On 14/11/2021 13:27, Pamela wrote:
> On 10:56 14 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>> On 14/11/2021 09:16, Pamela wrote:
>>> On 17:06 13 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>>>> On 13/11/2021 16:28, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> FALSE CLAIM! As you have already been told, I have a good
>>>>> sci-tech degree, whereas you?
>>>
>>>> You don't have a degree in Secure Area Management and Operation,
>>>> or you wouldn't be so naive as to write things like "Given the
>>>> number of foreign visitors to the lab, it would be extraordinary
>>>> beyond belief for there to have been areas of the lab that were
>>>> off limits to them and *NO-ONE* has mentioned this since the
>>>> outbreak began!"
>>>
>>> Spike, you didn't answer the question about your degree. Do you
>>> have a science degree of any sort?
>>
>> Java Jive is on his back foot concerning WIV, and as a last-ditch
>> defence has resorted to using an argumentum ad verecundiam: he has
>> 'a 'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin O-level. You could always so
>> some critical thinking here, and ask yourself why it is that Java
>> Jive has taken this path rather than defend his selective
>> 'evidence', instead of joining him in his false-argument approach.

On the contrary I have produced a reasonable amount of relevant
evidence, whereas you have produced nothing but irrelevant flatulence.

> You still didn't answer the question. Do you have a science degree of
> any sort? I presume you would have said so if you did. Please kindly
> advise if I'm wrong.
>
> By the way, someone with a qualification in Latin wouldn't act as if
> quoting a Latin phrase, as you do, is impressive. There are perfectly
> good English translations. I speak as someone else (apart from Java)
> who also has a formal qualification in Latin.

Exactly, it's a very obvious attempt at trying to appear superior and at
browbeating, but, unfortunately for him, I went to a well-known public
school, so am distinctly unimpressed by such absurd and pompous
behaviour as the use of obscure phrases in Latin.

And I'm pretty sure that he has no significant scientific qualifications
whatsoever. There’s an old legal proverb: "If you have the facts on
your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the
law. If you have neither, attack the witness.", the last being the
stage we have obviously reached now, so if I had to guess his
profession, it would be a lawyer or a solicitor.

--

Fake news kills!

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

xposting removed.

In article <XnsADE25E6B3401B37B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > You don't have a degree in Secure Area Management and Operation, or
> > you wouldn't be so naive as to write things like "Given the number of
> > foreign visitors to the lab, it would be extraordinary beyond belief
> > for there to have been areas of the lab that were off limits to them
> > and *NO-ONE* has mentioned this since the outbreak began!"

> Spike, you didn't answer the question about your degree. Do you have a
> science degree of any sort?

Given that you can these days get 'degrees' in all kinds of topics I guess
I shouldn't suprised if one existed for the above. What isn't obvious is
how you'd be allowed to know about it if you lacked the qualification. Or
even be allowed to see the exam paper to take the exam whilst still a mere
student :-)

Assumptions can be useful *when they can be tested*. Otherwise they're just
assumptions that may be worthless.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 14:17 14 Nov 2021, charles said:

> In article <XnsADE288DD851F737B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10:56 14 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>> > On 14/11/2021 09:16, Pamela wrote:
>> >> On 17:06 13 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>> >>> On 13/11/2021 16:28, Java Jive wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> FALSE CLAIM! As you have already been told, I have a good
>> >>>> sci-tech degree, whereas you?
>> >>
>> >>> You don't have a degree in Secure Area Management and
>> >>> Operation, or you wouldn't be so naive as to write things like
>> >>> "Given the number of foreign visitors to the lab, it would be
>> >>> extraordinary beyond belief for there to have been areas of the
>> >>> lab that were off limits to them and *NO-ONE* has mentioned
>> >>> this since the outbreak began!"
>> >>
>> >> Spike, you didn't answer the question about your degree. Do you
>> >> have a science degree of any sort?
>> >
>> > Java Jive is on his back foot concerning WIV, and as a last-ditch
>> > defence has resorted to using an argumentum ad verecundiam: he
>> > has 'a 'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin O-level. You could
>> > always so some critical thinking here, and ask yourself why it is
>> > that Java Jive has taken this path rather than defend his
>> > selective 'evidence', instead of joining him in his
>> > false-argument approach.
>>
>> You still didn't answer the question. Do you have a science degree
>> of any sort? I presume you would have said so if you did. Please
>> kindly advise if I'm wrong.
>>
>> By the way, someone with a qualification in Latin wouldn't act as
>> if quoting a Latin phrase, as you do, is impressive. There are
>> perfectly good English translations. I speak as someone else (apart
>> from Java) who also has a formal qualification in Latin.
>
>
> I, too, have Latin (& Greek) at O-Level.

I found Greek hard going. Reading the classics was tough, even with
the aid of the Loeb parallel texts. I'm not sure what the practical
value was although some might say classical languages train the mind.

A friend learnt Aramaic for a bet and found it so absorbing that he
continued his study of it. He was quite busy in his work life and I
dread to think how many precious hours he must have spent.

On 14/11/2021 14:17, charles wrote:

>
> I, too, have Latin (& Greek) at O-Level.
>

Is that a euphemism. Similar to, I have "My taste includes both snails
and oysters"?

In article <598b47c693charles@candehope.me.uk>,
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> I, too, have Latin (& Greek) at O-Level.

Afraid it's all Greek to me! ...and I did fail my English O-Level three
times. The closest my secondary modern got to 'Greek' was a local
restaurant.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 14/11/2021 14:39, Java Jive wrote:
> On 14/11/2021 11:20, Spike wrote:

>> Stick to Wuhan.

> Hypocrite: 'Stick[ing] to Wuhan' didn't prevent you introducing all sort
> irrelevant crap about Russia.

Not a student of History, then?

You should have studied that instead of Latin, at your 'well-known
public school'.

--
Spike

On 14/11/2021 14:58, Java Jive wrote:
> On 14/11/2021 13:27, Pamela wrote:
>> On 10:56 14 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>>> On 14/11/2021 09:16, Pamela wrote:

>>>> Spike, you didn't answer the question about your degree. Do you
>>>> have a science degree of any sort?

>>> Java Jive is on his back foot concerning WIV, and as a last-ditch
>>> defence has resorted to using an argumentum ad verecundiam: he has
>>> 'a 'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin O-level. You could always so
>>> some critical thinking here, and ask yourself why it is that Java
>>> Jive has taken this path rather than defend his selective
>>> 'evidence', instead of joining him in his false-argument approach.

