didn’t seem any different, he wasn’t about to take the chance that an alien with venomous pseudo-breasts didn’t produce oral toxins. Instead he stood again and approached her, keeping both hands on the cup so as not to arouse suspicion. He deposited it next to her and then returned to his position. With a curious hiss the alien opened the lid and, instead of continuing to drink, dipped the tip of her tail into the still slightly steaming liquid before continuing with her meal.
“What in the world?” Thane whispered, watching as the greenish skin underneath the Gorgon’s natural rocky plating shifted to a yellower hue, starting from the tip of her tail and moving slowly upward towards her body. The color change didn’t get all the way there before stalling out, but she seemed pleased with it to the point that upon finishing her meal she actually pointed to him, then to the sanding tool in his hands, and finally to her other shoulder. Unheard by the two of them, Natori threw his head back in laughter, amazed at the transition from murderous adversary to an imperious giver of orders. Drake shrugged but saw no reason not to comply. He’d been planning to attempt such a maneuver anyway as a further showing of good faith following the Lavinaga incident.
When he stepped within arm’s reach of her, the Gorgon straightened her torso and held out a thin, armored hand and poked him in the sternum. Even her fingers had the potential for danger with their rocky nail-like tips. Her other hand rested on her chest as she hissed a particular pattern of sounds twice in a row; she then poked him again. He nodded. “My name is Drake Thane. Sorry I can’t understand you.”
Undeterred, the Gorgon simply lowered herself back onto her coiled tail and presented her shoulder. She hissed again in a softer tone as Drake activated the sander, taking another glance at his coffee which now seemed to be serving as a tail warmer.
“Might as well get started then. You clearly have quite a bit to teach me.”
Chapter 3
Available to the public on my patreon here due to reddit's post size limit.
Chapter 4
Available to select patrons here
submitted by SabatonBabylon to HFY [link] [comments]

Emperor Claudius: was he really a sickly idiot, or did he exaggerate his illnesses and foolishness to protect himself from the dangers of being a candidate for the Roman throne? When he died at 63, was he poisoned by his wife or could he have died of natural causes?

To many in his time, Emperor Claudius was like a cockroach; whatever upheaval Rome faced—and it certainly faced plenty—he would always be there, skating just under the radar, outliving his cleverer, braver, and more powerful contemporaries. A man like Claudius, they said, would die in infancy or outlive them all. It looked like it was going to be the latter—until it didn’t.
Overview: (Note: I apologize for the amount of background info here, but I think it’s necessary to set the stage for the various theories. cough\and I’m not good at editing things down*cough. Skippable if you’re just interested in the direct mystery part)*
Claudius was born Tiberius Claudius Nero Germanicus on August 1, 10 BC. Despite his storied pedigree as the nephew of Emperor Tiberius and the step-grandson of Emperor Augustus, Claudius inherited none of the charm or battle prowess of his relatives; instead, he was unattractive, clumsy, coarse, and often in ill-health. His own mother thought him monstrous and considered him the standard for stupidity. According to one story, he was forced to attend a memorial for his deceased father in a heavy cloak so that he would not mar the day with his appearance.
Because of his perceived uselessness, he spent much of his life overlooked. But being overlooked gave Claudius time for other pursuits, pursuits that in many ways were just as dangerous: history. One of Claudius’ many faults was his honesty, and Rome was not the place to write honestly about those in power. His family quickly put a stop to his writings, but the damage had been done; now, he was viewed as entirely unsuitable for public office. He was snubbed several times for any sort of position until the reign of Emperor Caligula, when he was appointed co-consul (more because of his deceased father than for his own skills).
After the assassination of Caligula by Caligula’s own Praetorian Guard, Claudius was dragged by the Guard from behind a curtain and appointed emperor. Claudius’ strange ascension to the throne followed him for the rest of his life, and made him unpopular in some circles, especially the Senate. But during his reign, he expanded the Roman empire majorly for the first time since Emperor Augustus, settled numerous disputes between provinces, changed the court system, created dozens of public works, and issued numerous edicts and reforms. Claudius faced several attempted coups, but weathered them.
His personal life was extraordinarily messy—one historian described his taste in women as “‘nothing short of disastrous”—but, in addition to several female partners, he married four times, each a terrible match. His final wife was Agrippina the Younger, in a mostly political union. She had one son already, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus; today, he is better known as Emperor Nero, of fiddling fame. Things were going well for Claudius and Rome. Then, on October 13, AD 54, Claudius died.
Afflictions:
Before we discuss the mystery of his death, his illnesses are, in some ways, just as mysterious. Several contemporary historians, such as Suetonius (author of The Twelve Caesars, one of the most important contemporary accounts of Roman history), have described Claudius’ litany of physical and mental faults in detail: weak knees, shakes, a stutter, and confused speech, as well as a tendency to foam at the mouth and drool. His laugh was described as ‘indecent,’ and his voice as ‘[belonging] to no land animal.’ Although some disagree on the extent of these issues (as well as the reliability of Suetonius himself), they’re generally accepted. Many diagnoses for Claudius have also been made, ranging from cerebral palsy to Tourette syndrome. Some have also suggested that many of the severest stories of his ill health might have been excuses by his family to keep him away from official functions; one as 'hideous' and 'deformed' as Claudius would not present the desired image of strength and intelligence.
Indeed, once Claudius took the throne, many of these symptoms lessened or even vanished, and he seemed to grow far more intelligent and well-spoken. Why? According to Claudius, he had exaggerated his ailments to protect himself. If this was true, it may have saved his life—in Claudius’ time, there was no occupation so hazardous as being a healthy male candidate for the throne. But it’s hard to know how true this was, as it was certainly a habit of those in power, particularly at this time, to edit history to make themselves look better—something no one would know better than the scholarly Claudius who had been so soundly chastised for truthfulness.
Contrasting answers to the veracity of Claudius’ claims have emerged; many ancient historians describe Claudius as crude, with a propensity towards gluttony and the pleasures of the flesh, as well as a great lover of games and gladiatorial events, the bloodier the better. He was also a voracious gambler, to the point of addiction, and he "[ate] himself to sleep" often. Even within these depictions, however, there are contradictions; Claudius is painted as trusting, oft-confused, and easily manipulated by women, but also paranoid and cruel. Yet these stand in stark contrast to Claudius’ own writings, which show a dedicated public servant, intelligent and well-read. Now, it seems possible that Claudius' rather stunted social development might be more indicative of an isolated and fearful childhood than a mental deficit. For centuries, the accounts of these historians were believed, but with the rediscovery of some of Claudius’ writings such as his “Letter to the Alexandrians,” which demonstrates his reversal of Caligula’s incendiary policies and belief in the rights of Jews, this perception is changing. but the lack of records from Claudius' reign makes it difficult to obtain an accurate picture; for all we know, perhaps those that survive show his only few good decisions.
Death:
Now we return to AD 54, and the eve of Claudius’ death. The only directly contemporary account is from Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis, written later that year. Although it is a satiric account, it indicates that the fatal illness happened suddenly, around noon of October 13, with death occurring an hour later (note: Seneca immortalized Claudius’ passing with the poetic lines “This was the last utterance of his to be heard among men, after he let out a sound from that part with which he found it easier to communicate, ‘Oh I think I have sh\t myself” I totally recommend reading all of it, it’s gold).* Alternatively, according to Tacitus, some time—possibly days—passed, as Claudius lay ill and "covered with blankets and poultices." Other accounts, including Suetonius's, suggest two separate illnesses, or a recovery then relapse. Suetonius himself points out the many contradictory accounts. But what killed Claudius?
Poison(ed?) Mushrooms - According to almost every ancient historian—including all the hits like Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio—Claudius died from poison (or poisoned) mushrooms, which forms an interesting parallel to the likely apocryphal death of his step-grandfather Emperor Augustus from poisoned figs. The alleged perpetrator was his wife, Agrippina the Elder, who wanted to ensure that her son would succeed the throne instead of Claudius’, and thus fed him poison during a meal, his death thus being "rather than due to her good luck." As Cassius Dio has it, Claudius was drunk (as he claims Claudius often was), making this poisoning quite easy. After Claudius’ death, the new Emperor Nero is confirmed to have also had all of Claudius’ blood-related children killed, and also once said that his step-father perished after eating "the food of the gods," that being mushrooms. If this theory is correct, the oft-repeated suspect is A. phalloides or death cap (even today, it is responsible for 95% or mushroom-related deaths in Europe). As some have pointed out, these mushrooms take about 10-15 hours to act, which is inconsistent with Seneca’s account of the death, as well as Tacitus and Cassius Dio’s, though it would match with Suetonius’, as it results in a period of 'recovery' then relapse. Claudius also died during peak death cap season. Another possible culprit is Coprimus atramentarius, which, when consumed with alcohol, causes vomiting and death. Alternatively, some believe that Claudius did die after consuming poison mushrooms, but that it was an accident rather than murder, as he was famously fond of them. The apparent recovery and relapse suggested by some accounts would have signaled foul play immediately to the Romans, who only connected naturally poisonous mushrooms with death in the case of immediate deaths. However, even if Claudius was killed by poison mushrooms as opposed to poisoned ones, it could still have been murder. Interestingly, Claudius was also known for his love of snacks, and ate often during the day—this could have provided someone other than the usual suspects with the opportunity to poison him. I'm not intimately familiar with how taste-testers worked, so I don't know if someone would have tested all his snacks to make sure they were safe. After Claudius' death, his will was not read; some have pointed to this as an example of Agrippina attempting to ensure the throne was secure for her son.
Other Poison - Tacitus and several other historians have referenced other potential methods of poison, such as a poison-dipped feather placed in Claudius’ mouth, possibly after a first dose of poison at mealtime was unsuccessful. According to this theory, Claudius’ doctor, Xenophon, was paid by Agrippina to kill Claudius with the feather while performing a medical check-up. It is more likely, though, that Xenophon used a feather to check the reflexes of the already dying Claudius after he’d already been poisoned or fell ill. Xenophon had been Claudius’ doctor for some time, and was richly rewarded for it; he would have had little reason to murder Claudius. Some historians have also pointed to Roman bias against Greek physicians in the stories of Xenophon's condemnation.
Natural causes - Originally dismissed, this theory has gained popularity in recent years. Many modern historians now think that Agrippina was villainized unfairly because of Nero’s disastrous reign, and that she had nothing to do with Claudius’ death. This is supported by several factors. First, at the meal where Claudius was supposedly poisoned, the guests noticed nothing wrong. In addition, as Emperor, Claudius had a food-tester. This food-tester, Halotus, continued working—very publicly—as a tester under Nero; if he had been an accomplice to a poisoning—and a poisoning could not have happened at that meal if he was not an accomplice, as he tested all the Emperor’s food—why was he not hidden away as a witness or accomplice, especially by the notoriously ruthless Nero? Instead, many historians now believe Claudius died of an illness or age. A few years earlier, in 52 AD, he had suffered a serious illness and nearly died. Interestingly, coins issued from this point until his death show that he had changed physically, his body thinning shoulders narrowing. He also led a very unhealthy lifestyle full of drink and rich foods. Before the advent of modern medicine, it’s not a recipe for long life, especially for one as sickly as Claudius. Additionally, some have pointed to the difficulty of poisoning mushrooms; the Roman style was to cook them in olive oil or wine, which would have poisoned all who consumed it unless the poison was carefully administered.
Final Thoughts & Questions:
I’ve always been interested in Claudius’ death partially because of the near-universal blame cast on Agrippina; it bears a lot of resemblance to the treatment other women of the time received, like Livia, Emperor Augustus’ wife, and Messalina, Claudius’ third wife. The unreliability and general incompleteness of most historical records from the time also presents a fascinating challenge in determining how Claudius died, and really, who Claudius was. Sadly, as with a lot of ancient history, there’s a lot we’ll have to content ourselves with not knowing.
Sources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279685/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/639035?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3Ac05a79bd516342a08a2825a14942407b&seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.jstor.org/stable/283354?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A1d38511c2785be2901e076562acc737e&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/claualex.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius#Death
https://historycooperative.org/tiberius-claudius-drusus-nero-germanicus/
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Claudius-Roman-emperor
As always, please correct me if you notice a mistake.
submitted by LiviasFigs to UnresolvedMysteries [link] [comments]

