On 12:27 18 Jun 2021, MrSpook said:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 12:00:14 +0100 Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>On 18/06/2021 11:24, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> If I go out and about, anyone else I meet will be either already
>>> vaccinated themselves, or too young to need to worry (and probably
>>> attending school), or will have made their own choice about the
>>> risks they are prepared to take.
>>
>>Yes, yes, we've heard these selfish arguments ad nauseam already,
>>but
>
> Selfish! cries the wetwipe who wants to lock down society forever
> because he's scared :)

If Covid persists for years then the measures to contain it will last
just as long.

Simple-minded demands that the world behaves as it did in pre-Covid days
is putting your head in the sand.

On 12:33 18 Jun 2021, Mr Spook said:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 12:05:47 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>On 18/06/2021 10:13, MrSpook_hsx@xlb9ds0j4zezapmmx3obln04.tv wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 18:04:48 +0100
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 17/06/2021 14:41, MrSpook_xphzu9V3d@16xcsz.edu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone with any sense is anti lockdown and anti mask now. Its
>>>>> not 2020
>>>> anymore.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone with any *REAL* sense is a *LOT* more cautious. Take a
>>>> look at
>>>
>>> Go hide under the bed wearing your PPE wetwipe,
>>
>>Again abuse rather than rational argument.
>
> Not abuse, accurate description.
>
>>> And happens to be an entire country.
>>
>>An entire country that is very different in many important respects
>>from this entire country, as you have been told countless times
>>before.
>
> Oh ok. How about some US states then? Or is ickle wickle diddums
> wetwipe

That might pass for a reasoned argument in the loonier Covid-denying
Facebook groups but this is a different place.

> going to argue they're too different too? Oddly they're not
> a zombie apocalyse either:

On 13:06 15 Jun 2021, charles said:

> In article <bn1hcgpo63its7rrbdj56h5rf7qjf37p3e@4ax.com>,
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 08:13:14 +0100, Mark Carver
>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > From what I can gather from various sources, the technical set up
>> > is
>> >woefully inadequate for what they are trying to do. In fact it
>> >would be inadequate for a simple shopping channel.
>> >For instance it seems they may only be using an 8 input audio
>> >mixer !
>> >
>> >It's just been thrown together by a bunch of well meaning I'm
>> >genuinely sure, but inexperienced technical staff. I don't think
>> >the channel has an Engineering Director ?
>
>> Every professional sound engineer I've met has a story about
>> somebody who decided to shoot something on the cheap, with the
>> sound being done as an afterthought by a friend who "knows about
>> sound" or "knows about electronics" but with no broadcast
>> experience, because they think recording sound is easy. In the
>> worst case they can end up with days or weeks worth of material
>> which has no useable sound or none at all. It's an expensive
>> lesson, usually even more expensive than it would have been to pay
>> a professional to do it properly.
>
> Some years ago, I was involved in play where a piano had to be
> played. The actor couldn't play, so the piano had to be set so that
> the audience couldn't see the keyboard. The diector handed me a
> cassette! and said "a friend recorded this" I listened (automatic
> level control & it sounded as though it was done in a bathroom) and
> said I needed the music score which I eventually got. Then visited a
> friend with a Steinway, taking my trusty Revox. We only did one take
> and most of the audience thought the actor was playing live.

We have now come full circle with banks and other institutions
allowing their customer services staff to work at home using the
crappiest of budget microphones.

