In article <599dcb3047noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <XnsAE067E6936BE937B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> > China is a big bully, especially in Asia. You don't need to prove it.

> > Look at the Spartly Islands in the South China Seas. China is making a
> > territorial grab there and also building aritificial islands for
> > military use. The maps clearly show China is in the wrong but it makes
> > no difference.

> > Even if Chinese master plans for genetically creating Covid came to
> > light, China would just stonewall the West.

> > I don't like the Yellow Peril any more than you. They may be smart and
> > hard working but they're totally untrustworthy.

> Agreed. Part of the problem is the extent to which we now rely upon them
> for manufactured goods because as a country we failed to act so as to
> avoid so much of our industry and IPR from being shifted there.

> Jim

I think "failed to act" is a bit kind - MT actively encouraged it.

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

charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <599dcb3047noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <XnsAE067E6936BE937B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
>> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> China is a big bully, especially in Asia. You don't need to prove it.
>
>>> Look at the Spartly Islands in the South China Seas. China is making a
>>> territorial grab there and also building aritificial islands for
>>> military use. The maps clearly show China is in the wrong but it makes
>>> no difference.
>
>>> Even if Chinese master plans for genetically creating Covid came to
>>> light, China would just stonewall the West.
>
>>> I don't like the Yellow Peril any more than you. They may be smart and
>>> hard working but they're totally untrustworthy.
>
>> Agreed. Part of the problem is the extent to which we now rely upon them
>> for manufactured goods because as a country we failed to act so as to
>> avoid so much of our industry and IPR from being shifted there.
>
>> Jim
>
> I think "failed to act" is a bit kind - MT actively encouraged it.
>

Not just us. Germany up until recently has been very proud of its huge
amounts of sophisticated machine tool exports to China. One of the few
countries with a positive trade balance with China. Now it has suddenly
discovered that China is no longer buying said machine tools, and China is
now exporting machine tools of similar quality and sophistication at a
fraction of the German price.

In article <598fcf5ec4bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <j02lbgF9pjpU7@mid.individual.net>,
> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> > On 22/11/2021 15:48, Java Jive wrote:
> > > On 22/11/2021 15:18, Spike wrote:

> > >>> The fact we can't simulate the Earth's climate down to the
> > >>> last atom doesn't mean can't run useful models.

> > >> Rubbish.

> > > Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim stated as though it were
> > > fact?

> > The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
> > predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant
> > timescale, and are highly unreliable due to their very limited
> > capabilities.

> Correct, plus many are run by people with an agenda who are trying
> to support that agenda. Be very suspicious of ALL computer
> modelling especially those run by known activists. I would have
> thought the last 18 months would have taught everyone that simple
> fact.

Great revealing article in the telegraph...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2021/12/19/tackled-sage-covid-modeller-twitter-quite-revelation/

So with covid as with everything else, computer models are propaganda
tools just pay for the result you want. Only useful to manipulate the
gullible public who are daft enough to take them seriously.

They're always miles out and always carry an agenda.

Write out 100 times...
Don't pay any attention to computer models. !!!!!

Bob.

On 18:54 20 Dec 2021, Bob Latham said:

> In article <598fcf5ec4bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <j02lbgF9pjpU7@mid.individual.net>,
>> Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> > On 22/11/2021 15:48, Java Jive wrote:
>> > > On 22/11/2021 15:18, Spike wrote:
>
>> > >>> The fact we can't simulate the Earth's climate down to the
>> > >>> last atom doesn't mean can't run useful models.
>
>> > >> Rubbish.
>
>> > > Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim stated as though it
>> > > were fact?
>
>> > The *EVIDENCE* is in the fact that the models have been unable to
>> > predict anything with any accuracy or over any significant
>> > timescale, and are highly unreliable due to their very limited
>> > capabilities.
>
>> Correct, plus many are run by people with an agenda who are trying
>> to support that agenda. Be very suspicious of ALL computer
>> modelling especially those run by known activists. I would have
>> thought the last 18 months would have taught everyone that simple
>> fact.
>
> Great revealing article in the telegraph...
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2021/12/19/tackled-sage-covid-
> modeller-twitter-quite-revelation/
>
> So with covid as with everything else, computer models are
> propaganda tools just pay for the result you want. Only useful to
> manipulate the gullible public who are daft enough to take them
> seriously.
>
> They're always miles out and always carry an agenda.
>
> Write out 100 times...
> Don't pay any attention to computer models. !!!!!
>
> Bob.