A break down of the bull case for Ethereum and how it relates to Bitcoin

There is a general understanding among ETH investors that the enhancements from ETH 2.0, EIP-1559 and L2 solutions will result in a sustainable monetary policy with near 0% issuance and the potential for Ether to become a deflationary asset. What is even more interesting is that the net return of ETH as a SoV becomes superior to BTC the moment that issuance is lower than the staking yield. In other words, even if BTC had already ceased issuance, it offers no mechanism to provide yield to long term holders with a negligible risk exposure as ETH does. There is an execution risk that Ethereum will not deliver on what is currently planned, but if it does then what I have explained will become a reality.
You cannot separate BTC/ETH's payment rails from their respective monetary policies. As you are probably aware, issuance is just a subsidy, and without it the network will need to operate as a profitable business with a cash-flow that is entirely dependent on network fees. We are observing a situation that is causing a degradation of the utility of the Bitcoin network. What I mean by that is that the incentive for users to transact directly on the network is being diminished because of the tokenization into ETH and by the introduction of custodians (like Paypal) and traditional banking services who will soon be entering this space. If these trends continue, I suspect that the only activity that will end-up happening on-chain will be done by whales sporadically transacting to hodle and the occasional settlement from institutions. Bitcoin seems fast and frictionless, but that is because you are comparing it to something in the physical world. In digital terms Bitcoin emulates the friction of operation that is found with gold: it is difficult and expensive to move it, securing it yourself is not trivial, and it does not make for a great medium of exchange. I don't think this will be a good dynamic to generate enough transaction fees. That is of course my subjective interpretation of it, but regarding this particular situation it is nearly impossible to make objective assertions at this point. It is possible to assert that, in the digital world, the expectation of frictionless money would entail near instant transactions with negligible cost and without the relative risk/paranoia of dealing with nuclear waste and having a hacker watching your every move waiting for you to make a mistake to snatch it away. Digital money would also need to interact with other digital assets, preferably defined and operated within the same ecosystem. Ethereum is steaming ahead on all ends.
Ethereum is fostering a digital economy (this is a very important part of understanding the value of Ethereum, but I will not be exploring it in this post) with DeFi at its center. It is currently generating about three times as much trx fee revenue as Bitcoin. L2 solutions are going live as we speak, and it appears that they will be much more practical and provide better UX when compared to the Lightning Network. This will help to amplify L1 block space value and push revenue even higher. That will be followed by EIP-1559, which will burn transaction fees. Mining is currently excessively profitable and the hash rate cannot keep up. This means the financial incentive can be reduced and by burning trx fees we achieve the equivalent of an issuance reduction, while stabilizing mining revenue. Eventually the transition to PoS will dramatically cut the operational cost of the network. That means that Ethereum as a business will become more profitable and less reliant on the issuance subsidy. Finally, we will see the introduction of sharding which will scale L1 by up to 1,000 times, compounding the effect of L2 solutions and making it feasible for the network to operate as a platform for new use cases. A solution to the hackenuclear waste security situation is being explored via social recovery wallets. It is still in the early stages of research and design, but it is important to realize that the Ethereum community recognizes it as a problem and is working on a solution.
There is a lot more that can be said about the BTC vs ETH debate and I am working on a full write up that explores each individual element in more detail. Regardless, it is important to pay attention to this trend: the smartest people in this space are shifting their point of view and realizing Ethereum's potential. Raoul Pal is a seasoned investor, extremely bright and open minded. He started with Bitcoin, but it did not take him long to understand the value proposition of Ethereum. Lyn Alden is a brilliant investor and mental powerhouse who initially did not think investing in Ethereum could be justified, but she is also starting to shift her view and now understands that it has a justifiable risk/reward ratio to be included in a portfolio (although she is not personally invested in Ethereum). She has plenty of negative things to say about it, however it appears that she recognizes this is not a black and white situation. I have a feeling she will be revising her analysis on Ethereum again in the future with a more optimist view, but maybe that is just wishful thinking.
The crypto space has a few analogies that have been used to describe technical/economic mechanisms that are somewhat tricky to understand: mining, Ethereum's gas, and the analogy between ether and oil. Crypto "mining" is not like real world mining. It's purpose is not to extract resources, but it is rather a decentralized mechanism to process transactions. Newly minted BTC tokens are not "mined", they are minted by the protocol and awarded to operators. Furthermore, it is impossible to change the total mining output of the network... adding/removing miners does not affect the mining output. If you are new to crypto, you can read a more detailed explanation of mining here. ETH's "gas" is not like fuel (it cannot even be stored). It is just a computational metric that is more akin to the distance a car must travel, but not what actually makes it move. The fuel is electricity and it must be paid for with ether. When you transact you are also paying for the "car" which is the use of all active mining hardware/validators for a fraction of a second. And ether is just money.
If you put too much weight on these simplified analogies, you will not understand the economic actuality behind them. This is a source confusion in the crypto space, and it is used to support false narratives. From an economic perspective, ether is money. Once you understand this, you will know that the narrative that BTC and ETH are not competing because they are different things is analogous to saying fax machines do not compete with the internet.
The beautiful thing about ether is that it is actually not "just money". It is a mixture of a scarce monetized commodity, money, bond and tech stock.
​
EDIT 1: Adding an analogy to explain why ether is money:
Let’s say I have a car with a 14-gallon fuel tank and I want to take it on a road trip. The car is not aware of the price of gasoline, and it would not travel any farther if the price of gas would double the next day. That’s because the intrinsic utility of oil has nothing to do with its monetary value. The car needs gas because of its particular physical properties and how the ICE is designed to utilize it. If I want to drive from point A to point B and it takes a full tank to get there, it will take that full tank no matter what happens to the monetary properties of gas/oil. This is fundamentally different from how Ethereum uses ether.
Ethereum (the network) is not trying to be money, but it utilizes ether exclusively for its monetary properties and not because it can be magically burned by an imaginary engine of sorts. It costs money to participate in the network as a miner, and their engagement is financially incentivized with ether. Block space is a scarce resource, therefore participants who wish to transact use ether to bid for it. These interactions are utilizing ether as a monetary medium of exchange. In the long run, as the price of ether goes up, the ether denomination of gas prices goes down. That happens because no one is using ether as gas/oil, and it is actually being used as money. In the short run you may see the opposite occurring because of the dynamic between the portion of block space demand that is inelastic and the demand for ether.
EDIT 2: Revisiting key concepts to explain how they will become price catalysts.
  1. Wide adoption of L2 solutions: these will amplify the base layer block space value while encouraging further network adoption by a significant reduction of fees. A successful integration with DeFi protocols will dismiss the "Ethereum killers" theory and consolidate market confidence.
  2. EIP-1559: reduce excessive financial incentives to miners by burning transaction fees. This will also discourage miners from attempting to artificially raise fees via spam.
  3. Sharding: scale L1 bandwidth, compounding the effect of L2 solutions, further consolidating Ethereum's dominance in the DeFi space, making it feasible to introduce new use cases and eventually increase trx fee revenue.
  4. The switch from PoW to PoS: discontinuing PoW will eliminate the operating costs related to mining and will allow for a reduction of issuance. Money that was previously allocated to buying mining equipment will be redirected to the acquisition of Ether. Staking Ether will remove it from circulation for extended periods of time. Operating cost will be negligible, allowing validators to withhold most of the Ether revenue. This will be the greatest bull market catalyst in the history of cryptocurrencies and it will eclipse the effect of BTC halvenings.
Bitcoin maximalists will be nay-saying all the way through and past a market cap flip. Do not get caught up in their narrative. If you are not sure, then it is better to rebalance your portfolio proportionally to market caps. If none of these things happen and Ethereum turns out to be a failure, then you would only have reduced your gains by 20%. Otherwise, ETH will be making you mountains of money.
EDIT 3: Ethereum killers
Ethereum killers remind me a lot of Tesla killers, but a lot worse. People need to understand that cryptocurrency platforms targeting financial Dapps are fighting the equivalent force of a black-hole when it comes to Ethereum’s network effect and user retention in this space.
Bigger players, with bigger money, are entering this market and they will not settle for anything other than the top dog. This pattern reinforces Ethereum's position as the premium financial system, which ends up attracting even bigger players and resulting in the black-hole effect. To make matters even more complicated, financial apps are more valuable when they are surrounded by a rich and diverse variety of digital assets and other natively defined Dapps. There is not much you can do with your money in a ghost town.
It is VERY difficult to build this type of environment up because the platform and dapps must also have established full trust from their user base. This is not to say there is no space for other networks to grow, but just don’t get your hopes high that they will be taking Ethereum’s stronghold as a financial system. There are other use cases that do not require the amount of decentralization and security offered by Ethereum, and the networks that can focus on these are the ones who will be able to coexist with in the long-run. Gaming, ERP interoperability and supply chain are good examples of such use cases. Remember that alternatives with cheap transactions have existed for a while and they have barely touched ETH's dominance (EOS, NEO, VET, QTUM, IOTA, LSK, STRAT, ARK and dare I say... TRON).
EDIT 4: Refuting critiques about dynamic monetary policy
If an argument can be made that the financial incentives to operators (miners/stakers) are excessive or insufficient then an argument can be for the implementation and execution of a dynamic monetary policy.
I don't think an arbitrarily picked issuance schedule determined during the genesis of a new highly complex system is likely to be efficient through its lifecycle. Bitcoin's monetary policy provides the certainty of stability and protection from abuse, but it sacrifices the possibility of efficiency and jeopardizes longevity. It would be like if a captain of a ship would point it in the direction of its final destination, set the throttle, then fall back to his cabin for a nice bottle of chianti and hope that the ship would arrive safely. There would be no one at the helm to navigate the seas, no one to make sure it stayed on route, no one to avoid the storms or to take advantage of currents. In my opinion it is a pretty bad approach to something as critical as monetary policy.
With respect to Ethereum's dynamic monetary policy: I don't see any evidence to suggest developers have been enriching their pockets by keeping issuance at the levels they are. Developers are stakeholders and the Ethereum fund holds a lot of ether - debasing ether is against their self interest. There is a great misunderstanding that the one's who are adjusting issuance are the recipients of the new tokens. Is there any documented case of this happening?
EDIT 5: Addressing Bitcoin's immutable monetary policy
The idea that Bitcoin's monetary policy cannot be changed is a myth. It is a false narrative that takes for granted that the issuance subsidy will no longer be necessary at some point, but there is no way to objectively assert this. There is no divine power preventing the monetary policy from being changed. If the security model for Bitcoin was jeopardized because of insufficient cash flow to miners, then Bitcoin's monetary policy would be the first thing on the chop board to go in order to remedy the situation.
EDIT 6: Five years ago naysayers were screaming about how everything that is being done TODAY in the Ethereum network would never work. Now they are calling Ethereum a scam, or that is is a platform for degenerate gamblers, or that the fees are too high and therefore it is useless, or that it can't scale, or that something else better is just around the corner to take its place.... you know... basically all the things that traditional bankers have to say about Bitcoin, maxis are saying about Ethereum.
EDIT 7: The greater the impact a new technology can have on society, the more difficult it is to comprehend its potential. Ethereum has the potential to have a dramatic impact on human civilization. It could take decades for it to be fully realized, but it would change the world in ways that we cannot possibly imagine today. If it happens, the moon will be just a pit-stop.
EDIT 8: Thank you so much for all the awards! Ethereans understand this stuff, and I could feel the frustration in the air every time someone said that Ethereum is not money, or that ETH and BTC are completely different things, or all the other bs attacks that are in great part founded on a lack of understanding of how BTC and ETH actually work. I would love to hear what guys like Raoul Pal, Pomp, Michael Saylor and Fernando Ulrich (for my Brazilian friends) would have to say about some of the things that have been written here. If you know a way to get their attention, then please do it.
EDIT 9: Clarification about Lyn Alden's opinion of Ethereum
EDIT 10: I am still working on a much more ambitious write up. It is focused on economic aspects of money, monetary systems and global asset markets. I still have not incorporated any of the information written here, but I eventually will merge it together. One of the main new ideas that I am exploring is challenging the notion that money has no intrinsic value and that scarcity is the most important attribute of money. I think I make a compelling argument to demonstrate that facilitating economic activity is more important, and how Ethereum has a big edge over Bitcoin in this regard. Here is the link to the WIP doc.
TLDR: Ethereum is not stopping at the moon... it is not stopping on Mars... it is going straight out of the Milky Way galaxy in search for alien life... but you should own some BTC just in case the spaceship malfunctions during launch.
submitted by TheWierdGuy to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