On Fri 18/06/2021 22:16, Pamela wrote:
> On 13:06 15 Jun 2021, charles said:
>
>> In article <bn1hcgpo63its7rrbdj56h5rf7qjf37p3e@4ax.com>,
>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 08:13:14 +0100, Mark Carver
>>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> From what I can gather from various sources, the technical set up
>>>> is
>>>> woefully inadequate for what they are trying to do. In fact it
>>>> would be inadequate for a simple shopping channel.
>>>> For instance it seems they may only be using an 8 input audio
>>>> mixer !
>>>>
>>>> It's just been thrown together by a bunch of well meaning I'm
>>>> genuinely sure, but inexperienced technical staff. I don't think
>>>> the channel has an Engineering Director ?
>>
>>> Every professional sound engineer I've met has a story about
>>> somebody who decided to shoot something on the cheap, with the
>>> sound being done as an afterthought by a friend who "knows about
>>> sound" or "knows about electronics" but with no broadcast
>>> experience, because they think recording sound is easy. In the
>>> worst case they can end up with days or weeks worth of material
>>> which has no useable sound or none at all. It's an expensive
>>> lesson, usually even more expensive than it would have been to pay
>>> a professional to do it properly.
>>
>> Some years ago, I was involved in play where a piano had to be
>> played. The actor couldn't play, so the piano had to be set so that
>> the audience couldn't see the keyboard. The diector handed me a
>> cassette! and said "a friend recorded this" I listened (automatic
>> level control & it sounded as though it was done in a bathroom) and
>> said I needed the music score which I eventually got. Then visited a
>> friend with a Steinway, taking my trusty Revox. We only did one take
>> and most of the audience thought the actor was playing live.
>
> We have now come full circle with banks and other institutions
> allowing their customer services staff to work at home using the
> crappiest of budget microphones.
>

Would that they were provided with microphone headsets! IME experience
they seem to be using either wireless bluetooth units that sound like
bathrooms, of they just use the laptop microphone. I'm not sure which
sounds worse but they both sound as though the member of staff is
talking to you from the other side of the kitchen!!

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 21:55:03 +0100, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 09:41 18 Jun 2021, Roderick Stewart said:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 18:04:48 +0100, Java Jive
>> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Anyone with any *REAL* sense is a *LOT* more cautious. Take a look
>>>at the stats, they all look exactly like the beginning of the second
>>>wave, and suggest that we are now entering a third. Most
>>>worryingly:
>>> Nation R-Number
>>> England 1.2-1.4
>>> Scotland 1.2-1.4
>>> NI 0.9-1.2
>>> Wales 0.8-1.0 The only nation with an acceptable level
>>
>> I've yet to see a convincing explanation of where this magic "R"
>> number comes from, or how anyone thinks it can be known with any
>> accuracy. I understand that it's defined as the average number of
>> people who become infected by any individual who is already infected
>> (something like loop gain or secondary emission ratio, to translate
>> it into electronic terms) but I also see a lot of doubt and
>> confusion about how accurately we determine who is infected, who has
>> been in contact with whom, and what people really died from. If the
>> raw data is questionable, then the same can surely be said of
>> anything derived or estimated from it.
>>
>> Rod.
>
>Such is the skill of the mathematical modeller.

In order to know how well *any* type of model matches reality, we need
to know what reality is, so we can compare it with our model. If the
only information we have about reality is via the model, then we have
nothing to compare it with. I'd be interested to see the modelmakers'
argument that their models of the "R" rate do in fact match something
that seems impossible to measure. What comparison between model and
reality can they have made?

Rod.

On 19/06/2021 06:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> In order to know how well*any* type of model matches reality, we need
> to know what reality is, so we can compare it with our model. If the
> only information we have about reality is via the model, then we have
> nothing to compare it with. I'd be interested to see the modelmakers'
> argument that their models of the "R" rate do in fact match something
> that seems impossible to measure. What comparison between model and
> reality can they have made?

They have been testing huge numbers of people (probably one reason why
the UK has more cases than some other countries).

They seem to have published much of the data.

