On 08/12/2021 15:15, Java Jive wrote:

> On 08/12/2021 14:58, Spike wrote:

>> On 08/12/2021 14:05, Java Jive wrote:

>>> Such few as have been, have been repeating claims which are not backed
>>> up by *EVIDENCE*. Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up or shut up.

>> So you're saying that after all your hyposhite that you haven't seen all
>> the evidence?

> The hyposhite is all yours, I'm saying that you have yet to produce
> anything worthy of being described as *EVIDENCE*. Let's see *EVIDENCE*,
> cough up or shut up.

There you go again, not using the scientific method.

--
Spike

On 08/12/2021 15:19, Java Jive wrote

> On 08/12/2021 14:57, Spike wrote:

>> On 08/12/2021 14:08, Java Jive wrote:

>>> On 08/12/2021 13:18, Spike wrote:

>>>> On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:

>>>>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>> In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
>>>>>> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
>>>>>> peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
>>>>>> been tasked.

>>>>> Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be formed, and
>>>>> what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and yours) were for
>>>>> its task. Might help others to see why you make the assertions you present
>>>>> here which are posted to what is a clearly an off-topic group for them. (I
>>>>> assume this team was not one devoted to uk tech digital-tv, so what was
>>>>> it?)

>>> That's not answering Jim's question, as you know very well. Why so coy
>>> about actually answering it?

>> It was, of course, an excellent example of the Scientific Method, where
>> the team relied on it rather than having blind faith in a peer-reviewed
>> paper by an eminent scientist. That, of course, is what you should be
>> doing rather than sounding off about facts you don't like and calling
>> them 'denier hyposhite'.

> Which is exactly what Jim and I have both been doing and you are not,

I can't speak for Jim as I don't see his posts in upm, but your reaction
to evidence you don't like is to shout 'HYPOSHITE'. This is, of course,
as far from the scientific method as it is possible to get. You need to
look at yourself and work out why your project your (failings? lack of
self-esteem?) onto others.

> which is why the links that you have posted here have been so
> comprehensively debunked. You have yet to produce anything worthy of
> being described as *EVIDENCE*. Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up or shut
> up. Failure to produce any will lead to you being ignored from now on.

I asked you much earlier on in this thread how many scientific papers
you had read on the subject of the Wuhan virus, because of the
entrenched position you took. You don't appear to have replied.

--
Spike

On 08/12/2021 15:19, Java Jive wrote:

> On 08/12/2021 14:57, Spike wrote:

>> On 08/12/2021 14:08, Java Jive wrote:

>>> On 08/12/2021 13:18, Spike wrote:

>>>> On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:

>>>>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>> In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
>>>>>> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
>>>>>> peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
>>>>>> been tasked.

>>>>> Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be formed, and
>>>>> what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and yours) were for
>>>>> its task. Might help others to see why you make the assertions you present
>>>>> here which are posted to what is a clearly an off-topic group for them. (I
>>>>> assume this team was not one devoted to uk tech digital-tv, so what was
>>>>> it?)

>>> That's not answering Jim's question, as you know very well. Why so coy
>>> about actually answering it?

>> It was, of course, an excellent example of the Scientific Method, where
>> the team relied on it rather than having blind faith in a peer-reviewed
>> paper by an eminent scientist. That, of course, is what you should be
>> doing rather than sounding off about facts you don't like and calling
>> them 'denier hyposhite'.

> Which is exactly what Jim and I have both been doing and you are not,

I wasn't aware, and am highly surprised, to see you're claiming that Jim
uses phrases such as your 'HYPOSHITE''

> which is why the links that you have posted here have been so
> comprehensively debunked.

In your dreams.

> You have yet to produce anything worthy of
> being described as *EVIDENCE*. Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up or shut
> up. Failure to produce any will lead to you being ignored from now on.
In it's way, the scientific method is like a big red bus. Take no notice
of it and it might run you over.

--
Spike

In article <j1bplcF6gr6U2@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> >> If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection,
> >> was misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the
> >> quoted paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.

> >> In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
> >> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
> >> peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
> >> been tasked.

> > Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be
> > formed, and what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and
> > yours) were for its task. Might help others to see why you make the
> > assertions you present here which are posted to what is a clearly an
> > off-topic group for them. (I assume this team was not one devoted to
> > uk tech digital-tv, so what was it?)

> The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't a
> good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn hope
> but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental.

Alas, that doesn't answer my questions.