"Why you can believe the Bible" -- debunking a video

This video attempts to explain why one should believe the things the christian bible says, specifically because:
it's a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses, during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophesies, and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.
THESIS: The arguments and evidence presented in the video completely fail to support the above position.
It's a huge post: feel free to only tackle a specific section or 2, I think they're mostly self-contained.
In some cases I say that I suspect the speaker of being dishonest. If you don't like that, just know that he straight up calls people "ignorant, or evil, or both" [34:07] and "fools" [56:03] (stated as a fact, not merely his opinion) for using specific arguments or not accepting his conclusion. I think he opened up the Pandora's Box of guessing others' intent and so I've done it as well, though I've tried to be as responsible as possible. If you think I've been unfair, please let me know why.
TL;DR and conclusion next, for your convenience...

TL;DR & Conclusion

The speaker first presents the question: "why the bible?" (I've tried to phrase this more rigorously as: "why should anybody consider the bible authoritative on the truth of the Universe?") The speaker then presents his answer, and dissects it to address and support each claim within it.
However, his methodology for investigating the question actually rests on the premise that "there is no higher authority than the bible" (in his own words, 12:35-ish). This is a direct answer to the question he's investigating, and therefore any answer which rests on this premise is circular. I demonstrate that important portions of the speaker's argument do seem to rest on this premise and other lines of fallacious reasoning, and so his answer seems to be based on invalid reasoning and should not be trusted.
The speaker also fails to present compelling evidence for any of the claims which make up his answer, and often relies on fallacious arguments. His arguments include:
Even ignoring the circularity of his methodology, the speaker fails to come close to proving his point. That's not to say he's wrong: the bible could be an authoritative source of information about the Universe, and he's just failed to piece together a valid argument which supports that position. I don't think that's the case (and I've done just a bit to rebut that position), but it's possible. However, after viewing this video and considering all the poor arguments it presents, I still think it's far more likely that christianity and its bible originated entirely due to mundane natural events, maybe akin to what's proposed here.
In my own experience, however flawed the arguments presented in this video are, I've seen them used a lot. I hope that some readers might see how to debunk an argument they consider sound, so that those folks can reconsider their position and build stronger arguments in the future.

Video Overview

First off, this video attempts to answer the question "why the bible?" In the context of the video it's pretty clear what he means, but it's vague out of context, so I'll rephrase it more rigorously:
"Why should anybody consider the bible authoritative on the truth of the Universe?"
For the most part the video is a systematic dissection of the speaker's position.

The "Egregious Flaw" in Methodology

At [12:35] the speaker says the following, to rebut the objection that 'proving the bible using the bible constitutes circular reasoning'. He's trying to get in front of this objection because most of his reasoning is, in fact, an attempt to prove the bible using the bible.
The question is "why I choose to believe the bible". ... The answer to that question for me resides in the bible itself. Now why would I appeal to the bible in this way? Because there is no higher authority than the bible. See, if I were to appeal to another authority, then I would be conceding that there is a higher authority than the bible. So this might be a problem in any other area, and any other field -- however, I'm making the argument that this is the higher authority, and therefore by definition I cannot appeal to another authority.
He asks the question "why do I consider the bible authoritative?", and he investigates it under the premise that "there is no higher authority than the bible". The main premise underlying his entire investigation is a direct answer to the question he's investigating: this is the definition of circular reasoning.
​
But doesn't he make a good point? Wouldn't any other premise corrupt his investigation and bar him from reaching the conclusion that "there is no higher authority than the bible"?
No, that's ridiculous, and here's why...
For one thing, when the speaker says that his question is different from any other question in any other field, and yet fails to give a sufficient explanation for how it's different -- that's special pleading. Sure, maybe it's impossible to investigate whether any given thing is the ultimate authority. But even if that's the case, it doesn't make circular arguments valid.
Including an answer as a premise forces one to interpret all the evidence in a manner consistent with the premise, or to only consider evidence that's consistent with the premise -- which of course forces the investigation to reach the conclusion stated in the premise. That's what a premise is: a foundational assumption which guides all subsequent reasoning. It is not constraining in any way to assume that a thing might not be authoritative, in order to investigate whether or not it is authoritative -- it's the only honest way to investigate any question.
The speaker should be more than willing to assume that he might be wrong, and then undertake a fair investigation from there. If he's right and the bible is the ultimate authority on the Universe, then he can only demonstrate that by comparing it to extrabiblical reality. And again, if he's right, everything in the Universe should agree with the bible -- and even the nay-sayers ought to accept that as proof!
Why is he unwilling to strike the killing blow to his opponents' arguments, if he's certain that he's right?
​
In the following sections I'll show how this circular reasoning appears to lead the speaker back to his assumed conclusion.

The Speaker's Answer

Presented at 11:05: see very top for quote.
I'll address it claim by claim, as done by the speaker...

Claim 1: "... it's a reliable collection of historical documents ..."