On 19/06/2021 06:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 21:55:03 +0100, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09:41 18 Jun 2021, Roderick Stewart said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 18:04:48 +0100, Java Jive
>>> <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyone with any *REAL* sense is a *LOT* more cautious. Take a look
>>>> at the stats, they all look exactly like the beginning of the second
>>>> wave, and suggest that we are now entering a third. Most
>>>> worryingly:
>>>> Nation R-Number
>>>> England 1.2-1.4
>>>> Scotland 1.2-1.4
>>>> NI 0.9-1.2
>>>> Wales 0.8-1.0 The only nation with an acceptable level
>>>
>>> I've yet to see a convincing explanation of where this magic "R"
>>> number comes from, or how anyone thinks it can be known with any
>>> accuracy. I understand that it's defined as the average number of
>>> people who become infected by any individual who is already infected
>>> (something like loop gain or secondary emission ratio, to translate
>>> it into electronic terms) but I also see a lot of doubt and
>>> confusion about how accurately we determine who is infected, who has
>>> been in contact with whom, and what people really died from. If the
>>> raw data is questionable, then the same can surely be said of
>>> anything derived or estimated from it.
>>>
>>> Rod.
>>
>> Such is the skill of the mathematical modeller.
>
> In order to know how well *any* type of model matches reality, we need
> to know what reality is, so we can compare it with our model. If the
> only information we have about reality is via the model, then we have
> nothing to compare it with. I'd be interested to see the modelmakers'
> argument that their models of the "R" rate do in fact match something
> that seems impossible to measure. What comparison between model and
> reality can they have made?
>
> Rod.

The thing about the R number is that it is meant to be a guide not a
precise measurement. R=1 is the point where the number of new
infections remains the same (eg 2,000 last week and 2,000 this week).
Anything less than one recognises that the numbers are decreasing and
anything more than one recognises that the numbers are increasing.

Other than that, the exact R value is fairly meaningless, because the
variability of R gets more exaggerated the lower the number of infected
you start with. If there are 1000 infected one week and 1001 the next
then R=1.001 - just a fraction above 1. On the other hand if just 1
person is infected and that one person infects 2 people the R value is
what looks like a huge 2 compared with the 1.something that has always
been quoted so far to show an increase in infections. Nevertheless, in
real terms 1001 new infections is a much worse scenario than 3 new
infections.

Jim

On 18/06/2021 22:01, Pamela wrote:
> On 12:27 18 Jun 2021, MrSpook said:
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 12:00:14 +0100 Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> On 18/06/2021 11:24, Roderick Stewart wrote:

>>>> If I go out and about, anyone else I meet will be either already
>>>> vaccinated themselves, or too young to need to worry (and probably
>>>> attending school), or will have made their own choice about the
>>>> risks they are prepared to take.
>>>
>>> Yes, yes, we've heard these selfish arguments ad nauseam already,
>>> but
>>
>> Selfish! cries the wetwipe who wants to lock down society forever
>> because he's scared :)
>
> If Covid persists for years then the measures to contain it will last
> just as long.

Not if the measures are considered to be worse financially or in terms
of quality of life than putting up with the results of the disease.

--
Max Demian

On 15/06/2021 11:52, Roderick Stewart wrote:

>
> Luckily gadgets to correct it are now a standard item of hi-fi
> equipment. Search for "lip sync corrector" or "audio delay".

But sometimes they get it so wrong that lip-sync delays don't work.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 19/06/2021 12:03 pm, Max Demian wrote:
> On 18/06/2021 22:01, Pamela wrote:
>> On 12:27  18 Jun 2021, MrSpook said:
>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 12:00:14 +0100 Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 18/06/2021 11:24, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>>>>> If I go out and about, anyone else I meet will be either already
>>>>> vaccinated themselves, or too young to need to worry (and probably
>>>>> attending school), or will have made their own choice about the
>>>>> risks they are prepared to take.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, yes, we've heard these selfish arguments ad nauseam already,
>>>> but
>>>
>>> Selfish! cries the wetwipe who wants to lock down society forever
>>> because he's scared :)
>>
>> If Covid persists for years then the measures to contain it will last
>> just as long.
>
> Not if the measures are considered to be worse financially or in terms
> of quality of life than putting up with the results of the disease.

It's hard to picture any (temporary) financial or social-isolation
difficulty which trumps death.

