Substack #Flushyourmeds
Substack #Flushyourmeds
Substack #Flushyourmeds
https://web.archive.org/https://
flushyourmeds.substack.com/ ;
https://archvie.today/https://
flushyourmeds.substack.com/ ;
https://archive.ph/https://
flushyourmeds.substack.com/ ;
https://doi.org/10.5150/
dexterbla.999h01495361447arch64linuxluks
na.null1 ;
https://doi.org/10.5150/
dexterbla.999h01495361447arch64linuxluks
na.null1 ;
"I was in the USAF from 1970-76 Great Falls MT. This is what I saw. The
paint shop was in charge of all chemicals they came under inspection about 4
times a year so when they knew they were coming and the label on the
container was missing or eaten away they poured it down the drain and the
can went into dumpster. Then they were ready for inspection ! The IG was
feared the most" --(My DAD)
KREM 2 Archives: Airway Heights tap water contaminated
KREM 2 News
53.2K subscribers
KREM 2 Archives: Airway Heights tap water contaminated
Watch on
KREM 2 News
53K subscribers
KREM 2 Archives: Airway Heights tap water contaminated
Watch on
--Scott Alan Barry The Non Partisan Holocaust Denier Atheist ... ;
This is the Footer EOF of this Exact ASCII Print Text Document ... ;
Introduction
For decades, psychiatrists and psychologists have claimed a monopoly over
the field of mental health. Governments and private health insurance
companies have provided them with billions of dollars every year to treat
“mental illness,” only to face industry demands for even more funds to
improve the supposed, ever-worsening state of mental health. No other
industry can afford to fail consistently and expect to get more funding.
The United States loses approximately $100 billion (€81.5 billion) to health
care fraud each year. Up to $20 billion (€15.7 billion) of this is due to
fraudulent practices in the mental health industry.
One of the largest health care fraud suits in US history was in mental
health, yet it is the smallest sector within health care.
A study of US Medicaid and Medicare insurance fraud, especially in New
York, over a twenty-year period, showed psychiatry to have the worst track
record of all medical disciplines.
Germany reports roughly $1 billion (€807 million) is defrauded each year.
In Australia, health care fraud and patient over-servicing has cost
taxpayers up to $330 million (€226 million) a year.
In Ontario, Canada, psychotherapist Michael Bogart was sentenced to 18
months in jail for defrauding the government of almost $1 million (€815,993),
the largest medical fraud case in the history of the province.
The mental health monopoly has practically zero accountability and zero
liability for its failures. This has allowed psychiatrists and psychologists to
commit far more than just financial fraud. The roster of crimes committed by
these “professionals” ranges from fraud, drug offenses, rape and sexual abuse
to child molestation, assault, manslaughter and murder.
The primary purpose of mental health treatment must be the therapeutic care
and treatment of individuals who are suffering emotional disturbance. It must
never be the financial or personal gain of the practitioner. Those suffering are
inevitably vulnerable and impressionable. Proper treatment therefore
demands the highest level of trustworthiness and integrity in the practitioner.
As experience has shown that there are many criminal mental health
practitioners, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights has developed a
database at www.psychcrime.org that lists many of the people in the mental
health industry who have been convicted and jailed.
There is no place for criminal intent or deed in the field of mental health.
CCHR works with others to ensure this standard is upheld.
Sincerely,
Jan Eastgate
President
Citizens Commission
on Human Rights International
This is the FOOTER EOF of This ASCII BASED TEXT PRINT
DOCUMENT ... ;
The two major categories of free software license are copyleft and non-
copyleft. Copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL insist that modified versions
of the program must be free software as well. Non-copyleft licenses do not
insist on this. We recommend copyleft, because it protects freedom for all
users, but non-copylefted software can still be free software, and useful to the
free software community.
See “How to choose a license for your own work” for general
recommendations about choosing a license for your work.
There are many variants of simple non-copyleft free software licenses, such as
the Expat license, FreeBSD license, X10 license, the X11 license, and the two
BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) licenses. Most of them are equivalent
except for details of wording, but the license used for BSD until 1999 had a
special problem: the “obnoxious BSD advertising clause.” It said that every
advertisement mentioning the software must include a particular sentence:
Initially the obnoxious BSD advertising clause was used only in the Berkeley
Software Distribution. That did not cause any particular problem, because
including one sentence in an ad is not a great practical difficulty.
If other developers who used BSD-like licenses had copied the BSD
advertising clause verbatim—including the sentence that refers to the
University of California—then they would not have made the problem any
bigger.
But, as you might expect, other developers did not copy the clause verbatim.
They changed it, replacing “University of California” with their own
institution or their own names. The result is a plethora of licenses, requiring a
plethora of different sentences.
When people put many such programs together in an operating system, the
result is a serious problem. Imagine if a software system required 75 different
sentences, each one naming a different author or group of authors. To
advertise that, you would need a full-page ad.
To address this problem, in my “spare time” I talk with developers who have
used BSD-style licenses, asking them if they would please remove the
advertising clause. Around 1996 I spoke with the developers of FreeBSD
about this, and they decided to remove the advertising clause from all of their
own code. In May 1998 the developers of Flick, at the University of Utah,
removed this clause.
Dean Hal Varian at the University of California took up the cause, and
championed it with the administration. In June 1999, after two years of
discussions, the University of California removed this clause from the license
of BSD.
Thus, there is now a new BSD license which does not contain the advertising
clause. Unfortunately, this does not eliminate the legacy of the advertising
clause: similar clauses are still present in the licenses of many packages which
are not part of BSD. The change in license for BSD has no effect on the other
packages which imitated the old BSD license; only the developers who made
them can change them.
But if they followed Berkeley's lead before, maybe Berkeley's change in policy
will convince some of them to change. It's worth asking.
So if you have a favorite package which still uses the BSD license with the
advertising clause, please ask the maintainer to look at this web page, and
consider making the change.
You can also help spread awareness of the issue by not using the term “BSD-
style,” and not saying “the BSD license” which implies there is only one. You
see, when people refer to all non-copyleft free software licenses as “BSD-style
licenses,” some new free software developer who wants to use a non-copyleft
free software license might take for granted that the place to get it is from
BSD. He or she might copy the license with the advertising clause, not by
specific intention, just by chance.
If you would like to cite one specific example of a non-copyleft license, and
you have no particular preference, please pick an example which has no
particular problem. For instance, if you talk about “X11-style licenses,” you
will encourage people to copy the license from X11, which avoids the
advertising clause for certain, rather than take a risk by randomly choosing
one of the BSD licenses.
Or you could mention the non-copyleft license which we recommend over the
other non-copyleft licenses: the Apache 2.0 license, which has a clause to
prevent treachery with patents.
When you want to refer specifically to one of the BSD licenses, please always
state which one: the “original BSD license” or the “modified BSD license.”
Later a third BSD license variant was introduced, with only the first two of
the original BSD license's four clauses. We call it the “FreeBSD license.” It is
a lax, noncopyleft free license, compatible with the GNU GPL, much like the
modified BSD license.
--Scott A. Barry ... ;
https://files.catbox.moe/50eirh.png … ;
[scott@scott ~]$
--Scott A. Barry , Tune2fs -O ^read-only EXT4ROFSSSD ... ;
This is the Footer EOF of this Dumb R*****ed Document Thing ... ;
—Scott A. Barry … ;
This is the Footer EOF of all this Drivel Writing … ;