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

In article <soqe9f$4bi$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On 08/12/2021 13:18, Spike wrote:
> >
> > On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>
> >> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection,
> >>> was misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that
> >>> the quoted paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.
> >>>
> >>> In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
> >>> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
> >>> peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
> >>> been tasked.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be
> >> formed, and what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and
> >> yours) were for its task. Might help others to see why you make the
> >> assertions you present here which are posted to what is a clearly an
> >> off-topic group for them. (I assume this team was not one devoted to
> >> uk tech digital-tv, so what was it?)
> >
> > The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't a
> > good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn
> > hope but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental.

> That's not answering Jim's question, as you know very well. Why so coy
> about actually answering it?

I thought it was worth xposting on that occasion as an informative response
might aid us. But alas, Spike seems unwilling to respond in the way I'd
have expected from someone basing their statements on working in science.
So his comments remain just a series of vague and sweeping assertions that
no-one else could check. i.e. no sign of being science, nor following the
standard methods.

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

In article <j1c2acF86obU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> > Which is exactly what Jim and I have both been doing and you are not,

> I wasn't aware, and am highly surprised, to see you're claiming that Jim
> uses phrases such as your 'HYPOSHITE''

I'm wondering if 'Spike' is a bot. 'His' responses seem to 'flower arrange'
previous comments. 8-]

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 17:46 8 Dec 2021, Jim Lesurf said:

> In article <j1c2acF86obU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
> <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > Which is exactly what Jim and I have both been doing and you are
>> > not,
>
>> I wasn't aware, and am highly surprised, to see you're claiming
>> that Jim uses phrases such as your 'HYPOSHITE''
>
> I'm wondering if 'Spike' is a bot. 'His' responses seem to 'flower
> arrange' previous comments. 8-]
>
> Jim

Bernie posted here a short while ago and seemed to know Spike/Burt's
previous form. He wasn't entirely complimentary.

I wonder if he has any more observations on Spike/Burt's M.O.

On 08/12/2021 14:44, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <j1bplcF6gr6U2@mid.individual.net>, Spike
> <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

>>>> If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection,
>>>> was misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the
>>>> quoted paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.

>>>> In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
>>>> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
>>>> peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
>>>> been tasked.

>>> Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be
>>> formed, and what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and
>>> yours) were for its task. Might help others to see why you make the
>>> assertions you present here which are posted to what is a clearly an
>>> off-topic group for them. (I assume this team was not one devoted to
>>> uk tech digital-tv, so what was it?)

>> The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't a
>> good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn hope
>> but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental
> Alas, that doesn't answer my questions.

That's probably because they've either already been answered, or have no
relevance to the discussion.

--
Spike

On 09/12/2021 10:30, Spike wrote:
>
> On 08/12/2021 14:44, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>> In article <j1bplcF6gr6U2@mid.individual.net>, Spike
>> <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection,
>>>>> was misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the
>>>>> quoted paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
>>>>> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
>>>>> peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
>>>>> been tasked.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be
>>>> formed, and what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and
>>>> yours) were for its task. Might help others to see why you make the
>>>> assertions you present here which are posted to what is a clearly an
>>>> off-topic group for them. (I assume this team was not one devoted to
>>>> uk tech digital-tv, so what was it?)
>>>
>>> The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't a
>>> good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn hope
>>> but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental
>> Alas, that doesn't answer my questions.
>
> That's probably because they've either already been answered, or have no
> relevance to the discussion.

If the subject of your past experience has no relevance to the
discussion, why did you introduce that subject in the first place?
That's a rhetorical question, by the way, don't bother trying to answer
it because we know the answer already, it was because you have nothing
substantive and evidence-based to add to a discussion such as this.

Still evading answering questions, still no *EVIDENCE* for anything you
claim, cough up, shut up, or be ignored.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 09/12/2021 11:15, Java Jive wrote:

> On 09/12/2021 10:30, Spike wrote:

>> On 08/12/2021 14:44, Jim Lesurf wrote:

>>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

>>>> On 08/12/2021 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:

>>>>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>> If I had a draft paper to review that contained such misdirection,
>>>>>> was misleading, and abused scientific definitions in the way that the
>>>>>> quoted paragraph does, I would send it back for redrafting.

>>>>>> In my early days I was part of a small team investigating something,
>>>>>> following the method published by a prestigious scientist in a
>>>>>> peer-reviewed journal, as part of a larger project with which we had
>>>>>> been tasked.

>>>>> Perhaps you could tell us more about how this 'team' came to be
>>>>> formed, and what its remit and experience / qualifications / etc (and
>>>>> yours) were for its task. Might help others to see why you make the
>>>>> assertions you present here which are posted to what is a clearly an
>>>>> off-topic group for them. (I assume this team was not one devoted to
>>>>> uk tech digital-tv, so what was it?)

>>>> The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't a
>>>> good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn hope
>>>> but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental

>>> Alas, that doesn't answer my questions.