On 19/06/2021 12:40, JNugent wrote:
> On 19/06/2021 12:03 pm, Max Demian wrote:
>> On 18/06/2021 22:01, Pamela wrote:
>>> On 12:27  18 Jun 2021, MrSpook said:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 12:00:14 +0100 Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 18/06/2021 11:24, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>
>>>>>> If I go out and about, anyone else I meet will be either already
>>>>>> vaccinated themselves, or too young to need to worry (and probably
>>>>>> attending school), or will have made their own choice about the
>>>>>> risks they are prepared to take.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, yes, we've heard these selfish arguments ad nauseam already,
>>>>> but
>>>>
>>>> Selfish! cries the wetwipe who wants to lock down society forever
>>>> because he's scared :)
>>>
>>> If Covid persists for years then the measures to contain it will last
>>> just as long.
>>
>> Not if the measures are considered to be worse financially or in terms
>> of quality of life than putting up with the results of the disease.
>
> It's hard to picture any (temporary) financial or social-isolation
> difficulty which trumps death.

Not everyone will die. And natural selection will favour those with a
natural immunity.

--
Max Demian

On 19/06/2021 03:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:

> On 19/06/2021 12:40, JNugent wrote:
>> On 19/06/2021 12:03 pm, Max Demian wrote:
>>> On 18/06/2021 22:01, Pamela wrote:
>>>> On 12:27  18 Jun 2021, MrSpook said:
>>>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/06/2021 11:24, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>>>>>>> If I go out and about, anyone else I meet will be either already
>>>>>>> vaccinated themselves, or too young to need to worry (and probably
>>>>>>> attending school), or will have made their own choice about the
>>>>>>> risks they are prepared to take.
>
>>>>>> Yes, yes, we've heard these selfish arguments ad nauseam already,
>>>>>> but
>
>>>>> Selfish! cries the wetwipe who wants to lock down society forever
>>>>> because he's scared :)
>
>>>> If Covid persists for years then the measures to contain it will last
>>>> just as long.
>
>>> Not if the measures are considered to be worse financially or in
>>> terms of quality of life than putting up with the results of the
>>> disease.
>
>> It's hard to picture any (temporary) financial or social-isolation
>> difficulty which trumps death.
>
> Not everyone will die.

Actually, we all will. Most of us want to put it off for as long as
possible.

> And natural selection will favour those with a natural immunity.

I don't know about you, but if I'm not one of those selected for
"natural immunity", I want to give other people as little opportunity as
possible to pass the virus to me, to family and friends.

I trust this is not coming as a surprise. It should be a very widespread
view. Judging from the proportion of the population supporting the four
week extension, it does seem to be a generally-held attitude.

On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 12:40:51 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>>> If Covid persists for years then the measures to contain it will last
>>> just as long.
>>
>> Not if the measures are considered to be worse financially or in terms
>> of quality of life than putting up with the results of the disease.
>
>It's hard to picture any (temporary) financial or social-isolation
>difficulty which trumps death.

Indeed, but they're not simple alternatives. Certain death is not the
inevitable consequence of failure to observe government orthodoxy, and
many people now realise this. Some have realied it from the beginning.

Rod.

On 20/06/2021 08:33, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 12:40:51 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>>
>> It's hard to picture any (temporary) financial or social-isolation
>> difficulty which trumps death.
>
> Indeed, but they're not simple alternatives. Certain death is not the
> inevitable consequence of failure to observe government orthodoxy, and
> many people now realise this. Some have realied it from the beginning.

And 128,000 people have died.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 20/06/2021 12:07, Java Jive wrote:
> On 20/06/2021 08:33, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 12:40:51 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's hard to picture any (temporary) financial or social-isolation
>>> difficulty which trumps death.
>>
>> Indeed, but they're not simple alternatives. Certain death is not the
>> inevitable consequence of failure to observe government orthodoxy, and
>> many people now realise this. Some have realied it from the beginning.
>
> And 128,000 people have died.

Many of which would have died anyway, just a few months later. I think
about 500,000 people die in this country every year.