The article author must be very naive if he ever thought SAGE and
other advisory committees simply generated reports on topics they
chose rather than reply to government queries.

Oh it's written by Fraser Nelson who's hardly an unbiassed
commentator.

This is a nothingburger.

On 17/12/2021 23:33, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 17/12/2021 21:00, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 17/12/2021 19:18, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17/12/2021 10:18, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 17/12/2021 09:32, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But even if they are, would any rational person choose as a weapon to
>>>>> accomplish this, a gun that fires 99 blanks and 1 bullet out of every
>>>>> shot it fires, and the single real shot is as likely to kill the
>>>>> person
>>>>> behind the gun as the person it's aimed at?
>>>>
>>>> Of course they would, because having created the means it requires no
>>>> effort to spread it.  It is the same principle that the scammers use,
>>>> sending out millions of e-mails with the expectation that enough mugs
>>>> will believe it to give them an income. The "99 blanks" don't
>>>> matter, it
>>>> is the one effective one that brings the benefit.
>>>
>>> You've overlooked a vital part of the argument, that the one bullet is
>>> as likely to kill the person behind the gun as the one it's aimed at.
>>
>> The person behind the gun is the scientist who created the virus in the
>> dangerous to humans state.  I know that someone has found a bat virus
>> with similar characteristics in northern Laos, but there is no
>> associated claim that it is as infectious to humans as Covid-19, and if
>> enough time and effort is devoted to the search, some coincidences are
>> likely to appear.

The person behind the gun is the government of China, what possible
motive would they have for killing their own population
indiscriminately? Why would they be doing military work in a civilian
lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently visited by
foreigners? Etc, etc, etc, etc. Neither you nor anyone else has ever
been able to answer a number of these very obvious questions.

>>>> It isn't a weapon that needs aiming, it just needs to bother people
>>>> enough to create economic havoc.
>>>
>>> Including in China itself.  No, however fond of conspiracy theories you
>>> choose to be, the idea never did and still doesn't make any rational
>>> sense.
>>
>> I don't believe [snip tl;dr]
It doesn't matter how often you insist on making specious arguments
about it, this whole idea always was and remains irrational bollocks
unsupported by any *EVIDENCE*. Go and get some *EVIDENCE*!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 20/12/2021 09:52, Incubus wrote:
> > On 2021-12-16, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> If we weren't clients of China's manufacturing, China would be deemed a
> rogue state. Their research into viruses and weaponry would have
> everyone frothing at the mouth. The fact that they have us where they
> want us means that no official will even dare criticise them much less
> take further measures against them.

Nonsense, their research into viruses is an international collaboration
with labs in France and America, and was part funded by the US.

> Why are you such a China apologist?

Why are you so determined to believe this conspiracy theory for which
there is no scientific evidence?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18/12/2021 09:05, Spike wrote:
>
> On 17/12/2021 19:21, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> I'm completely familiar with it because you do it all the time in a
>> pathetic attempt to cover up your total lack of logical argument and
>> scientific knowledge.
>
> You might be /familiar/ with the technique of weasel-wording, but you
> don't seem to be able to /recognise it/, even if it occurs several times
> in a short paragraph.

It's trivial enough to recognise that your trolling in this thread has
been riddled with weasel words.

>>> It's not something you learn in S101.
>>
>> But apparently something you learn in the realm of contemporary dance.
>> How's 'Denialism By Dance' coming on, found a theatre to take it yet?
>
> The Laotian discovery is of mild interest but very little relevance to
> the Wuhan case.
>
> Any /real/ evidence to offer? Thought not.

The Laotian discovery is real evidence, unlike anything you have
provided. Where is your *EVIDENCE* for your claims, either put up or
shut up and go back to staging 'Denialism By Dance' and quit wasting
people's time here.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 20/12/2021 18:54, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> Great revealing article in the telegraph...
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2021/12/19/tackled-sage-covid-modeller-twitter-quite-revelation/
>
> So with covid as with everything else, computer models are propaganda
> tools just pay for the result you want. Only useful to manipulate the
> gullible public who are daft enough to take them seriously.

That's your bigoted interpretation of what was said, and anyway this is
a conversation happening via Shitter, where the problems of the world
are supposed to be entirely explained in around 250 characters or less,
with all that implies for a disconnected conversation with high levels
of failure to communicate with those like yourself who don't actually
want to understand.