> On the contrary I have produced a reasonable amount of relevant
> evidence, whereas you have produced nothing but irrelevant flatulence.

There’s an old legal proverb: "If you have the facts on your side, argue
the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you
have neither, attack the witness", the last being the stage we have
obviously reached now.

>> You still didn't answer the question. Do you have a science degree of
>> any sort? I presume you would have said so if you did. Please kindly
>> advise if I'm wrong.

>> By the way, someone with a qualification in Latin wouldn't act as if
>> quoting a Latin phrase, as you do, is impressive. There are perfectly
>> good English translations. I speak as someone else (apart from Java)
>> who also has a formal qualification in Latin.

> Exactly, it's a very obvious attempt at trying to appear superior and at
> browbeating, but, unfortunately for him, I went to a well-known public
> school, so am distinctly unimpressed by such absurd and pompous
> behaviour as the use of obscure phrases in Latin.

Oh, this argumentum ad verecundiam just gets better and better! Besides
having a 'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin O-level, you now claim you
went to '...a well-known public school'! They don't seem to have taught
you about History or Critical Thinking.

But even someone as sensitive as you are will note that this ad-hom
attack of yours is merely a mechanism to deflect attention away from
your very poor quality of research and your rush to judgement in the
Wuhan virus affair. This really says it all about your huffing and
puffing over the matter. You are, frankly speaking, best ignored.

> And I'm pretty sure that he has no significant scientific qualifications
> whatsoever. There’s an old legal proverb: "If you have the facts on
> your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the
> law. If you have neither, attack the witness.", the last being the
> stage we have obviously reached now, so if I had to guess his
> profession, it would be a lawyer or a solicitor.

As you are fond of 'perfectly good English translations' rather than
Latin ones despite your O-level in the subject, here's a free
translation of a Latin saying that you recently became familiar with:
You're talking cobblers, me old cock sparrer. Complete cobblers.

HTH

--
Spike

On 15/11/2021 09:58, Spike wrote:
> On 14/11/2021 14:39, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 14/11/2021 11:20, Spike wrote:
>
>>> Stick to Wuhan.
>
>> Hypocrite: 'Stick[ing] to Wuhan' didn't prevent you introducing all sort
>> irrelevant crap about Russia.
>
> Not a student of History, then?
>
> You should have studied that instead of Latin, at your 'well-known
> public school'.

Stick to Wuhan.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 15/11/2021 10:02, Spike wrote:
> On 14/11/2021 14:58, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 14/11/2021 13:27, Pamela wrote:
>>> On 10:56 14 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>>>> On 14/11/2021 09:16, Pamela wrote:
>
>>>>> Spike, you didn't answer the question about your degree. Do you
>>>>> have a science degree of any sort?
>
>>>> Java Jive is on his back foot concerning WIV, and as a last-ditch
>>>> defence has resorted to using an argumentum ad verecundiam: he has
>>>> 'a 'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin O-level. You could always so
>>>> some critical thinking here, and ask yourself why it is that Java
>>>> Jive has taken this path rather than defend his selective
>>>> 'evidence', instead of joining him in his false-argument approach.
>
>> On the contrary I have produced a reasonable amount of relevant
>> evidence, whereas you have produced nothing but irrelevant flatulence.
>
> There’s an old legal proverb: "If you have the facts on your side, argue
> the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you
> have neither, attack the witness", the last being the stage we have
> obviously reached now.

On the contrary I have produced a reasonable amount of relevant
*EVIDENCE*, whereas you have produced nothing but irrelevant flatulence.

>> Exactly, it's a very obvious attempt at trying to appear superior and at
>> browbeating, but, unfortunately for him, I went to a well-known public
>> school, so am distinctly unimpressed by such absurd and pompous
>> behaviour as the use of obscure phrases in Latin.
>
> Oh, this argumentum ad verecundiam just gets better and better! Besides
> having a 'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin O-level, you now claim you
> went to '...a well-known public school'! They don't seem to have taught
> you about History or Critical Thinking.
>
> But even someone as sensitive as you are will note that this ad-hom
> attack of yours is merely a mechanism to deflect attention away from
> your very poor quality of research and your rush to judgement in the
> Wuhan virus affair. This really says it all about your huffing and
> puffing over the matter. You are, frankly speaking, best ignored.

Yet here you are, still desperate to score insult points, which suggests
to me that in fact you realise you are losing the substantive
discussion. When are you actually going to come up with some relevant
scientific *EVIDENCE* instead of all this pompous twattery?

>> And I'm pretty sure that he has no significant scientific qualifications
>> whatsoever. There’s an old legal proverb: "If you have the facts on
>> your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the
>> law. If you have neither, attack the witness.", the last being the
>> stage we have obviously reached now, so if I had to guess his
>> profession, it would be a lawyer or a solicitor.
>
> As you are fond of 'perfectly good English translations' rather than
> Latin ones despite your O-level in the subject, here's a free
> translation of a Latin saying that you recently became familiar with:
> You're talking cobblers, me old cock sparrer. Complete cobblers.

Still no substantive *EVIDENCE*, still less substantive argument.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <ivepihFfbu9U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On 14/11/2021 14:58, Java Jive wrote:
> > On 14/11/2021 13:27, Pamela wrote:
> >> On 10:56 14 Nov 2021, Spike said:
> >>> On 14/11/2021 09:16, Pamela wrote:

> >>>> Spike, you didn't answer the question about your degree. Do you have
> >>>> a science degree of any sort?

> >>> Java Jive is on his back foot concerning WIV, and as a last-ditch
> >>> defence has resorted to using an argumentum ad verecundiam: he has 'a
> >>> 'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin O-level. You could always so some
> >>> critical thinking here, and ask yourself why it is that Java Jive has
> >>> taken this path rather than defend his selective 'evidence', instead
> >>> of joining him in his false-argument approach.

> > On the contrary I have produced a reasonable amount of relevant
> > evidence, whereas you have produced nothing but irrelevant flatulence.

> There‘s an old legal proverb: "If you have the facts on your side, argue
> the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have
> neither, attack the witness", the last being the stage we have obviously
> reached now.

> >> You still didn't answer the question. Do you have a science degree of
> >> any sort? I presume you would have said so if you did. Please kindly
> >> advise if I'm wrong.

> >> By the way, someone with a qualification in Latin wouldn't act as if
> >> quoting a Latin phrase, as you do, is impressive. There are perfectly
> >> good English translations. I speak as someone else (apart from Java)
> >> who also has a formal qualification in Latin.