At 15:08, the speaker cites the following as evidence in for this claim:
So what? In all these ways it's similar to the Hindu scriptures, but does the speaker give any credence to those? Though he does mention other religious texts [3:57] and even presents them as alternatives to the bible, he doesn't discuss these so-called "strengths" of the Hindu scriptures (or any others) in his lecture: I think either he's unaware of them, or his premise -- that the christian bible is the highest authority -- has caused him to exclude Hindu and other scriptures from his investigation, because analyzing them the same way he analyzed the bible would cast doubt on his assumed conclusion. So, "why the bible?" when the Hindu scriptures and perhaps others are so similar in the ways the speaker cares about? Who knows? He didn't address it, though he should have.
But even if there were nothing remotely comparable to the bible in these ways -- why should it matter? Does the number of languages used to compose something somehow affect is authority? For that matter, does composing one work on the corner of 3 continents somehow make it more authoritative than another one composed on the edge of the Indian subcontinent, or in the middle of North America? And why should we care how many people wrote it, or their backgrounds, or how many separate books it's composed of, or how long it took to write?
I know what he's getting at: he's trying to say, "how could this many people, over such a long time, across such large swathes of multiple societies, all be wrong in the same way?" Well, that's a fallacy called 'argumentum ad populum', an argument from popularity. Just because a bunch of people believe something, that doesn't make it true, or even likely to be true. All the bible authors were Jews and early christians living in Eastern Mediterranean societies; they were well aware of earlier Jewish oral and written traditions, and likely tried to constrain their work to enhance rather than refute the existing traditions; and the works which weren't popular or didn't agree with existing traditions were not included as canon! The bible's internal consistency (such as it is) doesn't indicate that its contents are true -- it indicates that its authors prioritized internal consistency.
The speaker has made an argumentum ad populum, derived from evidence heavily affected by sample selection bias and observer bias. It's a terrible argument, built on terrible evidence. After a bit of thought, anybody who isn't operating under the speaker's circular premise should be able to see the problems with this argument.
​
At 17:40, the speaker seems to claim that the author of Luke was a historian, and that we should trust them at their word when they make claims, because as a historian they researched the claims before publishing them:
Luke was not an eyewitness -- he doesn't claim to be an eyewitness. He's a historian who claims to have traced the information from the eyewitnesses. ... The fact that this man was not an eyewitness, but collected information from individuals who were eyewitnesses [...], and has followed everything closely for some time past, and he wanted to write an orderly account. ... Luke's goal is history and chronology.
Well, Luke probably wasn't a historian in any modern sense of the word, so "history and chronology" in any modern sense probably weren't his real goal. Modern historical research didn't really happen in ancient times, so I'm reluctant to accept that when the author of Luke says he has "followed all things closely for some time past", he actually means he's found enough objective evidence to support the claims he's heard. It's not what he explicitly says, and that was not the common practice at the time, so I find it hard to believe that's what he meant.
Also, I don't think Luke 1:1-4 (cited by the speaker) implies that Luke tried at all to investigate the claims he received from others. Instead, this passage can easily mean that the author of Luke was told some stuff by people who claimed to be eyewitnesses, and he's just writing those things down because he believes them based on the story alone. It's not even clear that the author talked to the eyewitnesses -- he could have just talked to the "ministers" in verse 2, who told him they got it from eyewitnesses.
The Lucan author could be recounting pure hearsay, 100 retellings deep, as if it's fact -- or he could have gone to the ends of the Earth to verify what he heard. But he doesn't describe his sources or methods, so we don't know, and it's hazardous to guess... Yet the speaker hazards a guess, and tries to pass off that guess as truth. In this case, I think he's forcing his interpretation of the passage to match his assumed conclusion, and to do so he's made a lot of seemingly unwarranted assumptions.
​
Then at 27:47 the speaker says this:
"There have been more than 25,000 archaeological digs related directly to the subject matter of the bible. ... Not one of them has contradicted anything that we have in the bible, and the overwhelming majority of them have confirmed and affirmed the things that we find in the bible."
First off, I don't accept this claim at face value -- I'd like to see some citations, but the speaker doesn't give any. Also, biblical claims like the Genesis flood have been thoroughly debunked (though I think archaeology only played a small part). I bet a lot of archaeology has proved parts of the bible wrong, and Wiki seems to agree with me so I think I'm right to doubt the speaker's claim. But that's irrelevant to the point I'm going to make, so I'll move on...
I accept that some places and events in the bible are factual. That's no problem. These were people writing about their society and their time, so it would be ridiculous if nothing in the bible were factual. But the fact that it contains some facts does not imply that all its contents are facts.
"My name is Andrew Joslin. I live in the United States. I have black hair. I love cats."
Those 4 statements are internally consistent, and 3 of them are true -- so does that mean they all are? No. One of them is false.
In just the same manner, some things in the bible can be true, and verified by archaeology and science, while other things in the bible might be false. Just because we verified the Babylonian Captivity with reasonable certainty (Jer 52), that doesn't at all support the claim that a deity had anything to do with it (Jer 52:2-3).

Claim 2: "... written by eyewitnesses ..."

First off, from 19:31 - 20:50, the speaker very strongly implies that he thinks the traditional authors -- the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, John -- are the real authors of the 4 gospels. Over and over he says "Matthew is writing...", "his favorite words are...", "that's why we have his gospel written the way it's written", and other phrases which make it very unlikely that he is personifying the books, and far more likely that he is talking about the authors themselves and believes they are the same as the tradition says. But those authors are merely the church tradition, and this tradition is very much doubted by modern scholars.
Additionally, multiple times in the video [13:54, 40:30] he cites 2 Peter as if it's authoritative on what Peter experienced and thought. But modern scholars believe this book to be a forgery and not written by Peter, so I don't know why anybody would consider 2 Peter authoritative on what Peter experienced or thought. If 2 Peter is a forgery then the reference at 51:20 is also problematic, because I suspect that a person who forges a book by Peter may also be so bold as to claim that all scripture is divine in origin, as an attempt to give more credence to their own forgery.
All this makes me wonder how much the speaker actually knows about how the bible was written -- and if he does know what modern scholarship says about these things, I wonder whether he might just be throwing out the modern scholarly consensus in favor of his personal, pet beliefs (his premise that the bible is the ultimate authority). Neither is a good option, and either way you cut it this lowers my trust in the speaker.
​
Finally, at 21:20 the speaker claims that John was an eyewitness to... something. He cites John 1:1-3 to support this:
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Okay, the author clearly says that he has both seen and heard certain, unnamed things, which have apparently convinced him of the truth of the message he is about to relay in the rest of his gospel.
I grant that the author is saying he "saw and heard" things -- but what? It seems like poetic language, and it doesn't make any distinction between the things the author has personally seen, and what he has heard second- or third- or nth-hand from others. True, the author may have personally experienced some stuff as an eyewitness, but it's unclear from these verses what that stuff was, and how much of the remainder of this gospel is hearsay versus eyewitness testimony. I'm not even sure that the author of John ever claims to have seen Jesus -- perhaps the rest of John proves me wrong, but from this passage it's entirely possible that the things the author experienced firsthand were more akin to what modern parishioners experience in church, than to personally witnessing the things Jesus said and did. People today say they are convinced by their own experiences without ever having seen Jesus in the flesh, so perhaps that's what the author of John is saying in this passage.
But even if the gospel of John were eyewitness testimony, that's still not great... Wiki says that "most scholars believe that John reached its final form around AD 90–110", so this would be eyewitness testimony that is, per most scholars, at least 57 years old at the time it was written down. We know for a fact that eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable. This study demonstrated the unreliability of eyewitness testimony for a somewhat mundane event. These are known cases where mistaken or perjured eyewitness testimony resulted in a wrongful conviction and death row sentence, and here's a study which indicates that high stress negatively impacts the quality of eyewitness testimony (specifically, it affects the eyewitness's ability to accurately recall the events).
If a crucifixion of a man named Jesus or Jeshua did indeed happen, then eyewitnesses to that event might have had some difficulty accurately retelling what they saw, even the first time they retold the story. This could be compounded with the eyewitnesses having heard rumors that he was a prophet, which might render their interpretation of what they saw vulnerable to suggestion. The long time period between the writing of this gospel and the events it describes is also problematic, because during that time it was passed on as an oral tradition, and continued retelling as a shared oral tradition can cause the recalled experiences to degrade in accuracy and become poisoned by later changes. That's how memory recall works: it's subject to errors and changes each time we do it. It happens to everybody, and to individuals as well as groups. It's not necessarily lying: errors can and do accumulate very quickly despite people's best intentions to be truthful.
So from the passages presented by the speaker, it's far from a certainty that the author of John was an eyewitness to the events described in the gospel of John. And even if he were, eyewitness testimony is extremely problematic, and frankly I'd consider it more likely that this eyewitness testimony has been corrupted by the factors described above, than the purported supernatural events in the story actually happened as described. Maybe there's more evidence to be found in John, but I find the speaker's use of this passage alone insufficient to support his argument: to call this evidence is wishful thinking or motivated interpretation at best.

Claim 3: "... during the lifetime of other witnesses ..."

At 23:22, in support of this claim the speaker says there's a huge problem "dating the problem late". I don't know what problem he's referring to, because he didn't explain it as far as I could tell. He then cites 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 as support for "... during the lifetime of other witnesses ..." -- however, in those verses Paul explicitly says that he's recounting a story he's been told. I've heard some speculation as to whether this may be some type of early christian creed, in which case it would have been meant as a statement of faith, rather than a discussion of facts in evidence (I find this plausible, but I can't back it up with evidence so I'm treating it as mere speculation).
But all speculation aside, in 1 Corinthians 15:1-7 Paul literally admits that he is not personally attesting to the veracity of what he's saying: he's repeating something he was told. Obviously he is personally attesting his own experience in verse 8, but all the rest is stuff that he was told and cannot attest to personally.
So Paul was told that "the 500" and a bunch of other people witnessed the resurrected Jesus, and that most of them are still alive. Therefore, when the speaker later [24:22] says this:
"If you do the math, there are at least 301 eyewitness to the resurrection who are alive when 1 Corinthians was written.
... I don't think the speaker has any justification to reach this conclusion. Even if Paul believed it was true, does that mean we should believe it? Again, Paul need not be lying here, nor do his sources need to be lying, in order for this passage to be a falsehood. Everybody in the chain from the eyewitness(es) to Paul could be doing their best to report the events accurately, and they could still have gotten it wrong.
Not knowing how long the chain from the eyewitness(es) to Paul actually was, again I'd say it's far less likely that the events described in the story are true, than that the message Paul delivers here was corrupted by false memories and erroneous retellings -- or even outright lies or exaggeration*** -- and therefore false. (***We don't know the pedigree of the story before it reached Paul, so we can't say that every middle-man retelling of it was honest. Even if you would die defending Paul's honesty, that still says nothing for all the people in the chain that passed this information to him.)
​
The speaker uses these verses again at 29:06, where he says this:
But what we find here in this text is, again, over 301 eyewitnesses to the resurrection who were still alive when 1 Corinthians was written. Why is this important? This is important because that means that the gospel message, that the message of the bible, is falsifiable. ... When you're testing the veracity of a claim, if somebody's making a claim and that claim can't be falsified, that means you can't test the claim. Not a very strong claim, if you can't test the claim -- that means I just gotta trust you, because there's nothing I can do to falsify your claim, I just gotta trust you. This claim is falsifiable. When Paul wrote it, it was a falsifiable claim, and yet it was never falsified. That's a piece of evidence that has to be weighed.
First off, even if the claim was falsifiable at the time it was made, it's not falsifiable now, and now is when we are being asked to believe the claim. People of Paul's time may have been able to interrogate these supposed eyewitnesses, but we can't -- and we can't even be sure they ever existed -- so their testimony can't falsify Paul's account for us. It's unfortunate that the evidence we need to falsify Paul's claims may be lost to time -- but that doesn't mean we should believe what he says, and as far as we can tell it actually renders his claims unfalsifiable to us. Per the speaker's own logic, this is a good reason to doubt what Paul says.
Second, as explained above, I don't accept that there were "over 301 eyewitnesses to the resurrection" still alive in time to read 1 Corinthians. Even if there were living eyewitnesses at that time, the following problems must be overcome before claiming this as evidence:
All of the above are perfectly reasonable explanations for why we don't have a specific, ancient document in our hands.
Also, for what it's worth, I'd like to mention that here the speaker is literally using absence of evidence as evidence of absence: this is an argument from silence, and it's fallacious here because it affirms the consequent by completely ignoring other very plausible explanations. Arguments from silence are perfectly fine when the absence of the thing necessarily implies the falsehood of the claim: for example, the claim "I have a green horn sticking out of my forehead" is falsified by the absence of a green horn sticking out of my forehead. Arguments from silence also be okay evidence (though not very conclusive) when there are good reasons to believe that if the claim were true we should likely have the evidence we lack. But here it is a no-no because what we know about the production, preservation, etc., of ancient documents gives us the most likely explanation for why we don't have the evidence.
So yeah, that's a horribly fallacious argument... And this one's obvious enough, and the speaker seems intelligent enough, that I'm going to just say it: of all the arguments the speaker makes, this is the one that most makes me suspect dishonesty. Maybe he's chosen to present this paper tiger in place of a good argument because he knows he has nothing better. It makes me suspect he's consciously chosen not to investigate his question, but instead seeks to prove his foregone conclusion by any means necessary.
Not that he's outright lying -- I think he really does believe his foregone conclusion. But I think he hasn't set out to honestly investigate it, and this awful argument is, in my opinion, a direct result of that flaw in his methodology.
​
At 30:44 the speaker states that the NT was written "very early", which I guess is supposed to support the "by eyewitnesses, in the lifetime of other eyewitnesses" prong of his answer. Yet he gives no evidence for this "very early" claim. I think these are the points where he tries to support the argument, but both seem to be non sequiturs (fallacies):
I feel that these two arguments actually distract the audience rather than supporting the speaker's claim. I don't know whether this was his intent, or a mistake, or I'm just being dumb -- mainly because I have no idea how he thinks these points support his claim. At the very least they distracted me, and after re-watching them multiple times I still couldn't make any better sense of these arguments than as non sequiturs based on straw men.
If you think he's supported his "very early" NT authorship claim at all with these points, then please let me know how.
​
But regardless of my poor understanding of this section of the video, or the speaker's lack of evidence, or whatever happened here, I don't think it even matters. Even if the NT books were written "very early", it would not mean that the lack of contemporaneous objections to the NT's claims constitutes evidence in favor of the NT's claims. Again, arguments from silence are not appropriate here, and I really do suspect that the speaker is being intellectually dishonest here, as discussed toward the beginning of this section.

