unicorn

I wonder what could have prevented the "Düsseldorf incident." Would changing browsers have stopped what appears to be phone spying on me, even when turned off? Do I need to enclose my phone in some kind of a box? Would that even work?

Thanks. I looked him up in Wikipedia, and I assume you're talking about: "Late in his career, Naroditsky was one of many prominent chess players who were the target of unsubstantiated cheating accusations by Vladimir Kramnik. Kramnik's allegations were condemned by many other professional chess players and prompted FIDE to open an ethics investigation against him...". Even unsubstantiated accusations can wreck havoc on a person. Accusations are so easy to make, and often difficult to disprove.

I do #'s 2-4. What's a brave browser?

https://people.com/chess-grandmaster-daniel-naroditsky-had-dangerous-mix-of-drugs-in-system-at-time-of-death-at-age-29-11836092 "Daniel Naroditsky's cause of death has been revealed months after the chess grandmaster and commentator died at age 29. The North Carolina Office of the Chief Medical Examiner confirms to PEOPLE that Naroditsky's toxicology report showed that he had taken a mix of drugs prior to his death, including substances such as methamphetamine and amphetamine. Traces of 7-hydroxymitragynine and mitragynine were also discovered in Naroditsky's system, both of which are known to be common ingredients in the opioid-like drug kratom. The late YouTuber died from "accidental poisoning after ingesting a drug cocktail," the medical examiner's office confirms to PEOPLE...". Another reminder of the dangers of mixing drugs... 😢

I hate to think of what might have happened to any escaped POW who did get recaptured. That being said, they would definitely have been known to be recaptured prisoners. My father and paternal grandfather were in the Belgian resistance during WWII, and I think they'd have been shot had they been captured (especially my grandfather, who was a colonel). They helped some Jews escape, smuggled equipment, engaged in sabotage, etc.

You may be right. Wikipedia isn't always the most reliable source of information. If you live there, you may know better.

Nor in your childish belief that majority opinion equates with fact.

From Wikipedia: "...In the United States, Canada, Armenia, Romania, the Netherlands, Southeast Asia, and Australia, it is celebrated in October to coincide with National Coming Out Day on 11 October and to commemorate the first and second Marches on Washington in 1979 and 1987 for LGBTQ rights. In the United Kingdom it is observed during February; in the UK this coincides with a major celebration of the 2003 abolition of Section 28. In Berlin, the capital of Germany, it is known as Queer History Month and is celebrated in May...".

Nothing new.

Well, you lied again when you said you were ending the discussion. It's extremely childish to stay entrenched in one's position when presented with hard facts which disprove one's opinion--just like Trumpers and MAGA-heads. Your "arguments" are simply (1) Most parents follow the father's lead, and most men aren't cut, (2) Lies about a fake study, and (3) Obviously completely irrelevant side-tracks about Laos, etc., which have nothing to do with the facts at hand. Well, you're not alone in your childishness. A majority voted for Trump, ignoring undeniable evidence that he's a liar and a fraud (criminal conviction for fraud, repeating for 11 years that he has a health care plan but not divulging it, obvious lies such as his statement that immigrants eat pets, etc.), so the majority must be right, according to you. You just go with the majority and don't care to even consider the facts.

Yes, it's the same in that you refuse to acknowledge indisputable facts, and believe that opinion overrides facts.

Only an abject fool would think that scientific facts change on the basis of political boundaries or due to public opinion. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to come up with studies to dispute the ones I referenced.

Well, I do follow the Facebook stories of each of the married pair, but the music festival was a couple of months ago, if I'm recalling correctly, so that's what made the YouTube suggestion feel super-creepy to me. As a matter of fact, the frequently-traveling (and very hardy) couple just got back from French Polynesia (we hadn't connected seen each other in between the two trips, as my husband and I were in Antarctica). I can hardly imagine doing many of the things they'd done, such as doing a 100-mile trek to Everest Base Camp in one week (!!), and hiking to the top of Mount Whitney (4421 m) and back in one day(!!!). I had to nurse them back to health after the last one. If I ever make it to the top of Mount Whitney, it'd have to be by mule.