> > Exactly, it's a very obvious attempt at trying to appear superior and
> > at browbeating, but, unfortunately for him, I went to a well-known
> > public school, so am distinctly unimpressed by such absurd and pompous
> > behaviour as the use of obscure phrases in Latin.

> Oh, this argumentum ad verecundiam just gets better and better! Besides
> having a 'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin O-level, you now claim you
> went to '...a well-known public school'! They don't seem to have taught
> you about History or Critical Thinking.

Trouble with learning history is that there's an awful lot of it. AUC 1,
right up to 2020 - and where? the world? The UK, Europe?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 10:24 15 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:
> On 15/11/2021 10:02, Spike wrote:
>> On 14/11/2021 14:58, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 14/11/2021 13:27, Pamela wrote:
>>>> On 10:56 14 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>>>>> On 14/11/2021 09:16, Pamela wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spike, you didn't answer the question about your degree. Do you
>>>>>> have a science degree of any sort?
>>>>>
>>>>> Java Jive is on his back foot concerning WIV, and as a
>>>>> last-ditch defence has resorted to using an argumentum ad
>>>>> verecundiam: he has 'a 'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin
>>>>> O-level. You could always so some critical thinking here, and
>>>>> ask yourself why it is that Java Jive has taken this path rather
>>>>> than defend his selective 'evidence', instead of joining him in
>>>>> his false-argument approach.
>>>
>>> On the contrary I have produced a reasonable amount of relevant
>>> evidence, whereas you have produced nothing but irrelevant
>>> flatulence.
>>
>> There’s an old legal proverb: "If you have the facts on your
>> side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the
>> law. If you have neither, attack the witness", the last being the
>> stage we have obviously reached now.
>
> On the contrary I have produced a reasonable amount of relevant
> *EVIDENCE*, whereas you have produced nothing but irrelevant
> flatulence.
>
>>> Exactly, it's a very obvious attempt at trying to appear superior
>>> and at browbeating, but, unfortunately for him, I went to a
>>> well-known public school, so am distinctly unimpressed by such
>>> absurd and pompous behaviour as the use of obscure phrases in
>>> Latin.
>>
>> Oh, this argumentum ad verecundiam just gets better and better!
>> Besides having a 'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin O-level, you
>> now claim you went to '...a well-known public school'! They don't
>> seem to have taught you about History or Critical Thinking.
>>
>> But even someone as sensitive as you are will note that this ad-hom
>> attack of yours is merely a mechanism to deflect attention away
>> from your very poor quality of research and your rush to judgement
>> in the Wuhan virus affair. This really says it all about your
>> huffing and puffing over the matter. You are, frankly speaking,
>> best ignored.
>
> Yet here you are, still desperate to score insult points, which
> suggests to me that in fact you realise you are losing the
> substantive discussion. When are you actually going to come up with
> some relevant scientific *EVIDENCE* instead of all this pompous
> twattery?
>
>>> And I'm pretty sure that he has no significant scientific
>>> qualifications whatsoever. There’s an old legal proverb: "If
>>> you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the
>>> law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the
>>> witness.", the last being the stage we have obviously reached now,
>>> so if I had to guess his profession, it would be a lawyer or a
>>> solicitor.
>>
>> As you are fond of 'perfectly good English translations' rather
>> than Latin ones despite your O-level in the subject, here's a free
>> translation of a Latin saying that you recently became familiar
>> with: You're talking cobblers, me old cock sparrer. Complete
>> cobblers.
>
> Still no substantive *EVIDENCE*, still less substantive argument.

I believe "Spike" has shown his true colours and they are far from
impressive. He's probably best ignored. In other groups, I don't spend
time on his antics and dishonest arguments.

As they say ... you're wrestling with a pig and both are getting dirty
but the pig likes it.

On 10:20 15 Nov 2021, charles said:

> In article <ivepihFfbu9U1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
> <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> On 14/11/2021 14:58, Java Jive wrote:
>> > On 14/11/2021 13:27, Pamela wrote:
>> >> On 10:56 14 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>> >>> On 14/11/2021 09:16, Pamela wrote:
>
>> >>>> Spike, you didn't answer the question about your degree. Do
>> >>>> you have a science degree of any sort?
>
>> >>> Java Jive is on his back foot concerning WIV, and as a
>> >>> last-ditch defence has resorted to using an argumentum ad
>> >>> verecundiam: he has 'a 'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin
>> >>> O-level. You could always so some critical thinking here, and
>> >>> ask yourself why it is that Java Jive has taken this path
>> >>> rather than defend his selective 'evidence', instead of joining
>> >>> him in his false-argument approach.
>
>> > On the contrary I have produced a reasonable amount of relevant
>> > evidence, whereas you have produced nothing but irrelevant
>> > flatulence.
>
>> There�s an old legal proverb: "If you have the facts on your side,
>> argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law.
>> If you have neither, attack the witness", the last being the stage
>> we have obviously reached now.
>
>> >> You still didn't answer the question. Do you have a science
>> >> degree of any sort? I presume you would have said so if you did.
>> >> Please kindly advise if I'm wrong.
>
>> >> By the way, someone with a qualification in Latin wouldn't act
>> >> as if quoting a Latin phrase, as you do, is impressive. There
>> >> are perfectly good English translations. I speak as someone else
>> >> (apart from Java) who also has a formal qualification in Latin.
>
>> > Exactly, it's a very obvious attempt at trying to appear superior
>> > and at browbeating, but, unfortunately for him, I went to a
>> > well-known public school, so am distinctly unimpressed by such
>> > absurd and pompous behaviour as the use of obscure phrases in
>> > Latin.
>
>> Oh, this argumentum ad verecundiam just gets better and better!
>> Besides having a 'good sci-tech degree' and a Latin O-level, you
>> now claim you went to '...a well-known public school'! They don't
>> seem to have taught you about History or Critical Thinking.
>
> Trouble with learning history is that there's an awful lot of it.
> AUC 1, right up to 2020 - and where? the world? The UK, Europe?

History aside, "Critical Thinking" is even taught in school. It's
probably no bad thing because there's some rather dopey thinking to be
encountered at large.

Spike's familiarity with such classes and the juvenile manner he
carries himself with here, suggests he's probably a young 'un trying
to make his mark. He's confuses a motor mouth with oratory.