Claim 4: "They report supernatural events that took place ..."

At 40:30 the speaker cites 2 Peter in support of this claim. Aside from the problems I already mentioned with 2 Peter, and how (in my opinion) the speaker's usage of that book diminishes his credibility --
Why would it matter that the authors claim that supernatural events happened? Should we just... believe them? It's one thing to say "I saw X". It's another entirely to say "I saw X, and I know that Y caused it". The first is a statement of one's own experience, whereas the second is an experience plus an inference. Why should we believe that these peoples' inferences about the supernatural are reliable, and that the reported events (assuming they actually occurred) were actually supernatural?
Note that my objection isn't based on demeaning ancient peoples. I don't think this problem really gets any easier with more knowledge. Inferences about the supernatural should always be treated as speculation, until and unless we find some way to objectively investigate the supernatural. We don't have a way to do that now, so we should not believe the claims (yet).
More support for this claim is given at 41:33, but it suffers from the same problem.
The speaker should be treating these claims as what they are -- claims, which need to be substantiated before anybody should believe them. He's not doing that. I don't know if he just doesn't suspect that they could be wrong, or if he's turning a blind eye to a problem he's aware of. Either way, it's just very unsatisfying, and consciously or not I wonder whether his circular premise "there is no higher authority than the bible" has crept into this part of his analysis, too.

Claim 5: "... in fulfillment of specific prophesies ..."

The speaker supports this argument with Isaiah 53 at 43:02, and with Psalm 22 at 45:44.
I read Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12, and to me it's not that impressive. It's not a specific prophesy, because it doesn't tell when the thing will happens, and many people (and even whole nations) of that area and timeframe probably fit that description. Jesus is just the guy that got super popular (though he was not the only one).
​
I agree that Psalm 22 seems to describe somebody being crucified. Or it could be another method of torture that I don't know of, but let's just assume it's crucifixion for the sake of argument. However, it shares the same problems as Isaiah 53: it doesn't give any specifics, so it could be talking about literally anybody from that time and place who was crucified. Jesus quoting the first line while on the cross could easily have been a detail made up by the gospel authors (or the people who participated in the oral tradition), as a way to heighten the image of Jesus as the messiah. They wanted to tell a compelling story, and that would be a great way to make it more compelling to a Jewish audience.
Anyway, the speaker says that at the time of writing Psalm 22, crucifixion had not yet been invented -- but he didn't cite any sources so I don't know if he's right or wrong. I looked it up quickly, and Wiki says "The psalms making up the first two-thirds of the psalter are predominantly pre-exilic and the last third predominantly post-exilic", I think referring to the Babylonian Exile from 586-539 BCE. Since I can't read Wiki's reference I don't know if Psalm 22 is in that pre-exile group, but I'd guess so, and that's the most generous assumption I can make so let's work with that. That gives us an early 6th Century BCE date as the latest possible date for Psalm 22 being written down...
... And here's a reference saying the Persians were crucifying people "systematically" in the 6th Century BCE, and that they probably got the idea from the Assyrians and Babylonians, so those countries may have been doing it earlier than that. So contrary to the speaker's bald assertion, there's some plausible overlap (as far as I can tell) between when Psalm 22 was first written down, and when crucifixions were performed in the region. Yes, I'm working off of the manuscript date rather than the actual date it was composed, but I think that's fine: Psalm 22 began as an oral tradition, and perhaps the crucifixion details were added into it before it was written down, once people became aware of the practice. I think that's far more likely than Psalm 22 being a prophesy, and since we can't reconstruct the original oral tradition we'll just have to wonder.
​
Also, prophesy in general has a few big problems:
  1. People who know of the prophesy can work to fulfill it
  2. People retelling a story can alter the details of the story to make it seem like the prophesy was fulfilled
  3. It's sometimes not clear whether something is a prophesy at all, or what is being prophesied
Both "fulfilled prophesies" cited by the speaker suffer from all these problems.
The authors of the New Testament obviously knew the OT books well, and were motivated to make Jesus seem like the Hebrew messiah -- that's why they wrote the gospels in the first place. That would give them a strong incentive to either make up parts of the gospel stories wholesale to better match the prophesies, or to selectively interpret the things they heard or experienced in a way that makes the events fit the prophesy better.
And even if there wasn't much embellishment, couldn't it be that Jesus and the apostles actively worked to fulfill as much of those "prophesies" as possible? A great quote from Matt Dillahunty: "If I go to a restaurant and order a steak medium rare, and the server gives me exactly that, is he fulfilling prophesy?" In my opinion, nope, he's merely following instructions, just like Jesus and the apostles may have merely been following a script. I understand that some people might still call this "fulfilling prophesy", but given the other 2 problems I think this idea of "fulfilled prophesies" is still on super thin ice.
Finally, Isaiah 53 is often interpreted by Jews as a prophesy for the nation of Israel, not the messiah. And I think they believe Psalm 22 is just a poem or song, not a prophesy. You can claim they're prophesies, but it's not clear that they were intended to be, or what exactly they predict, so when they're "fulfilled" (especially as questionably as in this case) I'm not sure how much that really means.
​
This isn't a great case for the "... in fulfillment of specific prophesies ..." claim. It looks like wishful thinking to me, again perhaps motivated by the speaker's premise that the bible is the ultimate authority. Or maybe I'm wrong and somebody here can do a better job supporting this position than the speaker did.

Claim 6: "... and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin."

At 51:20, the speaker cites 2 Peter 1 to support the claim that the bible authors claimed their writings are divine in origin. I've already noted my objections to using 2 Peter (a likely forgery) as evidence for anything that Peter the apostle experienced or thought --
But just as with claims for supernatural events, even if 2 Peter is not a forgery, why would it matter that the authors claim the bible is divine in origin? As discussed above I think it's very unlikely that Psalm 22 or Isaiah 52/53 are fulfilled prophesies, so now where are we?
We're left without any supporting evidence for the claim. They said it, so should we just believe it? As with claim 4, this is just very unsatisfying, and I wonder whether the speaker's circular premise had something to do with it.

Final Bones to Pick

I wish I could address his points at 52:12 and 53:15, even though they're not directly related to the rest of the talk -- but I'm out of space.
The first is an appeal to consequences built on an equivocation fallacy, and in the second he describes the questions one must ask in any historical investigation -- questions which he addressed poorly or not at all in this video.
These two attempts to twist logic into a shape that supports his point -- well, they disgust me.
submitted by andrewjoslin to DebateAChristian [link] [comments]

My ultra hardcore recycling guide for our house

Hi all,
I've been putting together info for how to recycle in Tucson while leveraging all the recycling options that are open to me: curbside, the city's upcoming glass drop-off, local and mail-in corporate-sponsored, and TerraCycle (a paid option). I aim to reuse or recycle every last bit of waste coming out of our house, no matter how crazy it may seem. Partly I just want to see how difficult it is; I recognize that my process isn't practical for most people.
Anyway, here's what I've gathered so far.

