Sandy Hotep

@CraigHouston_ @PoliceScotland @JeremyClarkson That's just silly, Craig! "Nobody gives you opinion, you can only take opinion." It's not alike at all! Silly Sausage!

@Sandyhotep @PoliceScotland @JeremyClarkson its like offence, nobody gives you offence, you can only take offence.

🚨Police Scotland Unhappy With Sturgeon Leaked No Comment Interview Story Leaked COPFS Did Receive Files Leaked Refusal To Give Witness Statement

@CraigHouston_ @PoliceScotland @JeremyClarkson Oh, you gave them to me.

@Sandyhotep @PoliceScotland @JeremyClarkson Thanks for an opinion.

@CraigHouston_ @PoliceScotland @JeremyClarkson That response speaks volumes, Craig. And confirms every negative opinion I've ever had about you.

@Sandyhotep @PoliceScotland @JeremyClarkson 😂

@AmazonMGMStudio For the attention of Blair Fetter. Hi, Blair! Please reconsider your plans for the new Stargate show. Look at the amount of interest in the new Firefly! There is less risk for a Stargate reboot than a new premise or adaptation. Best wishes! Open the Iris!

@BillDunblane @vkgscotland1 How is the SNP doing right now?

@Sandyhotep @vkgscotland1 Do you understand basic numbers?

Right wingers, desperate unionists, and the Pro Union, London owned MSM are having a major meltdown……and it’s truly glorious to watch. Meanwhile, the SNP get on with doing the day job, they were democratically elected to do. ❤️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇪🇺

@CraigHouston_ @PoliceScotland @JeremyClarkson Spout all the right wing drivel that you want, Craig, but please don't put other peoples' lives in danger.

@Sandyhotep @PoliceScotland Best send them along to @JeremyClarkson and every car enthusiast channel in uk while you’re at it.

@Polygon Boo! Boo to you!

Prime Video canceling the Stargate reboot protects a cult classic from a potential disaster polygon.com/amazon-stargat…

@forevershallon @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore Wonderful! Thank you so much!

@Sandyhotep @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore That is a dishonest interpretation. And I've been too kind to you. You *are* simply dishonest. What is the point of you? Muting this now.

And this isn’t one of them. With dame sex marriage legalised, homosexuals are fully protected in this country. So no wonder Stonewall had to turn itself into a trans rights organisation. An entirely different battle.

@forevershallon @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore That's fine. You can stop whenever you want. You leave me with Schrödinger's Model of academic study: it's a valid area of research conducted by skilled professionals... until Shallon looks at it. Then the transgender wave-form collapses into pseudoscience.

@Sandyhotep @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore Where have I said anything that implies I claimed that? I answered your question. As a stub for discussion. Once a flippin’ gain, you demonstrate you're not engaging. You’ve no intention of serious engagement. I'm a patient person, but I really have indulged you long enough.

@forevershallon @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore Again, if that is true, then you are claiming that all of those academics are, in fact, not only poor, deluded fools, but pseudoscientists to boot? Wow! That hill you are willing to die on is a mountain!

@Sandyhotep @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore If you publish a scientific paper, it will be analysed on those terms. Any ideological import will constitute a methodological flaw. Science in the service of an ideology is pseudoscience. The proposition must be compatible w/ the scientific method. Faith belief is incompatible.

@forevershallon @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore How can any scientific analysis have credibility for something which is merely an ideological construct? Sure, they admit to being works in progress of a new field, but what's the point if what they're studying doesn't exist? Explain to me as a further courtesy. Or don't.

@Sandyhotep @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore I analysed the studies. The work by Savic et al at least has credibility. Which I've said (but doesn't support yr claim). Many studies simply do not. They’re fundamentally flawed. You should know this. You’re neither willing nor capable of engaging w/ the studies or the subject.

@forevershallon @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore I proposed the notion that you are collectively condemning every single academic in those papers (and by extension all others) as being poor, deluded fools. Every single one. That was also fruitless, as you choose to ignore it. Reader, go figure.

@Sandyhotep @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore I’ve tested you out whether you can engage with what you posted. You won’t or you can’t. That’s time wasting. Leaving a fruitless discussion isn’t ‘flouncing’. You have descended into just being silly. (Reader, go figure.)

@mikemearls Vasquez: I only need to know ONE thing. Where. They. Are!

Call me a simple man, but I think a D&D-like fantasy adventure's title should have one or two things: 1. Where I am going to go 2. What I am going to kill If you have both, you can put them in either order.

@forevershallon @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore I'm not wasting your time. You are wasting your own time. Spread your wings and flounce!

@Sandyhotep @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore It’s junk. If you applied any analytical skills (or even read it!), you would know that. 16 in that study. *15* of whom were on hormone meds which are known to produce measurable physical & structural brain alterations. You aren’t a serious person. You are wasting *my* of time.

@forevershallon @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore Of course it's junk! It HAS to be junk! All of those contributors are wasting their time applying scientific analysis to an ideological conduct! Those poor, deluded fools!

@Sandyhotep @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore Not once. I responded to your posting of studies (supposed actual hard evidence) out of courtesy. You’re the joke. You haven't truly engaged at all. That applies to engaging w/ the studies you posted (and that’s the kindest interpretation of why you posted an actual junk study)

@forevershallon @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore How many times have you flounced now? Please, by all means, made a final dramatic exit, worthy of a drag queen!

@Sandyhotep @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore The one ignoring the lack of evidence is YOU! These studies just *don't support yr claim*. However much you want them to. Which *you would know* if you analysed them. (May I again draw yr attention to that 10-T response! And posting a shocker of a rubbish study). But I'm out.

@forevershallon @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore Yeah, you trashed the studies, ignored the conclusions, and stuck your fingers in your ears and closed your eyes.

@Sandyhotep @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore The comparison with Galileo doesn’t work in your favour. And it's you who is the victim of dogma. And as before, you’re simply not engaging in the discussion. After you posted a study link, I responded with a dense ten-tweet thread. Which you’ve ignored. You show yourself up.

@forevershallon @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore I'm reminded of Galileo being sentenced to house arrest for proposing heliocentrism. Dispute the evidence. Trash the proposers. Die on the hill of dogma.

@Sandyhotep @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore I didn't say there are no studies. I said they don’t support your claim. They don’t. That should interest you. The concept of ‘trans’ *is* ideological. As before, you’re not actually engaging in this discussion. For that reason, it's a waste of time. As I said before, I’m out.

@forevershallon @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore Obviously there is going to be a small study group! But, you said previously that they were no studies, and that the entire concept of trans was ideological. Both of your assertions are demonstrably false, however you might try to trash the methodology.

@Sandyhotep @BevJacksonAuth @SVPhillimore Jeez. Tiny study, n=17 with one drop out, *15 of whom* were on hormone medication! No control for sexual orientation either. Useless. Get in the bin (quite literally). At least the studies published by Savic et al are worthy of consideration. You obv can't tell the difference.