>> That's probably because they've either already been answered, or have no
>> relevance to the discussion.

> If the subject of your past experience has no relevance to the
> discussion, why did you introduce that subject in the first place?

Learn to read. It's the first step to understanding.

> Still evading answering questions, still no *EVIDENCE* for anything you
> claim, cough up, shut up, or be ignored.

You have nothing substantive and evidence-based to add to a discussion
such as this.

Look at your first post to this thread. Java Jive said regarding Wuhan:

[Java Jive] "This bollocks has already been comprehensively debunked
already in this
very thread. As a newcomer to it, it might be a good idea that you read
*all* the posts in it, before shooting from the hip and missing the mark
as a result."

To which the unsurprising relay was:

[Contributor] "Picking one source that you like is hardly debunking
something. As for
being a newcomer, you must be a newcomer to Usenet. Either that or just
an arrogant fukwit."

Even then you had nothing substantive and evidence-based to add to a
discussion such as this.

--
Spike

On 09/12/2021 13:28, Spike wrote:
>
> Look at your first post to this thread. Java Jive said regarding Wuhan:
>
> [Java Jive] "This bollocks has already been comprehensively debunked
> already in this
> very thread. As a newcomer to it, it might be a good idea that you read
> *all* the posts in it, before shooting from the hip and missing the mark
> as a result."

Thank you for proving to everyone else that you are so shit incompetent
that you can't even find my first post in this thread accurately, which
began as follows:

On 05/11/2021 21:35, Java Jive wrote:
>
> It still is a nutter conspiracy theory.

> Even then you had nothing substantive and evidence-based to add to a
> discussion such as this.

I have given around 40 links to scientific data, news reports, etc, to
support my claims and to disprove the claims of others such as yourself,
whereas by contrast then and ever since you have had nothing relevant,
substantive and evidence-based to add to a discussion such as this.

Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up, shut up, or be ignored.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <sosoh4$4bk$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> >>> The account was to help to show to Java Jive how blind faith isn't a
> >>> good modus, even in science. I thought at the time it was a forlorn
> >>> hope but felt obliged to try. The details are incidental
> >> Alas, that doesn't answer my questions.
> >
> > That's probably because they've either already been answered, or have
> > no relevance to the discussion.

> If the subject of your past experience has no relevance to the
> discussion, why did you introduce that subject in the first place?
> That's a rhetorical question, by the way, don't bother trying to answer
> it because we know the answer already, it was because you have nothing
> substantive and evidence-based to add to a discussion such as this.

That's my conclusion. Spike just acts as a bot, so may as well be treated as
one. Not worth asking him again as it will just generate more non-answers.
As with trolls, the simplest approach is the best. Stop feeding.
It's off-topic drivel anyway. No point arguing with self-adverts.

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 09/12/2021 13:53, Java Jive wrote:
> On 09/12/2021 13:28, Spike wrote:

>> Look at your first post to this thread. Java Jive said regarding Wuhan:

>> [Java Jive] "This bollocks has already been comprehensively debunked
>> already in this very thread. As a newcomer to it, it might be a good idea
>> that you read *all* the posts in it, before shooting from the hip and missing
>> the mark as a result."

> Thank you for proving to everyone else that you are so shit incompetent
> that you can't even find my first post in this thread accurately, which
> began as follows:

Apologies. It arose due to broken threading. Perhaps it would have been
better for you not to have pointed out your post... Let's see what your
'debunking' consisted of...

> On 05/11/2021 21:35, Java Jive wrote:

"It still is a nutter conspiracy theory. It was fostered largely by
Trump, don't forget he insisted on calling it 'The Chinavirus', because
he felt he looked better to the American people as flag-waving and
'fighting' to preserve them from a 'foe'. This was diametrically
counter-productive because it put the Chinese on the defensive, and
unfortunately nutter right-wing politicians in the US are still peddling
this crap - apparently they just can't accept that the American people
voted them out, and looking for scapegoats to blame - so the Chinese
are still on the defensive. Add to this, it's a communist regime which
is naturally somewhat secretive anyway, the time wasted through the
final year of Trump's posturing and blaming China, and his withdrawing
grants from the western collaborators of the Wuhan lab thus halting
their work which might have been critically important in finding the
actual path of the virus to Wuhan from wherever it actually originated
on some remote farm or rural community, and the chance of being able to
do that now seems remote. Nevertheless, experts, including the former
collaborators with the Lab, still believe the virus came to Wuhan
through animals imported from rural areas. However, some blood samples
of early cases in the city have been found, and these paint a rather
more complicated picture than a single animal coming in to the market
with a mutation that could jump to humans, because these early samples
already contained more than one strain. However, this analysis doesn't
support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a possibility, but only
a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is still natural evolution."