General principles

​
  1. COMPOST: If it can be composted, compost it! (More on this below.)
  2. REUSE: If it can't be composted, reuse it! Reuse is always the most environmentally-friendly option.
  3. DONATE: If it can't be reused by you, donate it if it's something worth donating that someone else could use. https://tucsoncleanandbeautiful.org/ has a great directory for places that will accept various materials. Cero is a Tucson store that also accepts lots of stuff for donation and reuse. Donation usually involves transportation and some kind of carbon emissions, but it's still better than recycling. Don't donate junk! Donations aren't a free trash can.
  4. MUNICIPAL RECYCLING: If it can't be donated, recycle it locally using municipal recycling (curbside or drop-off). Recycle Coach has all the info you need on what municipal recycling can or can't recycle. ESGD's page on residential recycling also has some important guidelines. Recycling uses energy and involves carbon-emitting transport, plus not everything in a recycling waste stream actually gets recycled, so try to reuse first.
  5. LOCAL STORE DROP-OFF: If it can't be recycled using municipal recycling, recycle it at a local store for free. Earth911 has a search page that finds these stores and breaks them down by type, and TerraCycle's corporate-sponsored programs page also has some local programs. These programs typically ship their waste to a recycling partner, often TerraCycle in New Jersey, which adds to the environmental footprint of the process, so try to recycle municipally first.
  6. FREE MAIL-IN: If it can't be recycled at a local store, use one of TerraCycle's free corporate-sponsored mail-in programs. These programs end up sending waste TerraCycle, just like the local store drop-offs, but are arguably less efficient than sending a big communal batch of stuff, so try to use the local store drop-offs first.
  7. TERRACYCLE (PAID): If it can't be recycled using a mail-in program, use a paid all-in-one box to have TerraCycle recycle it if it's small and light. This is effectively the same as using one of the mail-in options above except that you have to pay, so try to use a mail-in program first.
  8. REGIONAL DROP-OFF: If it's a big bulky waste that can't be donated, see if it can be recycled outside of Tucson (e.g., save up Styrofoam for the next time I drive to Phoenix, where they do have the appropriate facilities). TerraCycle accepts almost anything, but their all-in-one boxes are pricey, so it may make more sense to save up big hard-to-recycle stuff like packaging for Phoenix or another big city, if you think you'll drive there at some point. Don't make unnecessary trips just to drop off waste!
  9. TRASH: If it can't be composted, reused, donated or recycled, throw it away and make sure that you follow the guidelines for hazardous waste disposal.
  10. GOLDEN RULE #1: Make sure that the material is clean. Clean waste streams are more valuable to recyclers, which helps keep costs down. Don't use too much water cleaning up stuff, but don't feel too guilty about using water, either! Dishwater usage is a tiny sliver of household water consumption, not to mention that industry and agriculture generally use much more water than homes.
  11. GOLDEN RULE #2: The goal of recycling is to break down your waste into "primary materials" (e.g., plastic, metal, paper, glass) that can be used by industry to make new products. The more mixed your materials, the more you need to research how to recycle it. Knowing the basics goes a long way. For example, I know that metal cans get melted down, so a paper or plastic label attached to the can doesn't worry me because I know that it will get burned off. But what about a milk carton, which is paper fused with plastic? Or the circuitry inside the plastic base of a CFL bulb? If you can't intuitively explain how the thing is going to get broken down into its primary materials, that's your cue that you need to do some research.
  12. GOLDEN RULE #3: Knowing the basics of how recycling centers work goes a long way. For example, if you know that you can't recycle plastic grocery bags curbside because they get stuck in the machines, that's a hint that you shouldn't try to recycle your plastic food wrap, either. Or if you know that plastic bottle caps fall through the holes of a separator, that's a hint that you need to research whether your beer bottle caps are recyclable (even though they're metal).
​

Reuse and recycling guide for my home

This is not a comprehensive list of every recycling resource in Tucson, this is just for my house my household's needs. I've found that there's no one-size-fits-all solution if you want to reach close to 100% recycling/reuse, you end up having to come up with a list that's customized for your home, which requires research. I'm providing my list as a potential template as well as for inspiration.
Legend:
​
​

How do I sort all this?

Right now, I'm using a makeshift system of lots and lots of bags to keep everything separate. My idea is to do a monthly "recycling day" and drop off everything that needs to be dropped off as well as mail in everything that needs to be mailed in. I haven't had to do this yet since I started this project.
I hope to build a sorting station in my house once I understand my needs a bit better.
​

Notes on TerraCycle and partner programs

A lot of the corporate-sponsored/mail-in/drop-off programs are done through TerraCycle, a New Jersey-based recycler that specializes in recycling hard-to-recycle things (e.g., potato chip bags, toothbrushes). They make lots of their money through large corporations, which essentially pay them to process unprofitable waste in order to burnish their environmental stewardship bona fides. They also offer paid recycling pouches and boxes to the general public. You mail in these pouches/boxes (they come with a shipping label) after filling them up with recyclable waste.
TerraCycle will recycle almost anything and everything. However, anything that gets recycled through them or one of their corporate programs is shipped to New Jersey for processing, so it's preferable to reuse or recycle locally. They're also not as transparent as I wish they would be. I'm not certain, for example, how much of each waste stream actually gets recycled. They have a customer support contact form that's been very good for getting my questions answered, but beware that they take about 2-3 days to get back to you per request.
I bought the large "all-in-one" box from their site and found a coupon code online to bring the cost down to around $350. I read a review elsewhere from someone who got a medium box (about 50% the size) who said that it lasted her six months. My idea is to use this box as "recycling of last resort" and rely on drop-off programs as much as possible to keep costs down. On the other hand, this makes my life more complicated in terms of sorting different waste streams, so you could simplify by putting waste destined for various drop-off points into a single TerraCycle all-in-one box.
You need to register for free on their website to use their mail-in programs. Many of their mail-in programs unfortunately have wait lists. Of the ~15 programs for which I signed up around two weeks ago, about 8 had wait lists, and I got off the wait list for about 5 of them. So they seem to go through the list pretty regularly. Once you're in, you can print off a free UPS label from the "my profile" section of the site after logging in.
If I had to take a wild guess, I would assume that TerraCycle has a higher rate of recycling than municipal programs, but this must be balanced against the financial and environmental cost of shipping waste to their facilities.
​

Composting

The Achilles' heel in my recycling and reuse plan is organic matter. The City of Tucson has a composting program but it's only open to businesses.
There are a few volunteer-run programs here and there that accept compostable waste. I managed to sign up for one, UA's Compost Cats, and will be meeting them tomorrow to pick up my sealed composting bucket and go over the program rules. I know that they have limited capacity, so you have to email them. They took about a week to get back to me.
​

Am I insane?

Maybe a little 🙃.
​

Shout outs

​
submitted by Low_Walrus to Tucson [link] [comments]

How I got a (not really an) HOA disbanded - and destroyed a bitchy "President of the HOA" in the process. Warning: LONG ASS READ!