On 15/11/2021 10:18, Java Jive wrote:
> On 15/11/2021 09:58, Spike wrote:
>> On 14/11/2021 14:39, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 14/11/2021 11:20, Spike wrote:

>>>> Stick to Wuhan.

>>> Hypocrite: 'Stick[ing] to Wuhan' didn't prevent you introducing all sort
>>> irrelevant crap about Russia.

>> Not a student of History, then?

>> You should have studied that instead of Latin, at your 'well-known
>> public school'.

> Stick to Wuhan.

I'm trying to, through the crapflood of ad-homs that you're using to
defect attention away from your position that 'most scientists agree
about Wuhan...' which you are mis-interpreting as 'the science is
settled' and so there are to be no further contrary facts expressed.

--
Spike

On 15/11/2021 10:24, Java Jive wrote:

> Yet here you are, still desperate to score insult points, which suggests
> to me that in fact you realise you are losing the substantive
> discussion. When are you actually going to come up with some relevant
> scientific *EVIDENCE* instead of all this pompous twattery?

In your foot-stamping rage to dismiss anything you don't agree with,
you've probably forgotten that this is the point where this all started.

Here's some *NON-SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE' about the openness of the Chinese
in this matter:

COVID-19:
CHINA PRESSURED WHO TEAM TO DISMISS LAB LEAK THEORY
claims chief investigator

BMJ 2021; 374 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2023
<https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2023> (Published 13 August 2021)
Cite this as: BMJ 2021;374:n2023

A World Health Organisation mission to study the covid pandemic’s
origins in China, which announced in February that the possibility that
the virus had escaped from a laboratory needed no further investigation,
1 <https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2023#ref-1>
was put under pressure by Chinese scientists who made up half the team
to reach that conclusion, the scientist who led the mission has said.

Peter Ben Embarek, who led the scientists dispatched by WHO to Wuhan,
told a Danish television documentary, broadcast on 12 August, that the
Chinese scientists refused to even discuss the lab leak scenario
2 <https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2023#ref-2>
unless the final report dismissed any need for further investigation.

Having haggled about it until 48 hours before they left China, Ben
Embarek said, his Chinese counterpart eventually agreed to discuss the
lab leak theory in the report “on the condition we didn’t recommend any
specific studies to further that hypothesis.”

[…..]

The WHO team’s scientists had to be approved by China and accompanied by
an equal number of Chinese scientists, under conditions China set before
allowing their entry. The Chinese scientists had to approve the report
before its release.

[…..]

This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ's
website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic
or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print
the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and
data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are
retained.

https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage <https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usage>

--
Spike

On 15/11/2021 17:00, Spike wrote:
>
> On 15/11/2021 10:18, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Stick to Wuhan.
>
> I'm trying to,

No you you're not ...

> through the crapflood of ad-homs that you're using to
> defect attention away from your position that 'most scientists agree
> about Wuhan...' which you are mis-interpreting as 'the science is
> settled' and so there are to be no further contrary facts expressed.

.... Hyposhite: *YOU* began the ad hominems by more than once claiming
that I knew nothing about science when in fact I have good sci/tech
degree, then you produced a load of irrelevant historical stuff about
anything other than Wuhan, then tried to imply superiority by drivelling
out some Latin phrases, now you're just wingeing like a spoilt child who
can't admit to losing an argument.

I've produced a great deal of actual *EVIDENCE* about SARS-Cov-2 and
Wuhan that you have been unable to counter, while you have produced
nothing worthy of the term 'EVIDENCE'. It's time to, as the political
saying has it, put up or shut up. Let's see some actual hard *EVIDENCE*
supporting the lab-leak origin or shut the fuck up.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 15/11/2021 17:01, Spike wrote:
>
> On 15/11/2021 10:24, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Yet here you are, still desperate to score insult points, which suggests
>> to me that in fact you realise you are losing the substantive
>> discussion. When are you actually going to come up with some relevant
>> scientific *EVIDENCE* instead of all this pompous twattery?
>
> In your foot-stamping rage to dismiss anything you don't agree with,
> you've probably forgotten that this is the point where this all started.

No, I think you're the person who's forgotten that with your long
diversions into irrelevant historical biological warfare research in
other parts of the world. See below for amplification on this point ...

> Here's some *NON-SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE' about the openness of the Chinese
> in this matter:
>
> COVID-19:
> CHINA PRESSURED WHO TEAM TO DISMISS LAB LEAK THEORY
> claims chief investigator
>
> BMJ 2021; 374 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2023
> <https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2023> (Published 13 August 2021)
> Cite this as: BMJ 2021;374:n2023
>
> A World Health Organisation mission to study the covid pandemic’s
> origins in China, which announced in February that the possibility that
> the virus had escaped from a laboratory needed no further investigation,
> 1 <https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2023#ref-1>
> was put under pressure by Chinese scientists who made up half the team
> to reach that conclusion, the scientist who led the mission has said.
>
> Peter Ben Embarek, who led the scientists dispatched by WHO to Wuhan,
> told a Danish television documentary, broadcast on 12 August, that the
> Chinese scientists refused to even discuss the lab leak scenario
> 2 <https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2023#ref-2>
> unless the final report dismissed any need for further investigation.
>
> Having haggled about it until 48 hours before they left China, Ben
> Embarek said, his Chinese counterpart eventually agreed to discuss the
> lab leak theory in the report “on the condition we didn’t recommend any
> specific studies to further that hypothesis.”
>
> […..]

How *CONVENIENT* that you snipped that bit, because it doesn't support
even much of the rest of the article, let alone your implicit past
claims about biological warfare being involved - by linking to
historical precedents concerning biological warfare, you have been
arguing implicitly that the leak was from a military institution,
whereas, in reality, neither the WIV nor the other lab near the market
run by the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention are
military institutions, and of the two, it's the latter rather than WIV
that Embarek was most concerned about, though he manages to be
ambivalent even about that, also as to whether a scientist infected
while collecting samples from caves should really be classed as a lab
leak or an infection from the wild, as we can see by including the bit
you oh so conveniently snipped:

"A scenario in which a Wuhan laboratory employee caught the virus after
collecting real world samples could be considered either a lab leak or a
case of direct infection from a bat, Ben Embarek told TV2. The team’s
report described the second scenario as “likely.”

“A lab employee infected in the field while collecting samples in a bat
cave—such a scenario belongs both as a lab leak hypothesis and as our
first hypothesis of direct infection from bat to human. We’ve seen that
hypothesis as a likely hypothesis,” Ben Embarek argued.

