Mo Katir admits whereabouts failures -- banned 2 years and will miss '24 Olympics

Khamis wrote:

Just FYI, Lionel Messi once gave an interview with sports media and said the following or otherwise when asked how he plays the game of football and whether he has a set of (objective) rules of regulation on the football pitch he abides by:

"No I have no idea how I am going to play before the game. I only know how to play the game the second the game comes to me or in that moment I receive the ball. I play based wholly on HOW I FEEL INSTINCTIVELY from my heart/soul/spirit with no plan or rules."

The God of Football says he operates completely subjectively (instinctively) from his soul/mind/heart or to mean the same or equivalent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We all know how hard it is to play football, much less master the game so insanely well to the level of God status----which is to mean level of instinct so insanely good as to be PROPHETIC AND PRESCIENT of knowing when and where the ball and players will move or react in physical space and time and how much energy, momentum, acceleration to apply to both his body and the ball!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lionel Messi is prove that IF your mind and body's frequency and vibration are in tune with the cosmos/universe, hence a state of 'flow' achieved, SUBJECTIVITY (PROPHECY) PROVES OBJECTIVITY (GOAL IN THE BACK OF THE GOALPOST) right or brings it to fruition!!!!!!!!!!! Subjectivity (prescience) realizes objectivity (goal in the back of the goalpost!!!) in space-time, subjectivity creates the very objectivity you want to see which is the goal in the back of the goalpost or analogously to mean 'TRUTH'!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'Truth' would be analogous to the 'goal in the back of the goalpost'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is how you conduct reason and persuasion, dear rekrunner, forever subjectivity first then objectivity as wingman not the other way round!!!!!

rekrunner wrote:

Khamis wrote:

Look dear rekrunner, precisely you can see concede and declare are defined differently, meaning that there is a semantical lag between the 2 which you precisely love to take advantage of to enhance your pro-doping agenda!!!!!! I know how you operate sir!!!! You love to weave in and out of statement clauses and word meanings/definitions and take advantage of the tiniest gap in the conscious understanding of all these frames of existence to remain impregnable and indistinguishable as a pro-doper!!!!!!!!! Filthy pervert!!!

Luckily I Khamis the RF king exist on LRC because I remain the only type of man and person to be able to dismantle and expose your perverse and immoral ways of thinking, speaking and acting!!!

I don't think you were referring to mythical stories as blood doping and RF/EMF and sport performance. I subjectively know your soul so well right now that it's quite uncharacteristic of you to call these domains as mythical and mythical stories. Instead, and you may deny btw, I don't just believe but presciently know that you were referring to the Christian Bible and God actually!!!

"complete trust or confidence in someone or something (other than religion)"

That just means you have faith in something or everything else than religion. It could your mum, your dad, your wife, whoever, or your government etc but it's faith all the same!!!

The definition of faith does not discern that religious faith is any more or less superior or inferior than all other faiths in everybody and anything such as the scientific method, so what gives you the right to think better of one over the other????

Are you bigoted and discriminatory??? Pls read the rules of the LRC forum I urge you!!!!

Even if, which it isn't, RF and EMF harmful effects on sport performance is completely religiously rendered and proven, the definition of faith does not give you the right to discriminate it against the scientific method.

Sure -- different words mean different things. Good point. Yet I am struggling to follow your logic, and how I'm able to leverage the different meanings between "my concession" and "your declaration", to have you make the unimaginable leap from my "faith in the scientific method" to being "indistinguishable as a pro-doper". This is one of many reasons confirming my rejection of your subjective opinions, personal feelings and speculation.

As I explained to you before, my reference to mythical stories broadly refers to all things mythical, without exceptions, when lacking or wanting for objective evidence, ranging from flat-earth, fake moon-landings, anti-vax, to any one of dozens, if not hundreds, of other conspiracy theories and mythological stories. If you see something specific singled out in that, that is a kind of like a Rorschach test exposing your psychology.

Those who have been here for long enough are painfully aware that I have been questioning the performance benefits of EPO as "myth" and "faith" for nearly a decade, if not longer, similarly seeking the objective evidence of a relation that seems to frighten you so much. I found back a post from 2014, when I posed a question that compares the benefits of EPO to a promise from "modern mythology".