....which you will agree is very short of *SCIENCE* or *EVIDENCE*, but
very strong on *EMOTION* and *BLINKERED* *VISION*, and *POLITICS*. I
really don't think that the above counts as *DEBUNKING* anything. It
does confirm your emotive, hair-trigger approach to what doesn't support
your prejudices.

Looks like I was right when I said:

>> Even then you had nothing substantive and evidence-based to add to a
>> discussion such as this.

> I have given around 40 links to scientific data, news reports, etc, to
> support my claims and to disprove the claims of others such as yourself,
> whereas by contrast then and ever since you have had nothing relevant,
> substantive and evidence-based to add to a discussion such as this.

> Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up, shut up, or be ignored.

When I asked you how many original scientific papers you had read on the
Wuhan issue, you failed to reply. You also failed to reply the second
time I raised the matter. I'll draw my own conclusions, since you have
had nothing relevant, substantive and evidence-based to add to a
discussion such as this, but thanks for pointing me to your emotive
claptrap.

--
Spike

On 09/12/2021 16:59, Spike wrote:
> On 09/12/2021 13:53, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 09/12/2021 13:28, Spike wrote:
>
>>> Look at your first post to this thread. Java Jive said regarding Wuhan:
>
>>> [Java Jive] "This bollocks has already been comprehensively debunked
>>> already in this very thread. As a newcomer to it, it might be a good idea
>>> that you read *all* the posts in it, before shooting from the hip and missing
>>> the mark as a result."
>
>> Thank you for proving to everyone else that you are so shit incompetent
>> that you can't even find my first post in this thread accurately, which
>> began as follows:
>
> Apologies. It arose due to broken threading. Perhaps it would have been
> better for you not to have pointed out your post... Let's see what your
> 'debunking' consisted of...
>
>> On 05/11/2021 21:35, Java Jive wrote:
>
> "It still is a nutter conspiracy theory. It was fostered largely by
> Trump, don't forget he insisted on calling it 'The Chinavirus', because
> he felt he looked better to the American people as flag-waving and
> 'fighting' to preserve them from a 'foe'. This was diametrically
> counter-productive because it put the Chinese on the defensive, and
> unfortunately nutter right-wing politicians in the US are still peddling
> this crap - apparently they just can't accept that the American people
> voted them out, and looking for scapegoats to blame - so the Chinese
> are still on the defensive. Add to this, it's a communist regime which
> is naturally somewhat secretive anyway, the time wasted through the
> final year of Trump's posturing and blaming China, and his withdrawing
> grants from the western collaborators of the Wuhan lab thus halting
> their work which might have been critically important in finding the
> actual path of the virus to Wuhan from wherever it actually originated
> on some remote farm or rural community, and the chance of being able to
> do that now seems remote. Nevertheless, experts, including the former
> collaborators with the Lab, still believe the virus came to Wuhan
> through animals imported from rural areas. However, some blood samples
> of early cases in the city have been found, and these paint a rather
> more complicated picture than a single animal coming in to the market
> with a mutation that could jump to humans, because these early samples
> already contained more than one strain. However, this analysis doesn't
> support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a possibility, but only
> a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is still natural evolution."
>
> ....which you will agree is very short of *SCIENCE* or *EVIDENCE*, but
> very strong on *EMOTION* and *BLINKERED* *VISION*, and *POLITICS*. I
> really don't think that the above counts as *DEBUNKING* anything. It
> does confirm your emotive, hair-trigger approach to what doesn't support
> your prejudices.

This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and well
beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last year, I was merely
restating the position as currently best understood in this ng. When
that wasn't sufficient for those in uk.politics.misc, I then restated
the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE* in subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and
07/11/2021, 23:36 and plenty more subsequently. I note that at the
time, you didn't reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post
in that particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any criticism
of it then, and therefore are only trawling through the thread now
because you're running out of mud to sling and desperate to find some
more. In fact you didn't post anything in thread at all until four days
later, and that merely contained an irrelevant reference to Russian
bioweapons research.

>> I have given around 40 links to scientific data, news reports, etc, to
>> support my claims and to disprove the claims of others such as yourself,
>> whereas by contrast then and ever since you have had nothing relevant,
>> substantive and evidence-based to add to a discussion such as this.
>>
>> Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up, shut up, or be ignored.
>
> When I asked you how many original scientific papers you had read on the
> Wuhan issue, you failed to reply. You also failed to reply the second
> time I raised the matter. I'll draw my own conclusions, since you have
> had nothing relevant, substantive and evidence-based to add to a
> discussion such as this, but thanks for pointing me to your emotive
> claptrap.

