Oh sorry, were you expecting me to spend time addressing that mess of yours? When you chopped out the entire segment that destroyed the excuse you then went on to provide I figured you weren't in the least bit serious about having an honest debate.Originally Posted by Letters
Many more people can see. More each day. Safe to say, you'll never be one of them. All through history there are certain types the worst of the worst can always rely on.
Für eure Sicherheit
Do what you like, just don't whine about me not replying to your posts when you are unable to address any of the points I made.
I chopped out a segment for brevity but I responded to the points you made in that segment.
As I have in this post. I don't have to quote every single line to respond to the comments made in them.
The lies. I didn't say you weren't replying to my posts, I said you were ignoring them. Honesty is your allergy.
Chopped for brevity. LOL. Break out the antihistamine.
You're funny.
Für eure Sicherheit
It's hard to take you seriously when you repeatedly ignore the points in my posts.
Like in the other thread you repeated the lie about Covid having a 99.9% survival rate. I referred to the data which shows this is simply incorrect and you simply ignored it.
Your go to tactic when you run out of argument is "LETTERS BAD" or "PANTS ON FIRE".
And then you have the gall to accuse me of not wanting an honest debate.
Wait...so you're saying I'm replying to your posts and ignoring them?
Are these Schrödinger's posts?
Finally saw the John Lewis Christmas Ad.
I refuse to watch them in November.
It's...fine.
The keyword here is REPEATEDLY. You're right, I won't repeatedly cover the same points over and over again just because you keep raising them as if they are fresh and haven't been dealt with on numerous occasions. That's the real tactic on display, the repetition of the same party line and the posts that most certainly exist that provide counter argument but which are buried away so the line can be dusted off and presented again as novel.
You state data as if it is unquestionable. Doesn't matter about all those posts on the test procedures, the medical protocols that have puffed up the toll to a ludicrous degree, the suppression of counter data, the inherent corruption of segments of the scientific community not just with covid but also warmism. Details posts all through the last 2 years and now we get to - here's the data, it's a fact, you are ignoring it, I win.
Alright, you win. Nothing is happening, everything is normal and there's nothing to see. I don't promise to think that though, but I'll say it here to avoid the relentless repetition.
Für eure Sicherheit
I kinda feel like you're gaslighting me here because this is exactly how I feel about your posts.
You post something - often without citing a source. I deal with it, you ignore that and then later you post the same thing and round and round we go.
A good example is the survival rate from Covid. You keep citing the 99.9% survival rate. That number simply isn't true. Over 80 countries have reported that more than 0.1% of their population have died from Covid. So even if everyone in the country caught it, which seems implausible, there's a death rate of more than 0.1%. And all the scientific papers I've seen about this cite a much higher mortality rate.
I pushed you on that and you did explain how you got your figure - you divided the number of deaths by the population of the entire planet.
I explained why that was a meaningless number and you went off on some sarcastic riff about how you could calculate the percentage in different ways to make it look worse and worse. Maybe meaningless is too strong, but you don't base policy in what percentage of the entire world might die. Ebola kills a tiny number of people each year but it's still taken very seriously when there's an outbreak because it kills a high percentage of people who get infected. Mercifully it's not airborne and thus a lot easier to contain than Covid. The relevant metrics in assessing how serious this sort of situation is are:
1) How transmissible is the virus?
2) What's the IFR?
In the case of Covid the answer to 1 is "very" because it's airborne, and the answer to 2 is "it depends" - notably on your age. But the overall rate in a developed country (i.e., with a population which has a lot of old people in) is around 1%. Low enough that we don't need to all hide under our beds, high enough that it's a situation which I would suggest requires a response. Obviously the nature of that response can be debated.
Of course you can question the data. But have some basis for doing so. Your basis seems to be basically THE ESTABLISHMENT ALWAYS LIE.You state data as if it is unquestionable. Doesn't matter about all those posts on the test procedures, the medical protocols that have puffed up the toll to a ludicrous degree, the suppression of counter data, the inherent corruption of segments of the scientific community not just with covid but also warmism. Details posts all through the last 2 years and now we get to - here's the data, it's a fact, you are ignoring it, I win.
Which isn't true. And that doesn't mean they always tell the truth either.
If you have some alternative source of data then great, let's see it - I'm always asking you for your data sources.
I have no ability to collect mortality data or hospitalisations data. But as I've said, I had a conversation with an ICU doctor which led me to believe that there was a situation going which was out of the ordinary - certainly in his experience. If he'd told me he'd had a quiet winter and didn't understand what all the fuss was about then that would be a basis for thinking that there was something funny going on. But he didn't. His hospital was full. People were dying at a rate he'd never seen before. And these weren't people in their 80s and 90s, there were a lot of younger people in there too. I have no ability to collect this data myself, but I can try and cross-check it with my experiences and those of people I know. The conversation I had with the ICU tallies with other anecdotal evidence I've heard from other medical staff.
Let's take just one of those examples above, the tests. You keep saying they don't work. When I point out that the cases correlate quite nicely with hospitalisations and deaths - and thus they must be detecting something - we're back to it's fake data. There's the Mullis quote but that seems to have been leapt on and wildly misrepresented by people with a certain agenda - I dealt with that at the time you posted about it. At one point you said that the WHO had admitted the tests don't work. You didn't provide a source for that claim so I had a look and it took me one minute to find a video on the WHO web site which said that the PCR tests were the most accurate ones but needed to be used properly. Basically, RTFM - if you do two many cycles then you're going to get too many false positives. I don't believe you responded when I pointed all that out, so I can't agree I'm ignoring your posts. I dealt with it all and you just repeat the claim that the tests don't work.
I can think of many adjectives for the last couple of years, "normal" is certainly not one of them.Alright, you win. Nothing is happening, everything is normal and there's nothing to see. I don't promise to think that though, but I'll say it here to avoid the relentless repetition.
Obviously a lot has happened over the last couple of years. As I've said, I'm convinced this is a situation which demanded a response.
And sure, people have used the situation to enrich themselves. Twas ever thus. But that doesn't mean this wasn't a real situation.
But I don't believe that our government - or many others - are using this as an excuse to implement some totalitarian regime. As I keep saying, the restrictions on our lives have varied depending on the data. You have ideological issues with the idea of a government which can "allow" people to meet, or restrict them from doing so. Do you think they should have just asked people to be sensible? Have you met people? As I said elsewhere, they did do that at first, it was only when things started to get out of control they started implementing actual restrictions (too late to do much good, IMO). But there were never curfews, we didn't have checkpoints or the army on the streets. Because fundamentally we don't have a government who are interested in restricting people going out their day to day business. I do agree there's a danger with this vaccination stuff. So far we don't seem to have looked too seriously at forcing people into it, if they do then I'll be with you in pushing back on that.
His penis must be microscopic.
NOTE: The location of this post has been moved and the thread title (which was previously Wenger is Leaving) has been manipulated by a notorious pro-Wenger moderator. What was previously a message that contained no profanity and made a comment on a real life event has now been manipulated by a deliberately provocative title. An old and crude propaganda and censorship technique.
Reply With Quote