--
Max Demian

On 20/06/2021 02:54 pm, Max Demian wrote:
> On 20/06/2021 12:07, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 20/06/2021 08:33, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 12:40:51 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's hard to picture any (temporary) financial or social-isolation
>>>> difficulty which trumps death.
>>>
>>> Indeed, but they're not simple alternatives. Certain death is not the
>>> inevitable consequence of failure to observe government orthodoxy, and
>>> many people now realise this. Some have realied it from the beginning.
>>
>> And 128,000 people have died.
>
> Many of which would have died anyway, just a few months later. I think
> about 500,000 people die in this country every year.

I think you are right about the number being bumped up, unjustifiedly in
strict terms, in order to make people more aware of the situation. But
that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

On 20/06/2021 14:54, Max Demian wrote:
> On 20/06/2021 12:07, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 20/06/2021 08:33, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 12:40:51 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's hard to picture any (temporary) financial or social-isolation
>>>> difficulty which trumps death.
>>>
>>> Indeed, but they're not simple alternatives. Certain death is not the
>>> inevitable consequence of failure to observe government orthodoxy, and
>>> many people now realise this. Some have realied it from the beginning.
>>
>> And 128,000 people have died.
>
> Many of which would have died anyway, just a few months later. I think
> about 500,000 people die in this country every year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000wz3z

"More or Less - Covid deaths, outdoor swimming and care homes

The official number of deaths attributed to Covid 19 around the world in
the whole of 2020 is 1.88 million. The global toll this year surpassed
this figure on 11th of June. We look at how things are worse worldwide,
despite vaccines and lock downs.

[...]"

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 20/06/2021 17:53, Java Jive wrote:
> On 20/06/2021 14:54, Max Demian wrote:
>> On 20/06/2021 12:07, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 20/06/2021 08:33, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 12:40:51 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's hard to picture any (temporary) financial or social-isolation
>>>>> difficulty which trumps death.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, but they're not simple alternatives. Certain death is not the
>>>> inevitable consequence of failure to observe government orthodoxy, and
>>>> many people now realise this. Some have realied it from the beginning.
>>>
>>> And 128,000 people have died.
>>
>> Many of which would have died anyway, just a few months later. I think
>> about 500,000 people die in this country every year.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000wz3z
>
> "More or Less - Covid deaths, outdoor swimming and care homes
>
> The official number of deaths attributed to Covid 19 around the world in
> the whole of 2020 is 1.88 million. The global toll this year surpassed
> this figure on 11th of June. We look at how things are worse worldwide,
> despite vaccines and lock downs.
>
> [...]"

So?

A question that programme is always asking is, "Is that a big number?"

--
Max Demian

On 20/06/2021 22:01, Max Demian wrote:
>
> On 20/06/2021 17:53, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 20/06/2021 14:54, Max Demian wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20/06/2021 12:07, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And 128,000 people have died.
>>>
>>> Many of which would have died anyway, just a few months later. I
>>> think about 500,000 people die in this country every year.
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000wz3z
>>
>> "More or Less - Covid deaths, outdoor swimming and care homes
>>
>> The official number of deaths attributed to Covid 19 around the world
>> in the whole of 2020 is 1.88 million. The global toll this year
>> surpassed this figure on 11th of June. We look at how things are worse
>> worldwide, despite vaccines and lock downs.
>>
>> [...]"
>
> So?

Debunks the idea that many would have died anyway.

> A question that programme is always asking is, "Is that a big number?"

It's certainly not a small one.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 15:29:02 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>On 20/06/2021 02:54 pm, Max Demian wrote:
>> On 20/06/2021 12:07, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 20/06/2021 08:33, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 12:40:51 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's hard to picture any (temporary) financial or social-isolation
>>>>> difficulty which trumps death.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, but they're not simple alternatives. Certain death is not the
>>>> inevitable consequence of failure to observe government orthodoxy, and
>>>> many people now realise this. Some have realied it from the beginning.
>>>
>>> And 128,000 people have died.
>>
>> Many of which would have died anyway, just a few months later. I think
>> about 500,000 people die in this country every year.
>
>I think you are right about the number being bumped up, unjustifiedly in
>strict terms, in order to make people more aware of the situation. But
>that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I disagree. I think it is. I think distorting the truth is a bad
thing. I think a government attempting to control the people by
distorting the truth is a very bad thing. It doesn't make anybody
"more aware of the situation". It makes everybody aware of the fact
that the government hasn't told the truth.