When I asked what your sci-tech qualifications were after you had the
foolishness to question mine, you never replied either. Let's see your
reply first.

Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up, shut up, or be ignored.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 09/12/2021 19:41, Java Jive wrote:
> On 09/12/2021 16:59, Spike wrote:

>> Perhaps it would have been better for you not to have pointed out
>> your post... Let's see what your 'debunking' consisted of...

>>> On 05/11/2021 21:35, Java Jive wrote:

>> "It still is a nutter conspiracy theory. It was fostered largely by
>> Trump, don't forget he insisted on calling it 'The Chinavirus', because
>> he felt he looked better to the American people as flag-waving and
>> 'fighting' to preserve them from a 'foe'. This was diametrically
>> counter-productive because it put the Chinese on the defensive, and
>> unfortunately nutter right-wing politicians in the US are still peddling
>> this crap - apparently they just can't accept that the American people
>> voted them out, and looking for scapegoats to blame - so the Chinese
>> are still on the defensive. Add to this, it's a communist regime which
>> is naturally somewhat secretive anyway, the time wasted through the
>> final year of Trump's posturing and blaming China, and his withdrawing
>> grants from the western collaborators of the Wuhan lab thus halting
>> their work which might have been critically important in finding the
>> actual path of the virus to Wuhan from wherever it actually originated
>> on some remote farm or rural community, and the chance of being able to
>> do that now seems remote. Nevertheless, experts, including the former
>> collaborators with the Lab, still believe the virus came to Wuhan
>> through animals imported from rural areas. However, some blood samples
>> of early cases in the city have been found, and these paint a rather
>> more complicated picture than a single animal coming in to the market
>> with a mutation that could jump to humans, because these early samples
>> already contained more than one strain. However, this analysis doesn't
>> support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a possibility, but only
>> a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is still natural evolution."

>> ....which you will agree is very short of *SCIENCE* or *EVIDENCE*, but
>> very strong on *EMOTION* and *BLINKERED* *VISION*, and *POLITICS*. I
>> really don't think that the above counts as *DEBUNKING* anything. It
>> does confirm your emotive, hair-trigger approach to what doesn't support
>> your prejudices.

> Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up, shut up, or be ignored.

The *EVIDENCE* is clear for all to see, and it goes like this:

Your first post in this thread was very strong on, as in consisted
entirely of, *EMOTION*, *BLINKERED* *VISION*, and *POLITICS*.

*THERE WAS NO SCIENCE IN IT WHATSOEVER*

Having nailed yourself to a tree, you have worked tirelessly to find
*ANYTHING* to support your case.

In this process you have *not* 'successfully debunked everything' posted
here. You've done everything but that. You've used emotional appeals,
ad-homs, false arguments, appeals to your assumed authority, walls of
text that you think supports your case, assumptions that everything you
don't agree with must be wrong, and you've deflected, dissembled,
abused, boasted of your 'good sci-tech degree' (mainly in electronics)
but you've shown no real understanding of that science that you fiercely
if not blindingly support and none at all of the other scientific evidence.

At the first whiff of a contrary case you merely mount Rocinante and
tilt at anything that challenges your beliefs, rather than trying to
understand the scientific discourse.

Your problem is that you see what you believe in as 'evidence', and what
others advance as evidence as 'denier hyposhite'. You simply have not
demonstrated the ability to weigh one piece of evidence with another,
due to your original blinkered view that you have now condemned yourself
to support at whatever cost.

None of your actions reflects the *SCIENTIFIC METHOD*, but it may well
suggest a delicate psyche that strives to defend itself by any bizarre
method that falls to hand.

As you need to have the last word, I'll hand over to you for your latest
offering of what you call 'hyposhite'.