So, despite you claiming to "know (my) soul so well", we have here yet another clear failure of your "subjective-super-spidey-senses" leading you to conclude something I've been openly questioning here for nearly a decade as "uncharacteristic of" me.

My questioning RF/EMF and any alleged relation to degraded sport performance is quite recent, as apparently no one else in the domain before you has dared to present such clear conclusions without any objective support. It is your failure to provide any that has caused me to doubt it.

And finally, sorry to have to correct you one more time, but it is not religious faith that I considered "inferior" to other faiths, but it is the "subjectivity" lacking "objectivity" in all "mythical stories" that I consider "inferior" to "objectivity", either on its own or combined with "subjectivity". My "faith" in the scientific method favors "objectivity" over subjective personal feelings and opinions lacking "objectivity".

rekrunner wrote:

Khamis wrote:

Just FYI, Lionel Messi once gave an interview with sports media and said the following or otherwise when asked how he plays the game of football and whether he has a set of (objective) rules of regulation on the football pitch he abides by:

"No I have no idea how I am going to play before the game. I only know how to play the game the second the game comes to me or in that moment I receive the ball. I play based wholly on HOW I FEEL INSTINCTIVELY from my heart/soul/spirit with no plan or rules."

The God of Football says he operates completely subjectively (instinctively) from his soul/mind/heart or to mean the same or equivalent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We all know how hard it is to play football, much less master the game so insanely well to the level of God status----which is to mean level of instinct so insanely good as to be PROPHETIC AND PRESCIENT of knowing when and where the ball and players will move or react in physical space and time and how much energy, momentum, acceleration to apply to both his body and the ball!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lionel Messi is prove that IF your mind and body's frequency and vibration are in tune with the cosmos/universe, hence a state of 'flow' achieved, SUBJECTIVITY (PROPHECY) PROVES OBJECTIVITY (GOAL IN THE BACK OF THE GOALPOST) right or brings it to fruition!!!!!!!!!!! Subjectivity (prescience) realizes objectivity (goal in the back of the goalpost!!!) in space-time, subjectivity creates the very objectivity you want to see which is the goal in the back of the goalpost or analogously to mean 'TRUTH'!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'Truth' would be analogous to the 'goal in the back of the goalpost'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is how you conduct reason and persuasion, dear rekrunner, forever subjectivity first then objectivity as wingman not the other way round!!!!!

I guess the first question I have is, did Lionel Messi ever give such an interview where he said the words as you quoted them? Google doesn't find these quotes.

Are you suggesting "instinctive" and "subjective" mean the same thing, to the guy who keeps giving you dictionary definitions?

Instinctive: done without conscious thought; An instinctive feeling, idea, or action is one that you have or do without thinking or reasoning.

I can see the appeal of you for lobbying for a method without thinking or reasoning.

And once again, regarding the superiority of subjectivity+objectivity, you keep preaching to the choir. Rest assured that I already possess an abundant supply of subjectivity, because like you, I understand the superior value of subjectivity for interpreting all of the objective data.

What seems to be lacking is your objective data for your novel subjective interpretations, apparently formed without thought or reason.

Khamis wrote:

It's because everybody aside from myself all believe you are using 'faith in the scientific method' to conceal pro-doping agenda. Do you know what I mean? It means you are trying to willfully apply the scientific method UNFAITHFULLY in favor of doping!!!! Do you know what that means??? It means pretentious-ness and hypocrisy, you still don't understand this since the very 1st time I knew you and already saw through this nature of yours!!!!

Yes, so what if I have super-spidey senses or sixth senses or powerful RF-trained gut intuition about the persons I interact and speak with, or even the animals and plants I come into contact with, or even what will be in the future through my subjective prescience, do you have a problem with my 'supernatural powers' or something??? If I'm applying my supernatural powers to further the Kingdom of God and of Goodness then there is really nothing wrong with both the supernatural power and its manner of application!!! It only becomes a problem for society if I used it to conduct extreme wickedness and evil such as luring young women and children into a den and have them dismembered and murdered for my sick pleasure!!!!!

Why are you picking on my subjective prescience for proving to you totally that anthropogenic RF/EMF harms all consciousness and existence and to benefit you while I don't see you picking on that recent murder of Laken Riley by a Mexican migrant or any of history's famous serial ritualistic and sick-ass murders that harms your consciousness and existence and that of society's??????