The Danish scientist has cooperated with the documentary makers for
months, and their footage of the China visit came partly from his mobile
phone. The documentary also showed him expressing his worries in January
about the Wuhan branch of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and
Prevention, which is 500 m from the Hunan food market that Chinese
authorities blamed for the outbreak.

This facility, independent of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, has not
been raised by WHO as a potential source of concern. But, discussing
that institute in a conference call in January, Ben Embarek said, “What
is more concerning to me is the other lab. The one that is next to the
market.” This Chinese CDC laboratory, he said, was handling
coronaviruses “without potentially having the same level of expertise or
safety.”"

And again, as you yourself admit above, the only actual *EVIDENCE* there
is of official, but not necessarily from either lab, Chinese
obstruction, but we knew that already and also that there are several
possible reasons for it. Meanwhile there is still no *SCIENTIFIC*
evidence to support a lab-leak origin, but a fair amount against it.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 15/11/2021 18:56, Java Jive wrote:
> On 15/11/2021 17:00, Spike wrote:
>> On 15/11/2021 10:18, Java Jive wrote:

>>> Stick to Wuhan.

>> I'm trying to,

> No you you're not ...

>> through the crapflood of ad-homs that you're using to
>> defect attention away from your position that 'most scientists agree
>> about Wuhan...' which you are mis-interpreting as 'the science is
>> settled' and so there are to be no further contrary facts expressed.

> ... Hyposhite: *YOU* began the ad hominems by more than once claiming
> that I knew nothing about science when in fact I have good sci/tech
> degree,

Cobblers.

'Science' for you went out of the window when you started quoting
someone who had worked at WIV for 15 years and had seen nothing out of
the ordinary, in order to support your 'most scientists think that'
position that you have nailed yourself to a tree over, following your
WATERING DOWN your claim of 'no evidence' against WIV.

THAT'S NOT SCIENCE. Whether you have a 'good sci-tech degree' or not,
it's wishful bloody thinking.

> then you produced a load of irrelevant historical stuff about
> anything other than Wuhan, then tried to imply superiority by drivelling
> out some Latin phrases, now you're just wingeing like a spoilt child who
> can't admit to losing an argument.

The loser here isn't me, old boy.

> I've produced a great deal of actual *EVIDENCE* about SARS-Cov-2 and
> Wuhan that you have been unable to counter,

You don't seem to have the faintest idea that your 'most scientists
agree' position actually points to counter-evidence!

> while you have produced
> nothing worthy of the term 'EVIDENCE'. It's time to, as the political
> saying has it, put up or shut up. Let's see some actual hard *EVIDENCE*
> supporting the lab-leak origin or shut the fuck up.

This is where we came in. Do you want to go through it all again? Or is
one bloody nose enough for you?

--
Spike

On 15/11/2021 20:12, Java Jive wrote:
> On 15/11/2021 17:01, Spike wrote:
>> On 15/11/2021 10:24, Java Jive wrote:

>>> Yet here you are, still desperate to score insult points, which suggests
>>> to me that in fact you realise you are losing the substantive
>>> discussion. When are you actually going to come up with some relevant
>>> scientific *EVIDENCE* instead of all this pompous twattery?

>> In your foot-stamping rage to dismiss anything you don't agree with,
>> you've probably forgotten that this is the point where this all started.

> No, I think you're the person who's forgotten that with your long
> diversions into irrelevant historical biological warfare research in
> other parts of the world. See below for amplification on this point ...

That's because you can't see any parallels between the Russian bioweapon
research and the Wuhan affair.

>> Here's some *NON-SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE' about the openness of the Chinese
>> in this matter:

>> COVID-19:
>> CHINA PRESSURED WHO TEAM TO DISMISS LAB LEAK THEORY
>> claims chief investigator

>> BMJ 2021; 374 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2023
>> <https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2023> (Published 13 August 2021)
>> Cite this as: BMJ 2021;374:n2023

>> A World Health Organisation mission to study the covid pandemic’s
>> origins in China, which announced in February that the possibility that
>> the virus had escaped from a laboratory needed no further investigation,
>> 1 <https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2023#ref-1>
>> was put under pressure by Chinese scientists who made up half the team
>> to reach that conclusion, the scientist who led the mission has said.

>> Peter Ben Embarek, who led the scientists dispatched by WHO to Wuhan,
>> told a Danish television documentary, broadcast on 12 August, that the
>> Chinese scientists refused to even discuss the lab leak scenario
>> 2 <https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2023#ref-2>
>> unless the final report dismissed any need for further investigation.

>> Having haggled about it until 48 hours before they left China, Ben
>> Embarek said, his Chinese counterpart eventually agreed to discuss the
>> lab leak theory in the report “on the condition we didn’t recommend any
>> specific studies to further that hypothesis.”

>> […..]

> How *CONVENIENT* that you snipped that bit, because it doesn't support
> even much of the rest of the article, let alone your implicit past
> claims about biological warfare being involved - by linking to
> historical precedents concerning biological warfare, you have been
> arguing implicitly that the leak was from a military institution,
> whereas, in reality, neither the WIV nor the other lab near the market
> run by the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention are
> military institutions,

You obviously haven't understood the Russian system, or you don't want
to know about it, because of the embarrassing parallels with WIV.

> and of the two, it's the latter rather than WIV
> that Embarek was most concerned about, though he manages to be
> ambivalent even about that, also as to whether a scientist infected
> while collecting samples from caves should really be classed as a lab
> leak or an infection from the wild, as we can see by including the bit
> you oh so conveniently snipped:

In your rush to dismiss anything you find uncomfortable. you have missed
the point. You clearly don't want to acknowledge that the Chinese
approach of stuffing the inspection team with Western sympathisers and
controllable Chinese personnel, instituting interminable delays, and
insistence on pre-agreeing the reports findings, have NO PLACE
WHATSOEVER regarding a benign civilian organisation toiling tirelessly
for the common good, but that these characteristics are typical of the
workings of a militaristic totalitarian Communist regime - to which you
have been pointed a number of times.

> "A scenario in which a Wuhan laboratory employee caught the virus after
> collecting real world samples could be considered either a lab leak or a
> case of direct infection from a bat, Ben Embarek told TV2. The team’s
> report described the second scenario as “likely.”

The 'team's report' was fixed beforehand - can't you read?