--
Spike

On 10/12/2021 11:15, Spike wrote:
> On 09/12/2021 19:41, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 09/12/2021 16:59, Spike wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps it would have been better for you not to have pointed out
>>> your post... Let's see what your 'debunking' consisted of...
>
>>>> On 05/11/2021 21:35, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> "It still is a nutter conspiracy theory. It was fostered largely by
>>> Trump, don't forget he insisted on calling it 'The Chinavirus', because
>>> he felt he looked better to the American people as flag-waving and
>>> 'fighting' to preserve them from a 'foe'. This was diametrically
>>> counter-productive because it put the Chinese on the defensive, and
>>> unfortunately nutter right-wing politicians in the US are still peddling
>>> this crap - apparently they just can't accept that the American people
>>> voted them out, and looking for scapegoats to blame - so the Chinese
>>> are still on the defensive. Add to this, it's a communist regime which
>>> is naturally somewhat secretive anyway, the time wasted through the
>>> final year of Trump's posturing and blaming China, and his withdrawing
>>> grants from the western collaborators of the Wuhan lab thus halting
>>> their work which might have been critically important in finding the
>>> actual path of the virus to Wuhan from wherever it actually originated
>>> on some remote farm or rural community, and the chance of being able to
>>> do that now seems remote. Nevertheless, experts, including the former
>>> collaborators with the Lab, still believe the virus came to Wuhan
>>> through animals imported from rural areas. However, some blood samples
>>> of early cases in the city have been found, and these paint a rather
>>> more complicated picture than a single animal coming in to the market
>>> with a mutation that could jump to humans, because these early samples
>>> already contained more than one strain. However, this analysis doesn't
>>> support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a possibility, but only
>>> a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is still natural evolution."
>
>>> ....which you will agree is very short of *SCIENCE* or *EVIDENCE*, but
>>> very strong on *EMOTION* and *BLINKERED* *VISION*, and *POLITICS*. I
>>> really don't think that the above counts as *DEBUNKING* anything. It
>>> does confirm your emotive, hair-trigger approach to what doesn't support
>>> your prejudices.
>>
>> Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up, shut up, or be ignored.

[Snipping of *EVIDENCE* restored:]

This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and well
beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last year, I was merely
restating the position as currently best understood in this ng. When
that wasn't sufficient for those in uk.politics.misc, I then restated
the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE* in subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and
07/11/2021, 23:36 and plenty more subsequently. I note that at the
time, you didn't reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post
in that particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any criticism
of it then, and therefore are only trawling through the thread now
because you're running out of mud to sling and desperate to find some
more. In fact you didn't post anything in thread at all until four days
later, and that merely contained an irrelevant reference to Russian
bioweapons research.

[Content lacking *EVIDENCE* snipped]

Let's see *EVIDENCE*, cough up, shut up, or be ignored.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <j1gr79F5m9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> None of your actions reflects the *SCIENTIFIC METHOD*, but it may well
> suggest a delicate psyche that strives to defend itself by any bizarre
> method that falls to hand.

I confess I did burst out laughing when I read that. 8-]

JJ: You can't expect evidence wrt reality from a bot.

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 2021-12-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 09/12/2021 16:59, Spike wrote:
>> On 09/12/2021 13:53, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 09/12/2021 13:28, Spike wrote:
>>
>>>> Look at your first post to this thread. Java Jive said regarding Wuhan:
>>
>>>> [Java Jive] "This bollocks has already been comprehensively debunked
>>>> already in this very thread. As a newcomer to it, it might be a good idea
>>>> that you read *all* the posts in it, before shooting from the hip and missing
>>>> the mark as a result."
>>
>>> Thank you for proving to everyone else that you are so shit incompetent
>>> that you can't even find my first post in this thread accurately, which
>>> began as follows:
>>
>> Apologies. It arose due to broken threading. Perhaps it would have been
>> better for you not to have pointed out your post... Let's see what your
>> 'debunking' consisted of...
>>
>>> On 05/11/2021 21:35, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> "It still is a nutter conspiracy theory. It was fostered largely by
>> Trump, don't forget he insisted on calling it 'The Chinavirus', because
>> he felt he looked better to the American people as flag-waving and
>> 'fighting' to preserve them from a 'foe'. This was diametrically
>> counter-productive because it put the Chinese on the defensive, and
>> unfortunately nutter right-wing politicians in the US are still peddling
>> this crap - apparently they just can't accept that the American people
>> voted them out, and looking for scapegoats to blame - so the Chinese
>> are still on the defensive. Add to this, it's a communist regime which
>> is naturally somewhat secretive anyway, the time wasted through the
>> final year of Trump's posturing and blaming China, and his withdrawing
>> grants from the western collaborators of the Wuhan lab thus halting
>> their work which might have been critically important in finding the
>> actual path of the virus to Wuhan from wherever it actually originated
>> on some remote farm or rural community, and the chance of being able to
>> do that now seems remote. Nevertheless, experts, including the former
>> collaborators with the Lab, still believe the virus came to Wuhan
>> through animals imported from rural areas. However, some blood samples
>> of early cases in the city have been found, and these paint a rather
>> more complicated picture than a single animal coming in to the market
>> with a mutation that could jump to humans, because these early samples
>> already contained more than one strain. However, this analysis doesn't
>> support the lab-leak theory either. It remains a possibility, but only
>> a fairly remote one. Favourite by far is still natural evolution."
>>
>> ....which you will agree is very short of *SCIENCE* or *EVIDENCE*, but
>> very strong on *EMOTION* and *BLINKERED* *VISION*, and *POLITICS*. I
>> really don't think that the above counts as *DEBUNKING* anything. It
>> does confirm your emotive, hair-trigger approach to what doesn't support
>> your prejudices.
>
> This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and well
> beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last year, I was merely
> restating the position as currently best understood in this ng. When
> that wasn't sufficient for those in uk.politics.misc, I then restated
> the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE* in subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and
> 07/11/2021, 23:36 and plenty more subsequently. I note that at the
> time, you didn't reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post
> in that particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any criticism
> of it then, and therefore are only trawling through the thread now
> because you're running out of mud to sling and desperate to find some
> more. In fact you didn't post anything in thread at all until four days
> later, and that merely contained an irrelevant reference to Russian
> bioweapons research.