You haven't learnt the lesson that if somebody or someone is probably right or probably benevolent to let him/her do his thing and show love, care and support for him/her----such as me your RF King Khamis!!!!! And if somebody is probably wrong or probably malevolent to pull out all stops to condemn him/her and incarcerate, dismantle and deconstruct his schemes and stratagems right??????

You don't know the meaning of 'benefit of the doubt' because your ample supply of subjectivity simply isn't ample enough and you precisely need ample amounts to give benefit of doubt!!!!!!!!!!!! You claim to prove or show lots of things but according to many posters on LRC like Coevett and Armstrong and now myself and probably many more you seem to them extremely deficient in your proofs which can only be that you lack subjective know-how or nous despite again you claiming you have ample supply.

Your words don't tally with your behavior and actions according to aforementioned LRC posters including now myself Khamis!!!! Again, I'm beyond dismayed to say this for the umpteenth time that it's because you are pretentious and hypocritical that people detect deficiency in your reason and persuasion of speaking 1 thing but 1) meaning another, and 2) doing/thinking another.

And why are you changing topics and talking to me about your decade long grievance with EPO benefits??? I only just recently came onboard LRC due to a recommendation from another RF King outside LRC from elsewhere and have no clue about your EPO skirmishes on LRC and I have no interest in that topic. It is my opinion that the benefits of EPO are again always confounded by the neuro-physiological and neuro-biological effects of anthropogenic RF and EMF on human beings hence it is forever impossible to find out the truth beyond any reasonable doubt in a consistent space-time manner that EPO benefits or harms sport performance at all levels.

Don't mince your words, since religious faith as you had admitted lacked objectivity in its subjectivity in the order of space and time you prefer (which is objective existence needs to precede subjective interpretation and conclusion), and therefore since this weakness (for you) exist in religious faith, then by logical deduction it follows that you should not be afraid to say that you find religious faith inferior. Don't flip-flop on this at the last minute to not offend me, I don't mind being offended as long you are authentic (consistent) in your logical train!!!!

It's been a waste of time and energy engaging with you as none of your words/actions/output make sense to your beliefs and vice versa, it's all over the damn place!!!!!

Khamis wrote:

Yes, you can assume that those were the words exactly transcribed. There are so many ways and means to find out, don't purely rely on Google??? Do you like their subjective biases quite well isn't it???? Did you not know your search habits are inherently subjective and bias too right???

Look are you trying to fleece me or something??? Twisting even the words and definitions of the dictionary???

Instinctive means 'done without (conscious) thinking or reasoning'.

You are a scientist and you know the gravity of a missing word in changing the entire context and meaning of a statement. The word conscious makes a big difference here and absolves me of any irresponsibility you are trying to imply by the tone and register of your statements. You have a well calculated stratagem against faithful Christians and RF experts like me but I'm diligent enough to prevent it!!!

Unconscious reasoning and thinking is REASONING AND THINKING FYI!!!!!

Were you the one giving me the dictionary definition without reasoning and thinking by obviously intentionally omitting a key adjective???

And please tell me what exactly were you trying to scandalize me with as somebody who does and say things without reasoning and thinking??? I need a noun response from you. A single noun word. Go for it, be a real masculine man and tell me in my face you pervert!!!

rekrunner wrote:

Khamis wrote:

It's because everybody aside from myself all believe you are using 'faith in the scientific method' to conceal pro-doping agenda. Do you know what I mean? It means you are trying to willfully apply the scientific method UNFAITHFULLY in favor of doping!!!! Do you know what that means??? It means pretentious-ness and hypocrisy, you still don't understand this since the very 1st time I knew you and already saw through this nature of yours!!!!

Yes, so what if I have super-spidey senses or sixth senses or powerful RF-trained gut intuition about the persons I interact and speak with, or even the animals and plants I come into contact with, or even what will be in the future through my subjective prescience, do you have a problem with my 'supernatural powers' or something??? If I'm applying my supernatural powers to further the Kingdom of God and of Goodness then there is really nothing wrong with both the supernatural power and its manner of application!!! It only becomes a problem for society if I used it to conduct extreme wickedness and evil such as luring young women and children into a den and have them dismembered and murdered for my sick pleasure!!!!!