> “A lab employee infected in the field while collecting samples in a bat
> cave—such a scenario belongs both as a lab leak hypothesis and as our
> first hypothesis of direct infection from bat to human. We’ve seen that
> hypothesis as a likely hypothesis,” Ben Embarek argued.

So is the coming of an asteroid.

> The Danish scientist has cooperated with the documentary makers for
> months, and their footage of the China visit came partly from his mobile
> phone. The documentary also showed him expressing his worries in January
> about the Wuhan branch of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and
> Prevention, which is 500 m from the Hunan food market that Chinese
> authorities blamed for the outbreak.

> This facility, independent of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, has not
> been raised by WHO as a potential source of concern. But, discussing
> that institute in a conference call in January, Ben Embarek said, “What
> is more concerning to me is the other lab. The one that is next to the
> market.” This Chinese CDC laboratory, he said, was handling
> coronaviruses “without potentially having the same level of expertise or
> safety.”"

> And again, as you yourself admit above, the only actual *EVIDENCE* there
> is of official, but not necessarily from either lab, Chinese
> obstruction, but we knew that already and also that there are several
> possible reasons for it. Meanwhile there is still no *SCIENTIFIC*
> evidence to support a lab-leak origin, but a fair amount against it.

Well at least you are beginning to modify your previously entrenched
position, but it's been hard going. Keep up the good work.

--
Spike

On 16/11/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
>
> On 15/11/2021 18:56, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 15/11/2021 17:00, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15/11/2021 10:18, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Stick to Wuhan.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to,
>>>
>> No you you're not ...
>>>
>>> through the crapflood of ad-homs that you're using to
>>> defect attention away from your position that 'most scientists agree
>>> about Wuhan...' which you are mis-interpreting as 'the science is
>>> settled' and so there are to be no further contrary facts expressed.
>>>
>> ... Hyposhite: *YOU* began the ad hominems by more than once claiming
>> that I knew nothing about science when in fact I have good sci/tech
>> degree,
>
> Cobblers.

Are you disputing that I have a good sci-tech degree?

> 'Science' for you went out of the window when you started quoting
> someone who had worked at WIV for 15 years and had seen nothing out of
> the ordinary, in order to support your 'most scientists think that'
> position that you have nailed yourself to a tree over, following your
> WATERING DOWN your claim of 'no evidence' against WIV.

Putting aside that you've misremembered the details of that, it's first
hand evidence from a scientist who's actually seen the lab first hand,
you can have no possible grounds for ignoring that testimony.

> THAT'S NOT SCIENCE. Whether you have a 'good sci-tech degree' or not,
> it's wishful bloody thinking.

It's giving due weight to the opinion of a scientist who has seen the
lab first hand, the "wishful bloody thinking" here is your belief in a
conspiracy theory unsupported by any real evidence.

>> then you produced a load of irrelevant historical stuff about
>> anything other than Wuhan, then tried to imply superiority by drivelling
>> out some Latin phrases, now you're just wingeing like a spoilt child who
>> can't admit to losing an argument.
>
> The loser here isn't me, old boy.

You sure look like a loser to me, young lad.

>> I've produced a great deal of actual *EVIDENCE* about SARS-Cov-2 and
>> Wuhan that you have been unable to counter,
>
> You don't seem to have the faintest idea that your 'most scientists
> agree' position actually points to counter-evidence!

On the contrary, in the interests of even-handedness, at least twice now
I have pointed to reports that paint a mixed picture, with at least some
aspects pointing to a Chinese attempt at cover-up, the point that you
seem unable to grasp is that ...
'Cover-up' does not equal 'leak from lab'
.... because I can think of at least two other reasons why they might
wish to cover things up, and on the balance of *all* the evidence at
least one of them seems more likely than a leak from the lab.

>> while you have produced
>> nothing worthy of the term 'EVIDENCE'. It's time to, as the political
>> saying has it, put up or shut up. Let's see some actual hard *EVIDENCE*
>> supporting the lab-leak origin or shut the fuck up.
>
> This is where we came in. Do you want to go through it all again? Or is
> one bloody nose enough for you?

So still no actual *EVIDENCE* given in favour of the lab-leak = lost
argument, get used to it.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16/11/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
> On 15/11/2021 20:12, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 15/11/2021 17:01, Spike wrote:
>>> On 15/11/2021 10:24, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yet here you are, still desperate to score insult points, which suggests
>>>> to me that in fact you realise you are losing the substantive
>>>> discussion. When are you actually going to come up with some relevant
>>>> scientific *EVIDENCE* instead of all this pompous twattery?
>>>
>>> In your foot-stamping rage to dismiss anything you don't agree with,
>>> you've probably forgotten that this is the point where this all started.
>
>> No, I think you're the person who's forgotten that with your long
>> diversions into irrelevant historical biological warfare research in
>> other parts of the world. See below for amplification on this point ...
>
> That's because you can't see any parallels between the Russian bioweapon
> research and the Wuhan affair.

Because there isn't any, because neither of the two labs in Wuhan that
have been smeared by this fake news campaign are military installations;
they're both civilian labs, and, as you have been told already, the last
place in China that the Chinese military would be conducting bio-weapon
research.

>>> Here's some *NON-SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE' about the openness of the Chinese
>>> in this matter:
>>>
>>> COVID-19:
>>> CHINA PRESSURED WHO TEAM TO DISMISS LAB LEAK THEORY
>>> claims chief investigator
>>>
>>> BMJ 2021; 374 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2023
>>> <https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2023> (Published 13 August 2021)
>>> Cite this as: BMJ 2021;374:n2023
>>>
>>> A World Health Organisation mission to study the covid pandemic’s
>>> origins in China, which announced in February that the possibility that
>>> the virus had escaped from a laboratory needed no further investigation,
>>> 1 <https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2023#ref-1>
>>> was put under pressure by Chinese scientists who made up half the team
>>> to reach that conclusion, the scientist who led the mission has said.
>>>
>>> Peter Ben Embarek, who led the scientists dispatched by WHO to Wuhan,
>>> told a Danish television documentary, broadcast on 12 August, that the
>>> Chinese scientists refused to even discuss the lab leak scenario
>>> 2 <https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2023#ref-2>
>>> unless the final report dismissed any need for further investigation.
>>>
>>> Having haggled about it until 48 hours before they left China, Ben
>>> Embarek said, his Chinese counterpart eventually agreed to discuss the
>>> lab leak theory in the report “on the condition we didn’t recommend any
>>> specific studies to further that hypothesis.”
>>>
>>> […..]
>>
>> How *CONVENIENT* that you snipped that bit, because it doesn't support
>> even much of the rest of the article, let alone your implicit past
>> claims about biological warfare being involved - by linking to
>> historical precedents concerning biological warfare, you have been
>> arguing implicitly that the leak was from a military institution,
>> whereas, in reality, neither the WIV nor the other lab near the market
>> run by the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention are
>> military institutions,
>
> You obviously haven't understood the Russian system, or you don't want
> to know about it, because of the embarrassing parallels with WIV.