The trouble with bullshit is that however convincing it may be at
first, people eventually see through it, and then assume that
everything you say subsequently will be bullshit too. You may think
that a little dishonesty is trivial, but it only takes a little
dishonesty to destroy all of your credibility. You only get to cry
"wolf" once.

Rod.

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 16:57:18 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 18/06/2021 14:51, MrSpook_epbp7gvl7v@q0bg261n_utdp7_.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 12:53:00 +0100
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 18/06/2021 12:26, MrSpook_lv6s@b5q3wo7.co.uk wrote:
>>>> A better example would be that supernovas
>>>> haven't destroyed any of the galaxies we can see therefor its pretty safe
>to
>>>> say they won't destroy any ones we can't.
>>>
>>> AFAIAA, we don't have statistics either way on that, so it's no analogy
>>> at all.
>>
>> Yes we do. Supernovas are used as standard candles to measure distance in
>> astronomy for distances where parallax no longer works so they are studied
>> in fine detail.
>
>No, that's Cepheid variables and just type 1a supernovae, not all
>supernovae in general.
>
>https://lco.global/spacebook/distance/cepheid-variable-stars-supernovae-and-dis
>tance-measurement/

And that invalidates my point how? How do you think they know which type
they are without studying them first you muppet?

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:51:34 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 18/06/2021 16:59, MrSpook_qft8jv@kkkodg4p9lor2z3jo8ji.org wrote:
>> like the recent BS with a black woman cast as Ann Boleyn. I wonder how the
>> wokerati would respond if a white guy played nelson mandela? I think we know
>> the answer.
>
>And which programme was that?

The black ann boleyn? Oh come on man, even you can't be that out of touch. It
was all over the news only 2 weeks ago. Google it FFS.

On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 20:39:55 +0100
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>On 18/06/2021 16:59, MrSpook_qft8jv@kkkodg4p9lor2z3jo8ji.org wrote:
>> If you mean Roma they're originally from India and if you'd ever seen any in
>> the UK you'd know the ones who live here are anything but dark. The ones
>> from Bulgaria are a bit darker but not by much.
>
>I believe most of the 'travellers' are from Ireland. I heard a
>programme years about a family of true Romany gypsies. They hated the
>'travellers' and made clear they were nothing to do with the true Romany
>travellers.

Irish travellers are essentially poundshop irish mafia. They commit a boatload
of crimes in the UK with the proceeds heading home to buy houses in ireland.
Or so a program I watched about 10 years ago implied.

On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 16:17:38 +0100
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On 19/06/2021 03:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:
>> Not everyone will die.
>
>Actually, we all will. Most of us want to put it off for as long as
>possible.

That depends on what the alternative is. If god forbid I ended up quadraplegic
or with severe MND I'd be heading off to Dignitas.

>> And natural selection will favour those with a natural immunity.
>
>I don't know about you, but if I'm not one of those selected for
>"natural immunity", I want to give other people as little opportunity as
>possible to pass the virus to me, to family and friends.

Presumably that applied to every single risk in life so you do nothing, ever?

>I trust this is not coming as a surprise. It should be a very widespread
>view. Judging from the proportion of the population supporting the four
>week extension, it does seem to be a generally-held attitude.

Its become pretty apparent that a majority of the population are risk averse
cowards unable to face mild adversity. If there was ever a really serious
crisis, not one that only affected 0.5% of the population then god help us,
because these wimps would be a burden, not a solution.

On 21/06/2021 09:26, MrSpook_y9ictb5@srfavdnaovqu34.com wrote:
> Irish travellers are essentially poundshop irish mafia. They commit a boatload
> of crimes in the UK with the proceeds heading home to buy houses in ireland.
> Or so a program I watched about 10 years ago implied.

Also apparently some years ago they would pass on information to the
Irish terrorists if they happened to come across the home of a prominent
person when going door to door.