Why are you picking on my subjective prescience for proving to you totally that anthropogenic RF/EMF harms all consciousness and existence and to benefit you while I don't see you picking on that recent murder of Laken Riley by a Mexican migrant or any of history's famous serial ritualistic and sick-ass murders that harms your consciousness and existence and that of society's??????

You haven't learnt the lesson that if somebody or someone is probably right or probably benevolent to let him/her do his thing and show love, care and support for him/her----such as me your RF King Khamis!!!!! And if somebody is probably wrong or probably malevolent to pull out all stops to condemn him/her and incarcerate, dismantle and deconstruct his schemes and stratagems right??????

You don't know the meaning of 'benefit of the doubt' because your ample supply of subjectivity simply isn't ample enough and you precisely need ample amounts to give benefit of doubt!!!!!!!!!!!! You claim to prove or show lots of things but according to many posters on LRC like Coevett and Armstrong and now myself and probably many more you seem to them extremely deficient in your proofs which can only be that you lack subjective know-how or nous despite again you claiming you have ample supply.

Your words don't tally with your behavior and actions according to aforementioned LRC posters including now myself Khamis!!!! Again, I'm beyond dismayed to say this for the umpteenth time that it's because you are pretentious and hypocritical that people detect deficiency in your reason and persuasion of speaking 1 thing but 1) meaning another, and 2) doing/thinking another.

And why are you changing topics and talking to me about your decade long grievance with EPO benefits??? I only just recently came onboard LRC due to a recommendation from another RF King outside LRC from elsewhere and have no clue about your EPO skirmishes on LRC and I have no interest in that topic. It is my opinion that the benefits of EPO are again always confounded by the neuro-physiological and neuro-biological effects of anthropogenic RF and EMF on human beings hence it is forever impossible to find out the truth beyond any reasonable doubt in a consistent space-time manner that EPO benefits or harms sport performance at all levels.

Don't mince your words, since religious faith as you had admitted lacked objectivity in its subjectivity in the order of space and time you prefer (which is objective existence needs to precede subjective interpretation and conclusion), and therefore since this weakness (for you) exist in religious faith, then by logical deduction it follows that you should not be afraid to say that you find religious faith inferior. Don't flip-flop on this at the last minute to not offend me, I don't mind being offended as long you are authentic (consistent) in your logical train!!!!

It's been a waste of time and energy engaging with you as none of your words/actions/output make sense to your beliefs and vice versa, it's all over the damn place!!!!!

I'm all over the place? That's some serious self-projection. I have already told you repeatedly I whole-heartedly agree you are wasting your time and energy, each and every time you are not providing objective bases, and instead try to convince me that such requests are inferior. I simply asked you for objective evidence and in the alternative, authoritative references -- without all this other nonsense. It's OK to be honest and say things are still a work in progress. If you are truly an RF-King, just point me to where the most important state of the art discussions are happening. But somehow this normal request deeply offends you, and you waste your time and words by providing me everything but what I requested.

Don't you sometimes say you are some kind of psychologist? There must be some term to describe your "best defense when you have no defense is offense" approach. You simply cannot provide the requested intellectual support to defend your as-yet baseless speculations, so rather than admit you are stuck at the baseless speculation phase which could go in many directions once objectivity starts rolling in, you attack me and accuse me of a being "pro-doping" -- yet another false conclusion made possible only by subjectivity without any real objective basis.

It's comical to accuse me of lacking "benefit of the doubt". Where is your "benefit of the doubt" concerning Khamis, an athlete only found guilty only of "whereabouts failures"? It is precisely your lack of "benefit of the doubt", and my generous "benefit of the doubt", that leads you to conclude I am surreptiously using "objectivity" to further a "pro-doping" agenda, for simply reminding you that the fact pattern for a "whereabouts failure" is distinct from other anti-doping rule violations of "presence" or "use" or "evasion".

What you don't realize is that your baseless speculation where there is doubt that banned substance/methods were attempted, is an immoral attack on the integrity of the sport. I am defending the sport from baseless speculation because I am pro-distance running.

When did I "claim to prove ... things"? I generally do not attempt to "prove" things, but rather apply basic logic with objective support. It's much easier to "disprove" or show what is "unproven". For example, in 2018, I attempted to "disprove" something, but even then, my conclusion was an open-ended question, not an immutable conclusion. In most threads, I usually ask follow-up questions and highlight when popular beliefs appear to lack sufficient objective basis that would help confirm that they are real, or when the logic applied is not logic but fallacy.