There are no parallels between secret Russian military bio-weapon cold
war research and a civilian lab in Wuhan that was open to foreign
visitors, had foreign staff working in it for long periods of time,
whose staff visited and collaborated over long periods of time with
foreign scientists, received foreign funding, and whose virus samples
nearest evolutionarily-speaking to the one that caused the outbreak are
actually further removed from it than others found since in the wild.

>> and of the two, it's the latter rather than WIV
>> that Embarek was most concerned about, though he manages to be
>> ambivalent even about that, also as to whether a scientist infected
>> while collecting samples from caves should really be classed as a lab
>> leak or an infection from the wild, as we can see by including the bit
>> you oh so conveniently snipped:
>
> In your rush to dismiss anything you find uncomfortable. you have missed
> the point. You clearly don't want to acknowledge that the Chinese
> approach of stuffing the inspection team with Western sympathisers and
> controllable Chinese personnel, instituting interminable delays, and
> insistence on pre-agreeing the reports findings, have NO PLACE
> WHATSOEVER regarding a benign civilian organisation toiling tirelessly
> for the common good, but that these characteristics are typical of the
> workings of a militaristic totalitarian Communist regime - to which you
> have been pointed a number of times.

I've never denied a Chinese attempt at cover-up, on the contrary I've
twice now linked to evidence of my own finding confirming one, but the
point is a 'cover-up' of *WHAT*???!!! 'Cover-up' does not equal or
imply 'lab-leak' because there are other things that they could be
trying to cover-up, and from all the evidence at least one of those
other things fits the all the evidence better than a lab-leak.

>> "A scenario in which a Wuhan laboratory employee caught the virus after
>> collecting real world samples could be considered either a lab leak or a
>> case of direct infection from a bat, Ben Embarek told TV2. The team’s
>> report described the second scenario as “likely.”
>
> The 'team's report' was fixed beforehand - can't you read?

Can't you read the first part of that quote? The point is that Embarek
is ambivalent about whether that scenario should be called a lab-leak.

>> “A lab employee infected in the field while collecting samples in a bat
>> cave—such a scenario belongs both as a lab leak hypothesis and as our
>> first hypothesis of direct infection from bat to human. We’ve seen that
>> hypothesis as a likely hypothesis,” Ben Embarek argued.
>
> So is the coming of an asteroid.

So now you're seeking to explain away an inconvenient part of the
article by questioning its probability and therefore implicitly truth.
Make your mind up do, are we accepting this article as evidence, or not?
If we are, then we must accept *ALL* of it, not just the bits that one
or other of us happens to like. For myself, I'm perfectly happy to
accept it, because it merely confirms what we already knew, that there
was an attempt at cover-up by Chinese officials.

>> The Danish scientist has cooperated with the documentary makers for
>> months, and their footage of the China visit came partly from his mobile
>> phone. The documentary also showed him expressing his worries in January
>> about the Wuhan branch of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and
>> Prevention, which is 500 m from the Hunan food market that Chinese
>> authorities blamed for the outbreak.
>>
>> This facility, independent of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, has not
>> been raised by WHO as a potential source of concern. But, discussing
>> that institute in a conference call in January, Ben Embarek said, “What
>> is more concerning to me is the other lab. The one that is next to the
>> market.” This Chinese CDC laboratory, he said, was handling
>> coronaviruses “without potentially having the same level of expertise or
>> safety.”"
>>
>> And again, as you yourself admit above, the only actual *EVIDENCE* there
>> is of official, but not necessarily from either lab, Chinese
>> obstruction, but we knew that already and also that there are several
>> possible reasons for it. Meanwhile there is still no *SCIENTIFIC*
>> evidence to support a lab-leak origin, but a fair amount against it.
>
> Well at least you are beginning to modify your previously entrenched
> position, but it's been hard going. Keep up the good work.

On the contrary, I accepted the fact of a Chinese cover up as far back
up thread as 7/11, but also at the time besides a lab-leak I gave two
other possible reasons for it, and at least one of those fits the
entirety of the known evidence better than a lab-leak.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:29:09 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>Are you disputing that I have a good sci-tech degree?

only you care about that claim as a substitute for your
inadequate arguments

On 16/11/2021 13:18, abelard wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:29:09 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> Are you disputing that I have a good sci-tech degree?
>
> only you care about that claim as a substitute for your
> inadequate arguments

It appears I'm not the only one who cares about it, because others keep
making claims to the contrary in a rather pathetic attempt to deflect
attention away from the fact that they have no rational arguments to put
forward.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16/11/2021 12:01, Java Jive wrote:

> On the contrary, I accepted the fact of a Chinese cover up as far back
> up thread as 7/11, but also at the time besides a lab-leak I gave two
> other possible reasons for it, and at least one of those fits the
> entirety of the known evidence better than a lab-leak.

Cobblers.

You seem determined to prove that those who don't heed the lessons of
history are doomed to repeat them.

--
Spike

On 16/11/2021 11:29, Java Jive wrote:
> On 16/11/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
>> On 15/11/2021 18:56, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 15/11/2021 17:00, Spike wrote:
>>>> On 15/11/2021 10:18, Java Jive wrote:

>>>>> Stick to Wuhan.

>>>> I'm trying to,

>>> No you you're not ...

>>>> through the crapflood of ad-homs that you're using to
>>>> defect attention away from your position that 'most scientists agree
>>>> about Wuhan...' which you are mis-interpreting as 'the science is
>>>> settled' and so there are to be no further contrary facts expressed.

>>> ... Hyposhite: *YOU* began the ad hominems by more than once claiming
>>> that I knew nothing about science when in fact I have good sci/tech
>>> degree,

>> Cobblers.

> Are you disputing that I have a good sci-tech degree?

Which is relevant in what way to your selective approach to the
information about the WIV affair?