Have you seen the latest?

"MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now 'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there’s also a high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"

https://summit.news/2021/12/15/mps-told-covid-likely-engineered-in-wuhan-lab/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/

Ouch.

On 16/12/2021 10:33, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-12-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

>> This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and well
>> beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last year, I was merely
>> restating the position as currently best understood in this ng. When
>> that wasn't sufficient for those in uk.politics.misc, I then restated
>> the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE* in subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and
>> 07/11/2021, 23:36 and plenty more subsequently. I note that at the
>> time, you didn't reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post
>> in that particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any criticism
>> of it then, and therefore are only trawling through the thread now
>> because you're running out of mud to sling and desperate to find some
>> more. In fact you didn't post anything in thread at all until four days
>> later, and that merely contained an irrelevant reference to Russian
>> bioweapons research.
>
> Have you seen the latest?
>
> "MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now 'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there’s also a high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"
>
> https://summit.news/2021/12/15/mps-told-covid-likely-engineered-in-wuhan-lab/
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/
>
> Ouch.

It could still be the result of irresponsible "gain of function"
research rather than a desire to harm people.

--
Max Demian

On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 11:17:03 +0000, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>On 16/12/2021 10:33, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2021-12-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and well
>>> beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last year, I was merely
>>> restating the position as currently best understood in this ng. When
>>> that wasn't sufficient for those in uk.politics.misc, I then restated
>>> the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE* in subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and
>>> 07/11/2021, 23:36 and plenty more subsequently. I note that at the
>>> time, you didn't reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post
>>> in that particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any criticism
>>> of it then, and therefore are only trawling through the thread now
>>> because you're running out of mud to sling and desperate to find some
>>> more. In fact you didn't post anything in thread at all until four days
>>> later, and that merely contained an irrelevant reference to Russian
>>> bioweapons research.
>>
>> Have you seen the latest?
>>
>> "MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now 'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there’s also a high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"
>>
>> https://summit.news/2021/12/15/mps-told-covid-likely-engineered-in-wuhan-lab/
>>
>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/
>>
>> Ouch.
>
>It could still be the result of irresponsible "gain of function"
>research rather than a desire to harm people.

Remember this? It's not from last year but from 1975.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch7N7KCn778

Rod.

On 2021-12-16, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On 16/12/2021 10:33, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2021-12-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and well
>>> beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last year, I was merely
>>> restating the position as currently best understood in this ng. When
>>> that wasn't sufficient for those in uk.politics.misc, I then restated
>>> the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE* in subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and
>>> 07/11/2021, 23:36 and plenty more subsequently. I note that at the
>>> time, you didn't reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post
>>> in that particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any criticism
>>> of it then, and therefore are only trawling through the thread now
>>> because you're running out of mud to sling and desperate to find some
>>> more. In fact you didn't post anything in thread at all until four days
>>> later, and that merely contained an irrelevant reference to Russian
>>> bioweapons research.
>>
>> Have you seen the latest?
>>
>> "MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now 'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there’s also a high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"
>>
>> https://summit.news/2021/12/15/mps-told-covid-likely-engineered-in-wuhan-lab/
>>
>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/
>>
>> Ouch.
>
> It could still be the result of irresponsible "gain of function"
> research rather than a desire to harm people.

Indeed; it doesn't automatically mean that it was part of bioweapon
research. We should still consider the possibility, however.

On 11:46 16 Dec 2021, Incubus said:

> On 2021-12-16, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On 16/12/2021 10:33, Incubus wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and
>>>> well beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last year,
>>>> I was merely restating the position as currently best understood
>>>> in this ng. When that wasn't sufficient for those in
>>>> uk.politics.misc, I then restated the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE* in
>>>> subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and 07/11/2021, 23:36 and
>>>> plenty more subsequently. I note that at the time, you didn't
>>>> reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post in that
>>>> particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any criticism
>>>> of it then, and therefore are only trawling through the thread
>>>> now because you're running out of mud to sling and desperate to
>>>> find some more. In fact you didn't post anything in thread at
>>>> all until four days later, and that merely contained an
>>>> irrelevant reference to Russian bioweapons research.
>>>
>>> Have you seen the latest?
>>>
>>> "MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now
>>> 'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there's also a
>>> high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"
>>>
>>> https://summit.news/2021/12/15/mps-told-covid-likely-
>>> engineered-in-wuhan-lab/
>>>
>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-
>>> now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/
>>>
>>> Ouch.
>>
>> It could still be the result of irresponsible "gain of function"
>> research rather than a desire to harm people.
>
> Indeed; it doesn't automatically mean that it was part of bioweapon
> research. We should still consider the possibility, however.