I was invited by one of the mods to share this here as a mega thread, so here goes...
Edit - apparently this saga was so long that I had to split it into two parts. This is part 1-4.
​
​
Well, apparently I need to put this in here. I do not give consent for my posts to be read/interpreted/posted to any monetized or ad-supported platform. Examples include YouTube or other platforms. Short version: If you make money off reading someone else's posts, I do not give consent for you to make money off of my posts.
​
PART 1:
After years of hearing stories of problems with HOA's (and having no tolerance for busybodies ourselves) my wife and I were both solidly in agreement that we would never purchase a home in an HOA.
When we finally did find a house and purchased it, we knew for a fact that we were NOT in an HOA. However, just behind us, we learned there was a (not really) HOA.
About a week after we moved in, there was a knock on the door. One of the neighbors behind us, announcing that she was President of the HOA, and welcoming us to the neighborhood. Seems civil enough, but we asked, "what HOA".
"Oh, we're behind you, the home behind yours is where the HOA starts."
"Ok, that's nice, nice to meet you..." Just general pleasantries.
We were hopeful. We were shocked, even. Someone associated with the management of an HOA that wasn't a complete busybody psychopath!
How wrong we were.
The way our lot was, there was a sliver of green space between our property line and the sidewalk, in a somewhat triangular shape (the street ran west southwest, our property line ran due east-west). So there was a wedge of land there. We'd always been told that this belonged to the HOA, yadda yadda - no big deal, just meant we didn't have to deal with the upkeep of this land.
Now that this set up is all in place, it's time to start the story of how we got the (not really an) HOA dissolved.
We had a couple of trees in our yard. Literally on the property line, so we took responsibility for taking care of these things. They're *MASSIVE*. They're also a pain in the butt, incredibly dense/heavy, and because of the way the limbs grow, they're prone to splitting and dropping limbs. There was a huge limb that extended way out into the street adjacent to the green space owned by the HOA. This thing was a major risk of dropping and severely injuring/killing someone. We didn't want that on our conscience (or our insurance!) and so we decided to take that limb down entirely, as well as clean out a lot of the deadwood in the two trees. Hired an arborist, they came out, did their thing. $1400 later, we were left with some decent sized rounds that we were going to move over the next weekend (I was out of town the first weekend after we removed the limb). I should not that the wood was neatly stacked in the green space on the barkdust, out of everyone's way, and in no way a hazard or eyesore.
Enter the shrieking harpy...er.. .President of the "HOA". My wife had stepped out the door the day I had left on my trip and she pulls up into our driveway, rolls down the window, and starts yelling at my wife:
"YOU NEED TO MOVE THAT WOOD NOW!!!!! THAT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THE HOA!!! MOVE IT NOW!!!!"
My wife is *not* a confrontational type. She's also somewhat petite, and tried to explain to the harpy that I was out of town and that we would be moving it as soon as I got back in town the next weekend.
Nope, not good enough. She shrieks at my wife some more, and my wife ends up grabbing the wheelbarrow and somehow moves this stack of rounds (some of them weighed close to 100 lbs) around the fence, up our driveway, and into the backyard. She was pissed.
So was I. We knew where the harpy lived, so when I got back I went over to talk to her, and explain that I was rather displeased in how she treated my wife. Didn't pound on the door, wasn't aggressive or anything.
They wouldn't answer the door. Cowards (we knew they were home).
This left us with a bit of a displeased taste in our mouth. The next spring, the hedge that is planted outside of our fenceline, well, it wasn't maintained very well, and pushed over two sections of our wooden fence. So I emailed the harpy and explained that their hedge had damaged our fence.
"It's not our hedge!"
"um... it's growing in your green space"
"That's not our green space!"
Waitwut?
"Then why the [censored] did you decide to screech at my wife last summer when we had the wood stacked there
Silence.
Well, at that point I fixed the fence so our dog wouldn't escape, after pruning the laurel back sufficiently that it wouldn't damage the fence again. And started making some phone calls. I contacted the county, and ended up speaking to about seven different departments in order to figure out who actually owned that strip of land. After probably two weeks of trying to find the right people to talk to, I got to the roads division. The green space was marked as part of the right of way for the road, and therefore no one actually "owned" that space.
"So I can chop down that ugly overgrown hedge that's encroaching on the sidewalk and knocking down my fence?"
"Yep," says the kind gentleman from the roads division.
"As an aside," he asked, "you mentioned something about there being an HOA associated with the plots to the east of your property?"
"Yeah?"
"well, part of what took me so long to get an answer for you is that it turns out there is no HOA registered with the county there, so we were looking in the wrong place entirely......"
"Wait, there's no HOA there?"
"No, hasn't ever been one since that subdivision was built..."
"Huh.... Interesting...."
And a plot was hatched.
We had befriended a couple of people within the neighborhood behind us, and they were rather fed up with Ms. "President of the HOA" and her antics. She was the typical busybody, bullying anyone she didn't like, and apparently for the last 10 years or so had been collecting HOA "dues" from everyone in the neighborhood to the tune of $300/year. There were 36 homes in the "HOA". Right around $100,000 in dues. For a non-existent HOA. With no real maintenance. Oh, they hosted an annual block party - potluck style.... They pulled weeds from the green space - on a volunteer basis.
So I did what any red-blooded American would do. I got 36 envelopes. 36 stamps. And printed off 36 copies of a letter with my findings from the county that there was not now, nor ever had been for the recorded history of the subdivision, any HOA, neighborhood association, or any similar organization. And that they, collectively, had paid in excess of $100,000 in dues over that time to a non-existent entity, plus any fines the non-existent HOA had decided to levy.
The neighbors, in turn, did exactly what any red-blooded American would do.
They sued the hell out of her for every penny they'd paid over the last 10 years.
Won, too.
And there's no longer an "HOA" behind us.
EDIT: Forgot to mention this. In all the digging into this mess, we learned she's a real estate agent. I figure I'll wait until she pisses me off again and report this whole mess to the state's real estate licensing board. *evil grin*\
Edit to the edit: as others have pointed out, this needs to be reported to the licensing board. Will look into that process....
Edit of the edit to the edit: I have sent an initial e-mail to my state's Real Estate licensing board (Real Estate Agency), and will post any updates as things develop. I did look her up in the licensing system, apparently she's licensed as a principal broker for her agency. This should get interesting.
Edit the fourth: And this should be interesting - her license is up for renewal at the end of this month. This should put one hell of a speed bump in that process. *evil grin*
Regarding the criminal charges, since I wasn't a victim of the fraud, that's not something I can pursue. However, I spoke w/ my friend who was one of her victims and he and his wife are talking to other people they trust about coming together and seeking criminal charges.
​
PART 2:
Today, my wife and I had dinner with our friends who were among the victims of this psycho. And I learned a lot. Probably definitely more than I should have. I learned a lot about the lawsuit that was filed when I sent out the letters revealing that there was no HOA. There was, in fact, a settlement to make the lawsuit go away. I will say this, the Harpy got a good lawyer. A *really* good lawyer. One of the terms of the settlement was that the total amount remain undisclosed, but our friends confirmed that they were made whole. Another part of the settlement was a pretty stringent non-disclosure agreement.
I'm gonna have to start pretty far back in this mess, because it explains a lot about how this all went down. The subdivision that Harpy lives in was built back in 2000. And it turns out that at the time the subdivision was built, she was the first one to buy in this brand new neighborhood. The developer had actually planned to set up an HOA (the correct way) but because of delays in construction and selling the homes, they never actually set it up. [Based on one of the comments below and a glance at the relevant state law, this is apparently bad information that was passed on to me.] That didn't stop Ms. Harpy though, not at all. So as soon as the next owners moved in, she reached out to them. "Hi, welcome to the neighborhood. We are setting up a neighborhood association, a voluntary HOA if you will. That way we can take care of the common areas, and keep property values up." The usual excuses behind an HOA.
Well, after the first 5-6 houses were bought and the owners moved in, and agreed to this voluntary "HOA", well... The pitch changed. It went from a "neighborhood association" to just a straight, "Hey, welcome to the neighborhood. I'm the president of the HOA, nice to meet you!" Most people went along with it. They figured they had missed something in the disclosures, or in the listing, or something. But this was a brand spanking new subdivision. And at the time, you couldn't find a brand new subdivision that *didn't* have an HOA. There were a few people that *did* in fact pay attention. When called on it, she would change her pitch back to the "Well, it's not *really* an HOA.... It's more a voluntary neighborhood association... But we do have some rules we've all agreed to (that it turns out she wrote all on her own), and we do collect a small amount of money, just $25 a month, that's not unreasonable, is it? Just to keep up the common areas, and the rules help keep everyone's property values up!"
All of that came to light during the depositions and testimony in this lawsuit.
And she sold them on it. Everyone signed the "rules" (She even called them CC&R's - with the argument that this gave them a certain legal weight to be able to enforce the rules), either under the guise of the "HOA", or the "Neighborhood Association". By the time all the properties were initially sold, it was roughly 2:1, those that thought it was an HOA, and those that thought it was just a voluntary association. And as people sold, and new owners moved in, well, the HOA pitch just got easier to sell. To the point that at the time of the lawsuit, it was somewhere between 3:1 and 4:1.
As testimony was wrapping up, her attorney put forward a proposed settlement. I was able to find out from my neighbor that in this proposed settlement the only people that would be, in the legal jargon, "made whole" were the ones that signed on under the impression that it was a legitimate HOA. Her attorney successfully argued to the judge that the people who signed up under the "voluntary neighborhood association" were not actually defrauded, and therefore couldn't be a part of the settlement. That *really* pissed off those people.
Because of the timing of the whole house of cards tumbling down around her, she had sufficient equity in her house that she was able to refinance her mortgage and pay the settlement amount. So she had to pay a lot of people back out of her own pocket, losing that equity that she had built up over the last ten years. I'm guessing that her husband was *not* in on the scam, as he was not one of the named parties in the suit, and he filed for divorce in the middle of the lawsuit. As for how he didn't know? No clue. Maybe she just had him convinced that her commissions from real estate sales were just that good. I have no idea what the terms of the divorce were, but it was apparently rather acrimonious. Our friends more than once heard shouting matches from the Harpy's house as they were out walking the neighborhood.
So hopefully that clarifies how she was able to sucker people in. Our friends were some of those that were convinced that it was a legitimate HOA, and they told us that she was so smooth, so convincing, that they didn't doubt it for a minute. At least that meant that they were "made whole" even though they couldn't legally disclose how much they got back.
Now, for more recent happenings. One of the things we talked about tonight was our neighbors going to the district attorney and pursuing criminal charges. Well, they talked to the DA's office this morning, and apparently the statute of limitations has passed. For a crime like this, even though it would be a felony level charge, the statute of limitations is only 3 years for that type of crime. BUT I passed on to them the idea of reporting her to the IRS. Since they were among those who lost money, I figure it's only fair that they get the reward if there is one. They both got a rather gleeful look at that idea. So yeah, that should be interesting.
One of the reasons that I said the Harpy got a good lawyer was that one of the terms of the non-disclosure agreement was that if they signed on to the settlement, they agreed not to report her to any professional board or any licensing agency. So she obviously had concerns that something like this might possibly, just maybe, perhaps have an impact on her license as a real estate agent.
Too bad for her that I wasn't part of that settlement. Because after my initial email to the state Real Estate Agency, I got a response back this morning, and after a couple of more e-mails back and forth, I was interviewed over the phone by the head of the professional standards division. They appeared to be *very* interested to hear what I had to say. I gave a recorded statement on the grounds that it would remain confidential (don't want her trying to make my life a living hell). And at dinner tonight, I learned that our friends have a pretty good friendship with several of the people that were *NOT* paid off in the settlement agreement, since they signed up under the "voluntary neighborhood association". The ones her lawyer insisted were not defrauded and therefore couldn't be part of the settlement. Which means they also are not covered under that pesky little non-disclosure agreement.
Before I started writing this update, I e-mailed the names and contact information for three of those owners who still live in the neighborhood to the head of the professional standards division. Because while I had to deal with her craziness and general pain-in-the-assitude, I didn't actually lose any money. But actual victims of her scam? I imagine their testimony will carry quite a bit more weight with professional standards. I also (solely for their convenience) included the state court case number for the lawsuit. Who knows, maybe they can see the records of the lawsuit and the terms of the settlement since they are a state agency.
That, kind Redditors, brings us up to today. If I hear more updates (which hopefully I will through my friends) I will gladly share them here, and I'll happily answer any questions I can.
PART 3:
And now, for Part 3 ladies and gentlemen, a couple of new characters have been introduced. Government agencies have gotten involved.
My friend and neighbor texted me this afternoon, saying only, "CALL ME!!!"
As soon as I was able to, I gave him a call. And he could barely stop chuckling.
He caught me up a bit. After we'd talked the other evening, he'd started talking to some of the people in the neighborhood. And it turns out that Ms. Harpy of the Not-Really-an-HOA is apparently kind of a slow learner. Because in the last couple-three years, while she hasn't tried to bilk anyone else out of their money, some of the newer owners in the neighborhood were being told that there was still a "neighborhood association" and she kept trying to enforce arbitrary rules on people. Except everyone had heard about her antics. And promptly told her to get bent. So if anything, her nonsense has actually created a more cohesive neighborhood. Everyone is united in hating her! :D
But that's not the reason he was chuckling. He was chuckling because he'd just gotten off the phone with an IRS agent. Now normally, that's not your expected reaction when speaking to anyone from the government with the word "Agent" attached to their title in any way. But no. He was chuckling after he spent over an hour on the phone detailing everything he knew about her dealings as "president of the HOA". As well as providing contact info for quite a few others in the neighborhood who knew what had happened over the years. I *really* hope I get to hear more about what happens with the IRS.
As if that wasn't enough good news, I popped over to the state real estate licensing board website (I've been checking it every day since I spoke to the head of professional standards) and saw this:
https://i.imgur.com/4zpahUU.jpg
Sorry I had to redact the hell out of that, but I really want to try to keep this entertaining for you all here while maintaining anonymity.
If I may direct your attention to the section titled "License Information" the column titled "Status"
Additionally, if I may direct your attention to the "Disciplinary Action" section, specifically the columns titled "Resolution" and "Found Issues".
From a little cursory reading of state law and associated regulations, this decision is temporary until the full investigation is completed. Once that happens, the professional standards board will decide if there is to be permanent action against her license. If there is, then there will be a date in the "order signed date" column, and a *really* entertaining link in the "documents" column in the disciplinary action section that lays out the entire case, from start to finish. (I've read a couple of documents in other cases I found where there was a final order - and wow, they lay *EVERYTHING* out).
So there we have it Reddit. I was almost kinda feeling bad for bringing up stuff from years ago to government agencies, but the fact that she is *still* trying to pull off this crap (albeit without the money part) made any of that evaporate like the HOA she thought she had. So it may be the end, or it may not, but at least for now, we've reached the conclusion of the saga of the Harpy of the Not-Really-an-HOA.
PART 4
For those who have read my scribbling on here regarding the Harpy of the Not-Really-An-HOA, hopefully you have enjoyed the saga so far. I am adding this last post on here as a place to put the aftermath of this saga and any updates that I may hear. Because unbelievably, this is a crazy situation that just keeps on giving.
When last we left Ms. Harpy, she was being investigated by the state Real Estate Licensing board, as well as the IRS.
Well, I learned something interesting in this whole saga. Apparently, while the statute for limitations for criminal tax evasion is only three years (or possibly 6 years, depending on the situation), there is apparently no statute of limitations on how far back they can go in civil court. So while she may dodge any federal charges of tax evasion, the IRS will be crawling up in her business however the heck far they want. I suspect that will end.. poorly (and expensively) for her.
Additionally, the state department of revenue has also caught wind of this. Can't imagine how that may have happened. Similar to the feds, while they can't charge her criminally on the tax evasion, I'm sure they also will be digging through all of her tax records for the last, oh, FOREVER.....
I've already had an interview with a rather pleasant IRS agent, and was able to go through everything that I knew, the timeline for what happened, and how it was that I discovered there was not an actual HOA there. When I explained how this all started because she decided to be a bitch about a couple of relatively small issues, and it has since snowballed into, well, THIS, she (the agent) laughed so hard it took us several minutes to get back on track. And she continued to chuckle and giggle throughout the rest of the interview.
And the state department of revenue has contacted me as well, wanting to set up a time for an in person meeting. So that will be fun. :)
I've considered going to the local news media about this as some suggested, but decided against it for a couple of reasons. The story isn't really as fresh as it was 7 or so years ago when it was all going down, and I doubt the news medias ability to keep my name out of it... Maybe not on the air, but somehow it would slip. And that would add needless complication to my life. If somehow she avoids getting her real estate license revoked, maybe that will change the equation enough to where it might be worth letting the media know. Plus it gives them a recent hook to tie the story into. "State Real Estate board refuses to revoke license of crooked agent! News at 11!". You get the gist.
I don't have the screenshot of it, but on the state licensing board website, there's three new items in the "Disciplinary action" section of her license. An additional proposed suspension sanction, and two proposed revocation sanctions. I'm guessing the second proposed suspension is so she can't default back to a "regular" real estate agent. And the proposed revocation sanctions are for her Principal Broker and regular Real Estate agent licenses as well. So that will be interesting to see what happens once it's finalized. I imagine that process will not be quick. Once I get home tonight and have a chance to redact the relevant information from the screenshot, I'll post that as well.
I've heard through my friend who lives in the subdivision that there have been several people contacted by the state Real Estate board, as well as the state department of revenue and the IRS to set up interviews (and some have already been completed).
And just out of curiosity, I checked the website for the local branch of the national real estate company she works for. And lo and behold, she's no longer listed on there as either the principal broker or an agent, and someone else is listed as principal broker. I'm going to take this development as a cautious agency making sure they don't get caught up in any legal messes. But I think someone just learned the lesson, "you are merely a cog in this machine. you are easily replaced."
In a final bit of entertainment for this saga, I was shown several screenshots by my friend of a post in the subdivision's Facebook page that was quite, well, I guess entertaining would be a great word. She's since deleted the post, but essentially she was on there shrieking about how they were "all" under a non-disclosure agreement, and she was apparently threatening to sue any of them that talked to anyone for violation of the NDA. This was met by cricket chirps from anyone who knew what was going on, but there were several "what the hell is she talking about" type of posts by a few of the newer owners who weren't in the know. But my favorite response was by someone who apparently is an attorney (based on how they phrased things) who wasn't here when the not-an-HOA was in effect (she's only lived in the neighborhood for about a year) but apparently caught a quick heads up from somebody. The short version of her post was that while she wasn't aware of the particulars of what was going on, she stated that NDA's don't cover someone answering questions from a regulatory or investigatory agency, either state or federal, as well as not covering any testimony being given under oath. And trying to bully someone into not speaking to such an agency by means of an NDA or otherwise might even be considered witness tampering or intimidation. And a few hours later the Harpy's post (and all the associated replies) mysteriously disappeared... But you know, FB will gladly hand over the whole conversation with a subpoena. And the IRS does not mess around with the possibility of witness tampering. So maybe she might end up facing criminal charges after all. Depends on how stupid she gets, I guess. If past performance is any kind of indicator, she may very well get to spend some time in the gray bar hotel.
And as any more updates come in, I'll add them on as edits to this post so there's one convenient place to watch for updates.
MAJOR UPDATE!!! See the attached photo. The state Real Estate Agency has finalized their orders on her license. Folks, I wish I could share the text of the final orders associated with this action. But because it is public record, it is also searchable, and would all too easily reveal her identity and open the doors to headaches for me and my family. So I'll summarize. The first revocation for Fraud or Dishonest Conduct and Failure to Disclose is of her Principal Broker license. The second revocation, for Incompetence or Untrustworthiness and Records, that's for her regular real estate agent license. There are some bombshells in the final orders. Apparently, as a few people suspected in the comments, there was a lot more happening than just what was happening in her neighborhood. I was shocked at how quickly the final order was released (from what I was seeing in other cases of revocations, the investigation usually lasts anywhere from three to six months). But reading the final orders, the Principal Broker revocation was based mostly on the information in the lawsuit that was filed by the neighbors back in 2012 and the ensuing settlement. However, their investigation apparently turned up quite a bit of other STUFF. Including lying to clients, falsifying records, not disclosing relationship between herself and sellers or buyers, and other instances of outright fraud. I will quote one line nearly verbatim from both final orders... Because it's just so delicious to read:
"While this Board has taken the strongest action granted by the [APPLICABLE STATE STATUTES], much of the information that was discovered during the course of this Board's investigation is beyond the purview of this Board. Therefore we are turning over all records and witness testimony to the [REDACTED] County District Attorney and the [STATE REDACTED] Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Division for further action."
https://imgur.com/qDKNVTg
ANOTHER UPDATE!: Folks the world of legal hurt his woman has brought onto herself just continues to avalanche. This morning, I had walked my daughter to her school bus stop (right on the corner where the not-an-HOA starts) and a unmarked SUV with government plates comes around the corner. Picture every unmarked law enforcement SUV you've seen in a movie. That stereotypical. And they park a couple of doors down from the Harpy's house. I risked being a couple minutes late to work to watch what was about to unfold. And was not in the least bit disappointed. Because out of the vehicle step two individuals wearing dark blue jackets with bright yellow letters. Some very specific letters. BIG letters that may or may not have spelled out "IRS" and underneath in smaller letters the words "Special Agent".
I may have giggled when I got to my truck. I may have laughed uproariously on my drive in to work. Because the first thing I did was look up just how big of a poop-pile she may have landed in. Apparently, a really deep one. Because from what I could find, the only people authorized to wear the "Special Agent" jacket are in the IRS's Criminal Investigation Division.
I texted my friend who lived in the neighborhood this as I was leaving for work around 7:15 this morning.He texted me back around 10ish.... He's been watching all of this unfold out his front window since I texted him. In addition to the original SUV (which is now right in front of her house) there's another SUV there as well. Apparently some other people wearing IRS jackets (just without the "Special Agent") got out of the second SUV, and he just saw them carrying out some "banker's boxes" sealed with red tape, and a couple of computers. And because this poo-pile is not yet deep enough, apparently they were checking something (assuming VIN) on the Mercedes SUV she started driving a few months ago.
I'll update this as he sends me more info. We're seeing the undoing of the Harpy in nearly real-time.... Oh, how sweet it is.
The second post (parts 5-8) can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/NuclearRevenge/comments/kst2vl/how_i_got_a_not_really_an_hoa_disbanded_and/
submitted by AmbulanceDriver2 to NuclearRevenge [link] [comments]