Scientists model what they are asked to model, because otherwise they
wouldn't be modelling what the the government needs to know. So if the
government comes to them and says, in plain language rather than
political language: "What's the worst thing that can happen with
Omicron?", then that's what they'll model. If they're asked for a range
of scenarios for Omicron, then that's what they'll model.

However, they can only model on known facts, and the possibility of
Omicron being milder than current variants doesn't yet have the status
of known fact, so naturally they are bound to assume that it's as bad or
good as the other variants that have arisen.

Also you should remember, god knows you've had it explained to you often
enough, part of the purpose of modelling bad outcomes is to modify
people's behaviour to ensure that the very worst outcomes are averted,
so the purpose of some modelling is to ensure that events will disprove
its predictions.

> They're always miles out and always carry an agenda.
>
> Write out 100 times...
> Don't pay any attention to computer models. !!!!!

Write out 1000 times: "I mustn't speak out of my arse about things I
don't understand!"

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 20/12/2021 23:38, Java Jive wrote:

> Nonsense, [Wuhan's] research into viruses is an international collaboration
> with labs in France and America, and was part funded by the US.

And what certain knowledge do you have that such work is /all/ that is
carried out there?

--
Spike

On 20/12/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:

> what possible motive would [the Chinese] have for killing their own
> population indiscriminately? Why would they be doing military work
> in a civilian lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently
> visited by foreigners? Etc, etc, etc, etc. Neither you nor anyone else
> has ever been able to answer a number of these very obvious questions.

Your knowledge of Communist methodology is breathtaking in its paucity.

--
Spike

On 20/12/2021 23:46, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/12/2021 09:05, Spike wrote:

>> You might be /familiar/ with the technique of weasel-wording, but you
>> don't seem to be able to /recognise it/, even if it occurs several times
>> in a short paragraph.

>> The Laotian discovery is of mild interest but very little relevance to
>> the Wuhan case. Any /real/ evidence to offer? Thought not.

I have repeatedly asked you how many of the Wuhan-relevant scientific
papers - which does not mean media reports or anecdata - you have read.
So far you have not answered.

> The Laotian discovery is real evidence

Of what?

--
Spike

In article <XnsAE06E68EA32D237B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> The article author must be very naive if he ever thought SAGE and
> other advisory committees simply generated reports on topics they
> chose rather than reply to government queries.

Oh, I think there was far more to it than a reply to a government
enquiry, they were told what it needed to portray.

> Oh it's written by Fraser Nelson who's hardly an unbiassed
> commentator.

No one is without bias. You mean his bias isn't the same as yours.

> This is a nothingburger.

Of course dear, of course.

Computer models are propaganda and almost always wrong by an enormous
margin, nothing more.

Bob.

On 09:54 21 Dec 2021, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsAE06E68EA32D237B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The article author must be very naive if he ever thought SAGE and
>> other advisory committees simply generated reports on topics they
>> chose rather than reply to government queries.
>
> Oh, I think there was far more to it than a reply to a government
> enquiry, they were told what it needed to portray.
>
> Computer models are propaganda and almost always wrong by an
> enormous margin, nothing more.
>
> Bob.

Reporter bias can distort subject material by turning normal operating
procedures into objects of suspicion.

It's one way of fooling the poorly educated and ignorant who know no
more than the propaganda they read.

Did these naifs honestly expect daily headlines which said: "Read All
About It: Computer Model is Accurate" ?

On 00:04 21 Dec 2021, Java Jive said:
>
>
> Also you should remember, god knows you've had it explained to you
> often enough,

Bob's post about modelling has a troll-like quality about it. It's
perfectly possible he remembers what's been explained but he has to
ignore that to attempt another round of baiting

On 20/12/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:

> The person behind the gun is the government of China, what possible
> motive would they have for killing their own population
> indiscriminately?

Remember Tienanmen Square? Remember the Hong Kong crackdown?
Also, elsewhere in this thread you will find I described the infection
of the Chinese population as collateral damage.

> Why would they be doing military work in a civilian
> lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently visited by
> foreigners?

This is a communist regime. There is *no* distinction between military
and civilian. Hiding in plain sight is a standard tactic world-wide.

Never mind - I discovered long ago how blinkered you are by your own
world view.