I only bring up my history of a decade of posts, because you used your subjective prescience to conclude it was uncharacteristic of me to do something that I have been characteristically doing for nearly a decade, if not more. It is yet one more example of your brand of subjectivity combined with a lack of objectivity, leading you to a blatantly provable false conclusion.

Khamis wrote:

Objective evidence by experts OTHER THAN ME KHAMIS THE RF KING provided for
below to you already:

1) How anthropogenic RF and EMF harms sport performance in all sports.
One of the aspects of sport performance was hand grip strength which has
weakened by more than 50% or otherwise in the 30 years that RF and EMF
were installed in society over lifestyle changes.

2) How anthropogenic RF and EMF harms the ANTECEDENT or PRE-EXISTENCE of
sport performance such as the human biology health and vitality and negates the
nervous system function required for sport performance in the first place. In
this case I explained to you that no objective evidence is even needed to show
that anthropogenic RF and EMF harms sport performance if the antecedents
of sport performance are non-existent. It's like if you don't have wheels
invented you can't have the car or motor vehicle exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Point 2 was slapped across your face REAL HARD multiple times and it seems
it had no effect on you. The gentle approach didn't work with you previously
but I'm not sure the hard hitting slapping approach even works for nutcases of
reason and persuasion like you!!!

What you did instead:

1) You applied your actually dubious brand of objectivity which is actually
just your subjectivity (which is not knowing that RF is the most susceptible
cause in the cosmos) to claim that the anthropogenic RF and EMF didn't
hurt grip strength hence sport performance beyond any reasonable doubt, clearly
you already had a pre-conceived agenda against RF and EMF of which you
subjectively thought I found offensive----and for which you have no objective
evidence to show and prove your 'offensive' claims!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2) Without considering that sport performance is a function of
cellular/genetic/hemodynamic/immune/cardiovascular/endocrine integrity and
health nor even pose a YES/NO reply to this point of mine then go on to
mysteriously conclude that there is no objective evidence that anthropogenic RF
and EMF harms sport performance when even all these various biological
functions that underwrite the very exact sport performance you are interested
in is destroyed and damaged by anthropogenic RF and EMF!!!!

3) Right now asking me to admit dishonestly that the science of harm of
anthropogenic RF and EMF on sport performance are 'a work in progress' against
both my subjective super-spidey conscience, and, against the disproportionate
weight of evidence of both direct harm on human grip strength for related sport
performance like MMA, boxing, wrestling, judo, basketball, archery, shooting,
sniping, marksmanship etc, and indirect downstream harm on biological related
functions and systems like the endocrine/adrenal/genetic/lymphatic ones that go
into underwriting improvement and progress in sport performance!!!!!

Khamis wrote:

Now you also ask me for the umpteenth time to point you to state of the art
discussions are happening on either sport performance, and/or, its antecedents
and precursors!!!!!

For sport performance I served up baby bits of information for babes like
you namely Dr Jill Carnahan and EMF shield. While they were part of EMF
protective advocacy they precisely explain on what basis of harm is this
protection needed.

For sport performance antecedents and precursors I already had you The
Bioinitiative 2007, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2020 updated throughout the years for
more state of the art discussions across all antecedent parts of human
functional aspects.

Of course, you conveniently forgotten, or as usual miraculously deny it
outright.

It's not about benefit of doubt but the (moral) efficiency of benefit of
doubt. In everything it's always about (moral) efficiency and not merely it's
static value and virtue without space and time consideration.
Efficiency of benefit of doubt means I know when to apply the benefit of
doubt generously and when not to depending on space-time susceptibility!!!!

So what if you have generous benefit of doubt when it's for a murderer
or pro-murderer???? Do you understand sir, it's about (moral) efficiency of
benefit of doubt!!!

Be humble and learn from Khamis the King and now even the God (not of
football but of reason and persuasion!!!!)