Because of my concern of conversations being spied upon, I don't own any of those spying machines such as Alexa. But last night we had some friends over for dinner and cocktails. One of them recently went to Düsseldorf for some music festival, and I asked him some questions about the city (which I have passed by in the past but never visited). This morning, the first suggestion I found from YouTube videos was a video on what to see in Düsseldorf. We're taking a Danube cruise in May, and I have searched for things to do in Vienna, Salzburg, Innsbruck, and Hallstatt, as well as made hotel reservations in Austria, Budapest, and Moldova, but never any searches in Germany, much less northern Germany or Düsseldorf. My phone wasn't on while we were together (albeit not powered off). We are friends on Facebook and Instagram. Anyone here have any idea as to why YouTube gave that suggestion? Or is it just a creepy coincidence (researching future destinations in general is one of the things I do on YouTube, but, again, nothing ever near Düsseldorf or the Ruhr Valley in general)?

I enjoy these James Brown "I Feel Good!" pranks...

I provide actual scientific facts, with links to actual data, and you counter with a preposterous lie! Shameful! You should get in bed with @Moses. You two deserve each other. 🤮

What an outrageous, insane lie. What's the link to the study? More anti-circumcision BS, once again.

Obviously, one also has to know the cultural reference in order to understand some jokes. Even if jokes are given in the native language, someone unfamiliar with the customs of that culture won't be able to understand the joke.

Interestingly enough, I couldn't find a scientific study of gay men's preferences! However, this meta-analysis looked at studies of women's preferences, and there have apparently been quite a few of them, mostly including cultures in which male circumcision (MC) is NOT the norm. This meta-analysis put together the results of 29 studies: https://academic.oup.com/smoa/article/7/2/145/6956488 "... Cultural differences in preference were evident among some of the studies examined. Nevertheless, a preference for a circumcised penis was seen in most populations regardless of the frequency of MC in the study setting... Women’s preferences generally favor the circumcised penis for sexual activity, hygiene, and lower risk of infection. The findings add to the already well-established health benefits favoring MC and provide important sociosexual information on an issue of widespread interest...".

It's barely dignified to reply to such a brainless "argument" that counters scientific fact with "a very considerable majority of the world remains uncircumcised." My only concerns are (1) that those parents who choose this healthcare decision (and this is a healthcare decision, not a cosmetic one) not be derided, and (2) that those who are against circumcision stop promulgating factually false information. If there are, indeed, 3 billion uncircumcised men on this planet, then 300,000 young boys died for that reason, and tens of millions had serious childhood urinary tract infections as a result. I won't entertain cosmetic opinions in what, one would hope, would be an intelligent discussion.

That reminds me of the photo my husband has of me on his dresser--I was in my 20s! 😯 Sometimes he shows the photo some of his friends, who sometimes gasp "Oh, my God!" as if I'd turned into an ogre. 😄

I get it that most parents will simply follow the lead of the baby's father when making the decision to circumcise or not, rather than following the facts of what's safer for the baby. No one is saying parents shouldn't have that right. After all, the risk of death due to lack of circumcision is less than 1 in 10,000, the risk of serious kidney infection less than 1 in 400. Like a bunch of old-timers will say, they never had seatbelts, infant car seats, or airbags in my day, and I came out fine. Of course, infant circumcision is mainly done to protect the baby's own life, and doesn't have the same public health consequences as immunization. Actually, there is some public health benefit which will come later in that infant's life, mainly in the form of STD's, but that's not the main reason for infant circumcision. Of note, there are some routine interventions given to infants, such as an injection of vitamin K at birth to prevent bleeding in the brain, which doesn't have public health consequences, but is done solely for the baby's benefit. Vitamin K injections are part of routine orders which are rarely even discussed with the parents. What I don't appreciate are BS statements such as circumcisions being too risky or causing sexual problems, both of which are false statements (and the ones usually given by the anti-circumcision crowd). The worst is when elected government officials spout such BS in order to try to pass laws removing parental decisions on what's best for their baby boys. So you didn't have a circumcision and don't want your baby boy to have one either. That's fine (as long as it's an informed choice, having been given truthful information).

You can say that again.