Coronavirus Pandemic

[Niall_Quinn]

Unfortunately it usually takes time for the lies of these people to be more generally exposed. By then the lies have served their purpose, the damage has been long done. Which is the game. Even then, realisation only comes to people who are in any way willing to see the lies under any circumstances. Notorious criminals like Tony Blair, for example, to this day still make their outrageous claims and justifications. Creatures like John Rentoul can still be relied upon to trot out propaganda years after the event to keep a little mud swirling in the water. Whether it was hundreds of thousands or millions that were murdered by the politicians, the warmongers, the media and all the dancing puppets who followed the piper is still not conclusively known. Those details aren't as important as the aims served by the lies told by the criminals and fools who followed them onto the next bloody pasture. It usually takes an age for history to be established based on fact as opposed to propaganda.

Here we are again. Time will tell the story of the madness of the latest batch of "good Germans" and their vehement compliance.

If you have a moment, study the liar's latest post. It deploys some fairly basic techniques that are easy enough to unpack should you be aware of even partial context, which some here (who aren't Pavlovian) might be. If you really want to see a lie in all its gory splendour dig back into that misrepresentation of the discussion about Mullis and how that exchange even came about. You'll see a woeful attempt to frame the debate using fake news which subsequently caused the liar's strategy to blow up in his face, which has now morphed into his fantasy re-framing of manufactured events. Exactly the same happened with the UPS "news" piece during the stolen election for which the liar now has a whole new story. For anyone interested in the art of deceit, just as a study, you'll find some useful material in these two topics.

[Letters]

If you have a moment, study the liar's latest post.

Please give an example of a lie I have told

Exactly the same happened with the UPS "news" piece during the stolen election

I took apart your lies about that piece by piece.
You claimed he alleged fraud had taken place at his post office. He did not.
You said that the two men talking to him were "trying to get him to change his story". They did not.
You said that the man was recording secretly. Nope, another lie. He clearly tells them he's recording - towards the end of the interview, but they clearly made no attempt to stop him and said he could continue. That's how we heard the conversation.

Your only response was to grumble at the fact I'd looked into it.

As always, you fail to provide any evidence, or data, or sources.
You can keep deflecting all you like, but you've claimed a CFR while saying that both the death rate and case rate are unknown. So how did you calculate a CFR? Come on, let's see your workings.
And why do the tests which don't work correlate with the hospitalisations and deaths? Weird, isn't it?

[Niall_Quinn]

The liar asks for evidence he's a liar. And then proceeds to lie.

The liar was called out for posting fake news, the key piece of information he religiously (pun most definitely intended) leaves unsaid. When exposed he did what he always does, reflected his own dreadful nature onto the person calling him out. Now he scurries this way and that in a blur of misdirection so the major point remains obscured, or so he imagines. It hardly matters to anyone else, I'm sure, but it's important for the creature to understand that at least one set of eyes are on him. He's not entirely concealed. Do the other churchgoers know what has slouched into their house, I wonder?

[Niall_Quinn]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...d-vaccination/

Far from a surprise and far from a surprising prelude to what it prompts and enables. Predictable and predicted months ago to squawks of fearful derision from the parrots. Actually predicted 30 years ago by some observers, long before that if you credit Huxley. In line with the many other agenda items that are being ticked off a long list.

This week, on Thursday I believe, the dreadful and draconian Coronavirus Bill will be reviewed and (without any shadow of a doubt) renewed. In conjunction with several other abusive bills that were passed with little to no consideration in the last year, we are now in a position where the state and its agents have virtually unlimited power to act as they sit fit and without any route for public response, beyond begging and pleading. The opposition has been remarkable only in its criticism the abuse has not been extreme enough.

[Letters]

Happy Lockdowniversary

[Ollie the Optimist]

March. The longest month ever

[Letters]

Maybe we'll wake up in the shower soon and this will all have been a dream.

Reference for the kids, there

[Niall_Quinn]

Is the NHS protected yet? Huge swathes of Britain have given almost everything to the richest of the rich, in order to protect it.

Is it safe yet? Do they have enough yet?

Or is there more to take as we move into year two?

Maybe the one year mark will snap a few more people back to reality.

[Letters]

Right. Here we go...

The liar was called out for posting fake news, the key piece of information he religiously (pun most definitely intended) leaves unsaid.

You said, at the time:

And what the fake news site Buzzfeed doesn't mention is the target of their fake news recorded a very strange encounter with officials which you should really listen to for yourselves. And that's how you'll find the real news in this story, beyond the election fraud. Listening to the audio will give you a good insight into the sort of people you are dealing with.

http://www.goonersweb.co.uk/forum/sh...=4710&page=105

See, the trouble is you call anything "fake" if it doesn't tally with your beliefs. You do this all the time.
"Fake science" - it always means science you don't agree with. All the real science, that's the stuff you happen to agree with. What a coincidence.
Obviously it's not a coincidence, it's how conspiracy theories work. All evidence which shows the theory to be wrong is declared to be fake or simply flat out denied.

You also said in the ensuing exchange at the time:

EDIT: And [Letters has] just quietly deleted the video I mentioned. Nothing can ever be taken on face value with these people, can it?

http://www.goonersweb.co.uk/forum/sh...=4710&page=106

Which is quite a telling comment. All that happened was that I was on my mobile, I meant to post one video but accidentally copied the URL from the wrong browser tab so deleted it and posted the one I meant to.
I did subsequently re-post the one I'd deleted.
But your comment here is telling because it demonstrates your paranoia, your bizarre belief that everyone is out to get you, so many people have ulterior motives or are acting in an underhand way.
How you managed to square this with the idea that most people are decent is beyond me.