Look, due to my (moral) efficiency or efficiency in reason and persuasion, I
don't need to pull up 100 or even 1000 years of your history, if at all, to
make a moral or otherwise conclusion about you. Some people have subjective
flair to read minds and persons and I am one of them and I can easily conclude
accurately about you in only 1 SUSCEPTIBLE moment in space and time as if 1000
years as ONE-NESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you understand, my superiority over you is 1) KNOWING AND INVOKING
THE EFFICIENCY OF THINGS/OUTCOMES, and 2) KNOWING AND INVOKING THE
SUSCEPTIBILITY OF THE SAME!!!!!! It's not even about objectivity
nor subjectivity right now, it's about efficiency and susceptibility
only!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YES OR NO PLEASE??????????????????? Talk to me about efficiency and
susceptibility please and not your bunch of BS!!!!!!!!

rekrunner wrote:

Khamis wrote:

Objective evidence by experts OTHER THAN ME KHAMIS THE RF KING provided for
below to you already:

1) How anthropogenic RF and EMF harms sport performance in all sports.
One of the aspects of sport performance was hand grip strength which has
weakened by more than 50% or otherwise in the 30 years that RF and EMF
were installed in society over lifestyle changes.

2) How anthropogenic RF and EMF harms the ANTECEDENT or PRE-EXISTENCE of
sport performance such as the human biology health and vitality and negates the
nervous system function required for sport performance in the first place. In
this case I explained to you that no objective evidence is even needed to show
that anthropogenic RF and EMF harms sport performance if the antecedents
of sport performance are non-existent. It's like if you don't have wheels
invented you can't have the car or motor vehicle exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Point 2 was slapped across your face REAL HARD multiple times and it seems
it had no effect on you. The gentle approach didn't work with you previously
but I'm not sure the hard hitting slapping approach even works for nutcases of
reason and persuasion like you!!!

What you did instead:

1) You applied your actually dubious brand of objectivity which is actually
just your subjectivity (which is not knowing that RF is the most susceptible
cause in the cosmos) to claim that the anthropogenic RF and EMF didn't
hurt grip strength hence sport performance beyond any reasonable doubt, clearly
you already had a pre-conceived agenda against RF and EMF of which you
subjectively thought I found offensive----and for which you have no objective
evidence to show and prove your 'offensive' claims!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2) Without considering that sport performance is a function of
cellular/genetic/hemodynamic/immune/cardiovascular/endocrine integrity and
health nor even pose a YES/NO reply to this point of mine then go on to
mysteriously conclude that there is no objective evidence that anthropogenic RF
and EMF harms sport performance when even all these various biological
functions that underwrite the very exact sport performance you are interested
in is destroyed and damaged by anthropogenic RF and EMF!!!!

3) Right now asking me to admit dishonestly that the science of harm of
anthropogenic RF and EMF on sport performance are 'a work in progress' against
both my subjective super-spidey conscience, and, against the disproportionate
weight of evidence of both direct harm on human grip strength for related sport
performance like MMA, boxing, wrestling, judo, basketball, archery, shooting,
sniping, marksmanship etc, and indirect downstream harm on biological related
functions and systems like the endocrine/adrenal/genetic/lymphatic ones that go
into underwriting improvement and progress in sport performance!!!!!

This isn't other RF Kings -- this is still you posting your personal opinions and feelings.

Don't talk to me about hand grip strength. Marathons are not won by the guy with the best handshake.

Don't talk to me about speculative antecedents and pre-existence -- talk to me about running performance.

You want to keep slapping me in the face, but it is typically immoral for you to resort to such violent rhetoric.

If you are sitting on a disproportionate weight of evidence, why haven't you talked about any of it yet?

rekrunner wrote:

Khamis wrote:

Now you also ask me for the umpteenth time to point you to state of the art
discussions are happening on either sport performance, and/or, its antecedents
and precursors!!!!!

For sport performance I served up baby bits of information for babes like
you namely Dr Jill Carnahan and EMF shield. While they were part of EMF
protective advocacy they precisely explain on what basis of harm is this
protection needed.

For sport performance antecedents and precursors I already had you The
Bioinitiative 2007, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2020 updated throughout the years for
more state of the art discussions across all antecedent parts of human
functional aspects.

Of course, you conveniently forgotten, or as usual miraculously deny it
outright.

It's not about benefit of doubt but the (moral) efficiency of benefit of
doubt. In everything it's always about (moral) efficiency and not merely it's
static value and virtue without space and time consideration.
Efficiency of benefit of doubt means I know when to apply the benefit of
doubt generously and when not to depending on space-time susceptibility!!!!

