As far as I'm concerned, I see no problem with T-Mobile going after these users, because chances are, they're the bots we all hate sending out spam texts everyone gets.
Do text messages go out on LTE now? And if it was really spammers, don't you think they would have mentioned that? Everyone hates spammers, so T-Mobile would have jumped at the chance to trumpet that they're going after spammers.
Because, unlike broadband, LTE does have a limited throughput and I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want a spinning icon as my phone is trying to send and receive data because "customers", by your definition, can work around and tether all the LTE speed for themselves.
Aren't you now getting mixed up between speed and data? What difference does it make if you're getting slow speeds because there are 1000 people using LTE with you who are all under their unlimited data limitation, or if those 1000 people have already downloaded 22 GB that month? T-Mobile has already admitted that this is a tiny minority of their customers, so throttling them will not solve or prevent the problem you describe.
With that kind of argument, there would be no such thing as radiation sickness, mercury poisoning or lead poisoning.
I don't get what you're saying. Did I make too strong a statement about the absence of evidence implying something? If the evidence for radiation poisoning were similar to the evidence for wifi poisoning, I wouldn't believe in that either. But the hazards of the sort of radiation produced by nuclear fission have been conclusively and repeatedly demonstrated. Similarly with heavy metal poisoning.
Is it possible that in 50 years we'll find long-term exposure to wifi causes problems? Maybe. But that is not the issue here - these people are claiming short-term, almost immediate effects. The only thing I'm not sure of is if anyone has tested the possibility of exposure having an effect not immediately but only after say a few days. But the experiments I mentioned were designed to see if there could be an immediate deleterious health effect from wifi, and failed to find any from the subjects who claimed they were experiencing it.
Just because someone doesn't notice the radio waves doesn't mean it isn't harming them.
They're not claiming it might be harming him even though he doesn't notice, they're claiming that he is noticing. And everyone else who has claimed they notice the difference has been unable to prove those claims.
I feel bad for the kid, hes being pushed and pushed and pushed and that can't be helping him move past his issues. He's in an elite school, and his parents are doing everything they can to make his life a living hell there. He most likely has huge expectations thrust upon him constantly. They made him an outcast with his peers, but can't see past their WebMD diagnosis to maybe remember when they were 13 and the pressures that seem like the end of the world at that age.
Just because you don't have any organ that can detect radiation doesn't mean it is or isn't affecting you.
They are claiming they feel sick (in other words, they are conscious of a change) when exposed to EM radiation. Yet they cannot tell whether they are being exposed or not without an external cue. That tends to indicate they are feeling sick for some other reason.
There have been double-blind studies involving those people who experience it, and so far they have utterly failed to detect electronic signals. So they're experiencing something, but it's not electromagnetic sensitivity.
How is that material support, though? "Material" rather implies, I dunno, material support -- that is, giving them stuff.
I thought it meant material as in significant or relevant.
Saying "I think you should do terrible thing Y" sounds like protected speech to me.
It sounds to me like he did a lot more than that. He gave them specific information calculated to be useful in furthering their plans for terrorism. You could argue that that's protected speech too, but it's not just advocating something terrible.