Anyway, back to Hopkins. I then said:

Quote hard to get to the bottom of this one. He claimed he heard some people say a thing. Then apparently recanted, according to a couple of sources. But now he's saying he didn't do that. And even if he did hear a thing - which will just be his word against other people's and I guess he has no evidence for other than him saying it (to be fair, what other evidence could he have?)
It's not enough votes to make a difference anyway

http://www.goonersweb.co.uk/forum/sh...=4710&page=107

And I posted a link to an Independent article about it. You then said, on the same page:

The Hopkins story is complex. Far too complex for you, dear reader, to figure out without assistance.

I mean, lol. But OK. You then proceeded to "educate" us:

It goes like this. A postal worker claims election fraud occurred at the USPS where he worked, until they suspended him. The Washington Post (and other respectable journals) then claimed he recanted to company officials. Unknown to those company officials, the postal worker recorded them trying to get him to change his story. He then released his own video (and the audio) and clearly stated he does not recant anything and is prepared to go to court and give his evidence.

Ok. So you referenced the recording again. The one which you said I should listen to, the one which tells us the "real news" and would give "a good insight into the sort of people you are dealing with.

So I listened to it.

Your claim: "A postal worker claims election fraud occurred at the USPS where he worked"

The reality: This is an actual quote by Hopkins from the audio you told me to listen to:
I didn't specifically hear the whole story, I just heard a part of it. And I could have missed a lot of it. My mind probably added the rest. I understand that...I was like, I don't know how much of the conversation I heard. I just know I heard this and it freaked me out"

Your claim: "Unknown to those company officials, the postal worker recorded them."

The reality: Towards the end of the interview he told them he was recording. They said that was fine and let him continue. We know all that because we heard the recording. So your implication that this was some "secret recording" is demonstrably untrue.

Your claim: "[Hopkins] recorded them trying to get him to change his story"

The reality: Again, a verbatim quote from the audio:

(The USPS agent reads the paragraph of the affidavit alleging back dating of postal ballots)
Richard: "That's definitely a lot more specific than what I would have".
USPS: "Would you agree with me that based on what you and I discussed today that this paragraph ... has a significant amount of interpretation in it"
Richard: "Yes"
USPS: "And interpretation is not necessarily fact. Do you agree?"
Richard: "Yes"
(He then agrees that the paragraph should be amended to represent the 100% truth of what he heard)

USPS: "As we sit here today, you wouldn't swear to that paragraph?"
Richard: At this point, no.

So the reality is the affidavit which was written for him by Project Veritas grossly exaggerated what he'd actually heard and when they read it back to him he agreed he couldn't stand by it.

Your claim: Listening to the recording would give "a good insight into the sort of people you are dealing with"

The reality: The exchange was cordial throughout. They let him take breaks when he needed to. When Hopkins told them he was recording they allowed him to continue. When the Agent read part of the affidavit which said that the Agents had previously "interrogated" him, Hopkins actually objected to the use of that word.

Your claim: "He then released his own video (and the audio) and clearly stated he does not recant anything and is prepared to go to court and give his evidence"

The reality: This is the closest you get to actually saying something true. But he didn't get his day in court. I'm guessing here but in your little paranoid mind you maybe think that's because he was squashed by "them". The reality is he had no actual evidence of any fraud. Not because I say so, because he does: "I just heard a part of it. And I could have missed a lot of it. My mind probably added the rest. I understand that".

So...yeah, you can keep pretending it's me who has been exposed if you like, but pretty much all your claims about that interview are false. Not because I say so, because the recording does. The recording you told me to listen to. The recording which contains the "real news".

If your "major point" is me posting "fake news" then that's rather undermined by your multiple lies about the reality of that story. Or maybe they're not lies, maybe you're not doing it deliberately. It's possible that your paranoia that "they" are out to get you renders you completely unable to tell reality from fantasy in cases like this. Your inability to answer a straight question with a straight answer is very telling though.

When it came to the US Election you were making claims about dead people voting, no evidence was provided.
You claimed more people voted than registered. That should be an easy one to prove, you just have to provide the data. We all know why you couldn't.
When it comes to Covid you claimed the WHO admitted the tests don't work - took me 1 minute to find a video on their website saying the exact opposite.
You have failed to explain why these "fake" tests correlate with hospitalisations and deaths.
You have claimed to be basing your opinions on data but failed to show the data you are looking at. If the data I'm looking at is wrong or my understanding of it is then fine, let's see where you're getting your info from.
You claimed a very low CFR without providing any evidence...and are now claiming that the two numbers you need to calculate a CFR are unknown.

Wriggle and deflect all you like, but no-one will take you seriously if you can't answer a straight question with a straight answer and continue to make wild claims without evidence.
All you can do when this is pointed out is respond with ad hom attacks.

[Niall_Quinn]

What Letters is trying hard not to say is he posted up fake news claiming the USPS worker had recanted his story. The aim of the fake news from the fake news mainstream media was the ongoing effort to smear and discredit by any means, including outright lies, any and all reports of election fraud or irregularities. The fake news headline claimed the individual had recanted. This was a lie subsequently denied by the individual in question.

The purpose of Letters repeating the fake news was not to examine the news piece in any way, which he has subsequently done in order to distract from his initial act, but instead (much like the fake news mainstream media) to run a night and day campaign here on this web site to deter all suggestion of election fraud. For some reason which only he knows for sure.

Now he tries to pretend the subsequent conversations were the key and only issue.

That's how fundamentally deceitful he is and how determined he is to conceal that deceit when called on it.

He'll go to any lengths.