#WWG1WGAWORLDWIDE #QAnons #USA #Germany #Europe #NesaraGesara @realDonaldTrump @John_F_Kennnedy @JFKjrQ
Gentlemen, I added you to it above because I hope many people will read this. Comparisons (memes) and statistics lose their meaningfulness when parameters change.
1) According
More from World
THREAD
1)
Newsweek — #Iran has sent deadly "Shahed-136 suicide/kamikaze drones" to the Houthis in #Yemen. These advanced UAVs are deployed to the Houthi-controlled northern Yemeni province of Al-Jawf.
More reason why the West should not appease Tehran.
https://t.co/gtNDCGbtQs
2)
#Iran has long provided drones to the Houthis
March 22, 2017
“… seven Houthi Qasef-1 drones and one drone engine recovered by forces from the UAE. Six of the drones were captured in October on a known Iranian smuggling route that runs through
3)
US to designate #Iran-backed Houthis in #Yemen as a foreign terrorist org (FTO)
https://t.co/ILBCg3Pfvs
Iran’s IRGC long funded/armed/trained/provided for the Houthis.
Dec 30—Missile attack on Aden airport. Yemen gov holds Houthis
4)
#Iran provides at least $360 million, ballistic missiles, other ordnance, technology and training to the Houthis in
5)
The Houthis recently claimed responsibility for a missile attack targeting Saudi Arabia’s Aramco oil
1)
Newsweek — #Iran has sent deadly "Shahed-136 suicide/kamikaze drones" to the Houthis in #Yemen. These advanced UAVs are deployed to the Houthi-controlled northern Yemeni province of Al-Jawf.
More reason why the West should not appease Tehran.
https://t.co/gtNDCGbtQs
2)
#Iran has long provided drones to the Houthis
March 22, 2017
“… seven Houthi Qasef-1 drones and one drone engine recovered by forces from the UAE. Six of the drones were captured in October on a known Iranian smuggling route that runs through
3)
US to designate #Iran-backed Houthis in #Yemen as a foreign terrorist org (FTO)
https://t.co/ILBCg3Pfvs
Iran’s IRGC long funded/armed/trained/provided for the Houthis.
Dec 30—Missile attack on Aden airport. Yemen gov holds Houthis
4)
#Iran provides at least $360 million, ballistic missiles, other ordnance, technology and training to the Houthis in
5)
The Houthis recently claimed responsibility for a missile attack targeting Saudi Arabia’s Aramco oil
A few thoughts on this sad development 👇👇
20 academics criticizing an paper is fine; good science, really
10000+ hate mail for studying schools in Sweden is insane
Anonymous docs/ prof (hiding in faceless accts) on twitter smearing researchers is insane
[thread] https://t.co/QYldLD3WO0
In April 2020, @jflier and I saw this coming
We saw increasingly heated and personal attacks against scientists merely for having a range of views on COVID19 (PS there is no playbook/ right ans)
Tying science to naked politics was also bad idea, we
Yet, repeatedly that is what happened. Twitter 'experts' displayed an absolute intolerance to other views
Folks who disagreed weren't just wrong, they were malicious actors spreading "disinformation"
Really? Someone worked for 25 years as faculty to suddenly spread lies?
Disinformation has been so misused that it has lost meaning.
I recently saw an ID doc & lab researcher in the UK be accused of spreading "disinformation"
hahah, get outta here, you are trying to say "i disagree" but your keyboard is broken
Personal attacks have become so bad that I have seen a lab researcher accuse a doctor of wanting to engage in inappropriate relationships with patients due to diverging views on vaccine messaging
Seriously? It was a low point even for twitter
20 academics criticizing an paper is fine; good science, really
10000+ hate mail for studying schools in Sweden is insane
Anonymous docs/ prof (hiding in faceless accts) on twitter smearing researchers is insane
[thread] https://t.co/QYldLD3WO0
Together with @ernkrans, I am interviewed in @bmj_latest: "We need to ensure that our researchers understand the concept and value of academic freedom and the responsibility that comes with it"https://t.co/AFjtbSfgjr
— Ole Petter Ottersen (@ottersenolep) February 18, 2021
In April 2020, @jflier and I saw this coming
We saw increasingly heated and personal attacks against scientists merely for having a range of views on COVID19 (PS there is no playbook/ right ans)
Tying science to naked politics was also bad idea, we
Yet, repeatedly that is what happened. Twitter 'experts' displayed an absolute intolerance to other views
Folks who disagreed weren't just wrong, they were malicious actors spreading "disinformation"
Really? Someone worked for 25 years as faculty to suddenly spread lies?
Disinformation has been so misused that it has lost meaning.
I recently saw an ID doc & lab researcher in the UK be accused of spreading "disinformation"
hahah, get outta here, you are trying to say "i disagree" but your keyboard is broken
Personal attacks have become so bad that I have seen a lab researcher accuse a doctor of wanting to engage in inappropriate relationships with patients due to diverging views on vaccine messaging
Seriously? It was a low point even for twitter
You May Also Like
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.