How does it make any difference either way? Is the purpsoe of pinning
it on Chinese scientists to ask for reparations?

Asia (and to a lesser extent Africa) are breeding grounds for zoonotic
diseases. There are dozens such diseases which go around the world
including seasonal flu.

How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the creation
of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a wider
political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over my
head?

On 16/12/2021 10:33, Incubus wrote:

> Have you seen the latest?

> "MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now 'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there’s also a high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"

> https://summit.news/2021/12/15/mps-told-covid-likely-engineered-in-wuhan-lab/

> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/

> Ouch.

I'm sure that someone somewhere will state that 97% of scientists refuse
to believe that after two years we still haven't found a single infected
animal that could be the progenitor.

--
Spike

On 16/12/2021 16:31, Pamela wrote:
> On 11:46 16 Dec 2021, Incubus said:
>
>> On 2021-12-16, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2021 10:33, Incubus wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-09, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This particular conspiracy theory has been flogged to death and
>>>>> well beyond in uk.tech.digital-tv many times over the last year,
>>>>> I was merely restating the position as currently best understood
>>>>> in this ng. When that wasn't sufficient for those in
>>>>> uk.politics.misc, I then restated the *SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE* in
>>>>> subsequent posts on 06/11/2021, 19:20 and 07/11/2021, 23:36 and
>>>>> plenty more subsequently. I note that at the time, you didn't
>>>>> reply to any of those three posts, nor in fact any post in that
>>>>> particular subthread, so obviously you didn't have any criticism
>>>>> of it then, and therefore are only trawling through the thread
>>>>> now because you're running out of mud to sling and desperate to
>>>>> find some more. In fact you didn't post anything in thread at
>>>>> all until four days later, and that merely contained an
>>>>> irrelevant reference to Russian bioweapons research.
>>>>
>>>> Have you seen the latest?
>>>>
>>>> "MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now
>>>> 'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there's also a
>>>> high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"
>>>>
>>>> https://summit.news/2021/12/15/mps-told-covid-likely-
>>>> engineered-in-wuhan-lab/
>>>>
>>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/15/wuhan-lab-leak-
>>>> now-likely-origin-covid-mps-told/
>>>>
>>>> Ouch.
>>>
>>> It could still be the result of irresponsible "gain of function"
>>> research rather than a desire to harm people.
>>
>> Indeed; it doesn't automatically mean that it was part of bioweapon
>> research. We should still consider the possibility, however.
>
> How does it make any difference either way? Is the purpsoe of pinning
> it on Chinese scientists to ask for reparations?
>
> Asia (and to a lesser extent Africa) are breeding grounds for zoonotic
> diseases. There are dozens such diseases which go around the world
> including seasonal flu.
>
> How does it make any difference if a lab was involved in the creation
> of Covid rather than natural events? Is there perhaps a wider
> political battle in the debate, whose presence has gone over my
> head?

It makes a difference to the measures necessary to prevent a repeat.

--
Max Demian

On 16/12/2021 10:33, Incubus wrote:
>
> Have you seen the latest?

Not the latest in this ng, merely the latest attempt by this woman to
sell her book, which has already been comprehensively debunked in this
thread as long ago as 20/11 19:52, here:

https://groups.google.com/g/uk.tech.digital-tv/c/3rSBm7kO4zA/m/iMn6DfEjAwAJ

> "MPs have been told by experts that a Wuhan lab leak is now 'the most likely' origin of COVID-19 and that there’s also a high risk it 'was an engineered virus.'"
>
> h t t p s : / / s u m m i t . n e w s / 2 0 2 1 / 1 2 / 1 5 / m p s - t o l d - c o v i d - l i k e l y - e n g i n e e r e d - i n - w u h a n - l a b /
>
> h t t p s : / / w w w . t e l e g r a p h . c o . u k / n e w s / 2 0 2 1 / 1 2 / 1 5 / w u h a n - l a b - l e a k - n o w - l i k e l y - o r i g i n - c o v i d - m p s - t o l d /
>
> Ouch.

Well what do you expect if she and you will insist on flogging horses
that have been so very dead for so very long.

--

Fake news kills!

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