So what if you have generous benefit of doubt when it's for a murderer
or pro-murderer???? Do you understand sir, it's about (moral) efficiency of
benefit of doubt!!!

Be humble and learn from Khamis the King and now even the God (not of
football but of reason and persuasion!!!!)

Look, due to my (moral) efficiency or efficiency in reason and persuasion, I
don't need to pull up 100 or even 1000 years of your history, if at all, to
make a moral or otherwise conclusion about you. Some people have subjective
flair to read minds and persons and I am one of them and I can easily conclude
accurately about you in only 1 SUSCEPTIBLE moment in space and time as if 1000
years as ONE-NESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you understand, my superiority over you is 1) KNOWING AND INVOKING
THE EFFICIENCY OF THINGS/OUTCOMES, and 2) KNOWING AND INVOKING THE
SUSCEPTIBILITY OF THE SAME!!!!!! It's not even about objectivity
nor subjectivity right now, it's about efficiency and susceptibility
only!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YES OR NO PLEASE??????????????????? Talk to me about efficiency and
susceptibility please and not your bunch of BS!!!!!!!!

You sent me to an infomercial website selling me EMF-protection with doomsday propoganda. Mankind would be dead now except for small pockets of indigenous tribes in remote jungles and on the plains and in the deserts, if all that were true. Even you said their knowledge was inferior and that Dr. Jill was no RF-queen.

Where are the real RF-Kings talking and publishing about something bigger than antecedents and precursors and cell damage?

I am humble and want to learn, but when will the real training start? How can you claim to be efficient when you've only served baby bits of information?

rekrunner wrote:

Khamis wrote:

Yes, you can assume that those were the words exactly transcribed. There are so many ways and means to find out, don't purely rely on Google??? Do you like their subjective biases quite well isn't it???? Did you not know your search habits are inherently subjective and bias too right???

Look are you trying to fleece me or something??? Twisting even the words and definitions of the dictionary???

Instinctive means 'done without (conscious) thinking or reasoning'.

You are a scientist and you know the gravity of a missing word in changing the entire context and meaning of a statement. The word conscious makes a big difference here and absolves me of any irresponsibility you are trying to imply by the tone and register of your statements. You have a well calculated stratagem against faithful Christians and RF experts like me but I'm diligent enough to prevent it!!!

Unconscious reasoning and thinking is REASONING AND THINKING FYI!!!!!

Were you the one giving me the dictionary definition without reasoning and thinking by obviously intentionally omitting a key adjective???

And please tell me what exactly were you trying to scandalize me with as somebody who does and say things without reasoning and thinking??? I need a noun response from you. A single noun word. Go for it, be a real masculine man and tell me in my face you pervert!!!

Without an external reference, I cannot assume anything.

What kind of google bias is even possible with returning "No results found"? There may be some bias in the google algorithms regarding the order of hits, but the 3rd party hits themselves are not biased by "google", and such google bias is inapplicable when there are no results to order in the first place.

Just the same I tried "bing" and "duckduckgo" and "yahoo" with the same "No results found" message. It would be easier if you just provided me the source of your quote, rather than burdening me with fact-checking you on 23 different search engines. Maybe the source is Spanish and you auto-translated it. Why not find a real Messi quote? -- there are many to choose from.

What do you claim I omit? I included the word "conscious". These definitions came verbatim from the Collins Dictionary, without omission:

"Instinctive: done without conscious thought; An instinctive feeling, idea, or action is one that you have or do without thinking or reasoning."

Note that is not the same as "Unconscious reasoning and thinking". There is no assertion of any "reasoning or thinking" unconcsious or otherwise.

In any case, even if there were, I do not ever ask you for your "reasoning and thinking", whether subjective, instinctive, conscious or unconscious. I ask you for objective facts, evidence, and controlled observations, ideally completely void of all of your "reasoning and thinking" -- I do not want to be polluted by your speculative opinions or bias or feelings. Or in the alternative, give me 3rd party authorities who are supporting your otherwise baseless speculations.

You constant referring to yourself as a Christian, and your Christian faith, is a red-herring. Your faith in Christianity and the King James Bible and God shouldn't prevent you and does not excuse you from providing the objective basis, if any, for any of your claims about RF and EMF or any speculation that Katir has ever attempted doping with a banned substance or method.

You want a single word noun? "Believer"