hazardous goods examples video

Common Hazardous Materials. When it comes to hazmat shipping and handling, safety is crucial. There are many precautions you can take to keep every hazmat employee safe. This reference list discusses common hazardous commodities considered to most hazardous based on high rate of exposure and the deaths, major injuries or hospitalizations they've been involved in. Class 9: Miscellaneous dangerous substances and articles including environmentally hazardous substances. Examples of commonly used dangerous goods. Below is a list some of the most commonly used dangerous goods and their class or division. These substances may be dangerous depending on their concentration. Your workplace may use hazardous substances and dangerous goods. Hazardous substances may be things you see every day such as paint, glue, cleaning liquid and powders. Dangerous goods may be corrosive, flammable, explosive, spontaneously combustible, toxic, oxidising, or water-reactive. Many hazardous chemicals are also classified as dangerous goods. These can cause fires, explosions, corrosion, and hazardous reactions if not handled safely. Examples of hazardous chemicals include: paints; drugs; cosmetics; cleaning chemicals; degreasers; detergents; gas cylinders; refrigerant gases; pesticides; herbicides; diesel fuel; petrol; liquefied petroleum gas The Dangerous Goods Act 1985 (DG Act) defines which substances are dangerous goods. Examples of common dangerous goods: flammable liquids (petrol, kerosene, turpentine, flammable paints etc.) Dangerous goods (DG) is the name given to the group of chemicals and articles (i.e. goods) classified as dangerous for transport by road, rail, air or sea. The DG classification systems focus on goods with predominately acute hazards to safety, the environment or the road and rail transport vehicle. The thought rarely crosses our minds, but many of the goods we use on a regular basis pose dangers to the aircraft. For example, lithium batteries, dry ice and aerosol whipped cream are dangerous goods. Some concrete examples of hazardous chemicals include: Acids; Glues; Heavy metals; Paints; Drugs; Cleaning chemicals; Degreasers; Detergents; Pesticides; Herbicides; Petrol/fuel; Asbestos; Gases; Corrosives; This is not an exhaustive list, and as you can see, each 'chemical' above will have a number of chemicals in its category. Dangerous goods (DG) are a prime example of this – so be aware of what classifies as dangerous goods and why you need to be careful with them! Today, we’re sharing the 9 classes of dangerous products so that you can identify whether your goods are hazardous and take the necessary steps to ensure that you can import them safely. Dangerous Goods and Hazardous Substances . This template is a sample only. Your Club is responsible for ensuring its plan contains current information and is up to date at all times with any relevant Act, Regulation, Local Law or By-Law that may apply.

hazardous goods examples top

[index] [7365] [7948] [4211] [8838] [8791] [1973] [2976] [2572] [4228] [991]

hazardous goods examples

Copyright © 2024 top100.onlinerealmoneygames.xyz