>> 'Science' for you went out of the window when you started quoting
>> someone who had worked at WIV for 15 years and had seen nothing out of
>> the ordinary, in order to support your 'most scientists think that'
>> position that you have nailed yourself to a tree over, following your
>> WATERING DOWN your claim of 'no evidence' against WIV.

> Putting aside that you've misremembered the details of that, it's first
> hand evidence from a scientist who's actually seen the lab first hand,
> you can have no possible grounds for ignoring that testimony.

So your degree is in Secure Area Management and Operation? Thought not.

>> THAT'S NOT SCIENCE. Whether you have a 'good sci-tech degree' or not,
>> it's wishful bloody thinking.

> It's giving due weight to the opinion of a scientist who has seen the
> lab first hand, the "wishful bloody thinking" here is your belief in a
> conspiracy theory unsupported by any real evidence.

Your faith is touching, but very naive.

>>> then you produced a load of irrelevant historical stuff about
>>> anything other than Wuhan, then tried to imply superiority by drivelling
>>> out some Latin phrases, now you're just wingeing like a spoilt child who
>>> can't admit to losing an argument.

>> The loser here isn't me, old boy.

> You sure look like a loser to me, young lad.

>>> I've produced a great deal of actual *EVIDENCE* about SARS-Cov-2 and
>>> Wuhan that you have been unable to counter,

You countered it yourself when you shifted from denying SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE existed in favour of a lab leak, to suggesting it yourself.
Don't you remember what you wrote?

>> You don't seem to have the faintest idea that your 'most scientists
>> agree' position actually points to counter-evidence!

> On the contrary, in the interests of even-handedness, at least twice now

Late in the day, and only when prompted.

> I have pointed to reports that paint a mixed picture, with at least some
> aspects pointing to a Chinese attempt at cover-up, the point that you
> seem unable to grasp is that ...
> 'Cover-up' does not equal 'leak from lab'

> ... because I can think of at least two other reasons why they might
> wish to cover things up, and on the balance of *all* the evidence at
> least one of them seems more likely than a leak from the lab.

That's a balance drawn BY YOU.There are other voices that claim a
different interpretation.

>>> while you have produced
>>> nothing worthy of the term 'EVIDENCE'. It's time to, as the political
>>> saying has it, put up or shut up. Let's see some actual hard *EVIDENCE*
>>> supporting the lab-leak origin or shut the fuck up.

>> This is where we came in. Do you want to go through it all again? Or is
>> one bloody nose enough for you?

> So still no actual *EVIDENCE* given in favour of the lab-leak = lost
> argument, get used to it.

You lost it, perhaps in more ways than one, when you started to shift
your ground. Your ad homs and deflection techniques were doubtless mere
discourtesy details.

--
Spike

On 17/11/2021 09:58, Spike wrote:
>
> On 16/11/2021 11:29, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 16/11/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15/11/2021 18:56, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ... Hyposhite: *YOU* began the ad hominems by more than once claiming
>>>> that I knew nothing about science when in fact I have good sci/tech
>>>> degree,
>>>
>>> Cobblers.
>>
>> Are you disputing that I have a good sci-tech degree?
>
> Which is relevant in what way

Then why appear to dispute it?

> to your selective approach to the
> information about the WIV affair?

I'm looking at *ALL* the evidence, you're the one welded to a conspiracy
theory which is unsupported by most of the evidence.

>>> 'Science' for you went out of the window when you started quoting
>>> someone who had worked at WIV for 15 years and had seen nothing out of
>>> the ordinary, in order to support your 'most scientists think that'
>>> position that you have nailed yourself to a tree over, following your
>>> WATERING DOWN your claim of 'no evidence' against WIV.
>>
>> Putting aside that you've misremembered the details of that, it's first
>> hand evidence from a scientist who's actually seen the lab first hand,
>> you can have no possible grounds for ignoring that testimony.
>
> So your degree is in Secure Area Management and Operation? Thought not.

The lab is not a military but a civilian institution, and no-one from
outside China who has seen it or worked in it doubts either its probity
or its security.

>>> THAT'S NOT SCIENCE. Whether you have a 'good sci-tech degree' or not,
>>> it's wishful bloody thinking.
>
>> It's giving due weight to the opinion of a scientist who has seen the
>> lab first hand, the "wishful bloody thinking" here is your belief in a
>> conspiracy theory unsupported by any real evidence.
>
> Your faith is touching, but very naive.

Your quasi-religious denial of evidence is dangerous and irresponsible.

>>>> I've produced a great deal of actual *EVIDENCE* about SARS-Cov-2 and
>>>> Wuhan that you have been unable to counter,
>
> You countered it yourself when you shifted from denying SCIENTIFIC
> EVIDENCE existed in favour of a lab leak, to suggesting it yourself.
> Don't you remember what you wrote?

Show me where I've said that scientific evidence supports a lab-leak!

>>> You don't seem to have the faintest idea that your 'most scientists
>>> agree' position actually points to counter-evidence!
>>
>> On the contrary, in the interests of even-handedness, at least twice now
>
> Late in the day, and only when prompted.

I can prove that now you're simply lying, the first post in which I
acknowledged openly and freely that there had been a Chinese cover-up
was in one of my earliest posts in the thread, 7/11 23:36, which was
before you had even posted to it at all, 9/11 09:25.

>> I have pointed to reports that paint a mixed picture, with at least some
>> aspects pointing to a Chinese attempt at cover-up, the point that you
>> seem unable to grasp is that ...
>> 'Cover-up' does not equal 'leak from lab'
>> ... because I can think of at least two other reasons why they might
>> wish to cover things up, and on the balance of *all* the evidence at
>> least one of them seems more likely than a leak from the lab.
>
> That's a balance drawn BY YOU.There are other voices that claim a
> different interpretation.

So you keep claiming, but despite being challenged a number of times to
produce evidence, you have never been able to do so.

>>>> while you have produced
>>>> nothing worthy of the term 'EVIDENCE'. It's time to, as the political
>>>> saying has it, put up or shut up. Let's see some actual hard *EVIDENCE*
>>>> supporting the lab-leak origin or shut the fuck up.
>
>>> This is where we came in. Do you want to go through it all again? Or is
>>> one bloody nose enough for you?
>
>> So still no actual *EVIDENCE* given in favour of the lab-leak = lost
>> argument, get used to it.
>
> You lost it, perhaps in more ways than one, when you started to shift
> your ground. Your ad homs and deflection techniques were doubtless mere
> discourtesy details.

Yawn, usual hypocrisy in accusing others of your own faults, let's see
some real *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

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