Jim

On 21/12/2021 11:36, Pamela wrote:
> On 00:04 21 Dec 2021, Java Jive said:
>>
>>
>> Also you should remember, god knows you've had it explained to you
>> often enough,
>
> Bob's post about modelling has a troll-like quality about it. It's
> perfectly possible he remembers what's been explained but he has to
> ignore that to attempt another round of baiting

Also, most sensible models (and certainly the one I helped design)
provided three outputs: best case, worst case and most probable. In the
case of the SAGE model the public is being informed of only one of
those, without the description of what was asked.

Jim

On 20/12/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:

> Why would they be doing military work in a civilian
> lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently visited by
> foreigners? Etc, etc, etc, etc.

Easily done. BTDT etc, etc, etc.

> Neither you nor anyone else has ever
> been able to answer a number of these very obvious questions.

There is no need to.

In a Communist regime, *everyone* works for the state; military and
civilian are indivisible.

Your knowledge of the history of communism is simply awful.

"Comrade, the order has come through. Shoot another 5000 kulaks".

"But we've already shot them all".

"Do /you/ want to be shot? Find them!"

5000 innocent peasants die.

JFTR. a kulak was a rich peasant, 'rich' being a relative term.

--
Spike

On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
>
> On 20/12/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> what possible motive would [the Chinese] have for killing their own
>> population indiscriminately? Why would they be doing military work
>> in a civilian lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently
>> visited by foreigners? Etc, etc, etc, etc. Neither you nor anyone else
>> has ever been able to answer a number of these very obvious questions.
>
> Your knowledge of Communist methodology is breathtaking in its paucity.

At least it's knowledge, not baseless conspiracy theories unsupported by
any evidence.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/12/2021 12:35, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 20/12/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> The person behind the gun is the government of China, what possible
>> motive would they have for killing their own population
>> indiscriminately?
>
> Remember Tienanmen Square?  Remember the Hong Kong crackdown?
> Also, elsewhere in this thread you will find I described the infection
> of the Chinese population as collateral damage.

Of course, but that was violence targetted at a particular political
problem, not indiscriminate killing of its own population on a
quasi-random basis.

>> Why would they be doing military work in a civilian
>> lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently visited by
>> foreigners?
>
> This is a communist regime.  There is *no* distinction between military
> and civilian. Hiding in plain sight is a standard tactic world-wide.

Of course there is, the lab is a civilian lab as opposed to others that
are military, that implies that they see a distinction.

> Never mind - I discovered long ago how blinkered you are by your own
> world view.

No, the belief in conspiracy theories unsupported by any *EVIDENCE* has
been a feature of your posts here for a long time.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/12/2021 15:52, Spike wrote:
> > On 20/12/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Why would they be doing military work in a civilian
>> lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently visited by
>> foreigners? Etc, etc, etc, etc.
>
> Easily done. BTDT etc, etc, etc.

No, the Chinese have both military and civilian labs, and you haven't
answered why they would be doing top secret military research in a
civilian lab frequented by foreign nationals and part funded by foreign
governments.

>> Neither you nor anyone else has ever
>> been able to answer a number of these very obvious questions.
>
> There is no need to.

There is every need, as above - until you can give a satisfactory
answer as to why they would be doing top secret military work in a
civilian lab frequented by foreign nationals and part funded by foreign
governments, you have no argument at all.

[Snip irrelevant emotive bullshit]

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
>
> On 20/12/2021 23:38, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Nonsense, [Wuhan's] research into viruses is an international collaboration
>> with labs in France and America, and was part funded by the US.
>
> And what certain knowledge do you have that such work is /all/ that is
> carried out there?

I've already posted links to evidence from people who have worked at the
lab, and others who have visited it frequently, and none of these people
have seen anything suspicious going on there. The correct question to
ask is where is your *EVIDENCE* to the contrary? As usual, you're just
wittering on argumentatively without supplying any *EVIDENCE* to justify
continuing to flog a horse so very dead for so very long. Where is your
*EVIDENCE* for a lab-leak, put up or 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 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
> On 20/12/2021 23:46, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 18/12/2021 09:05, Spike wrote:
>
>>> You might be /familiar/ with the technique of weasel-wording, but you
>>> don't seem to be able to /recognise it/, even if it occurs several times
>>> in a short paragraph.
>
>>> The Laotian discovery is of mild interest but very little relevance to
>>> the Wuhan case. Any /real/ evidence to offer? Thought not.
>
> I have repeatedly asked you how many of the Wuhan-relevant scientific
> papers - which does not mean media reports or anecdata - you have read.
> So far you have not answered.

I've repeatedly asked you about your scientific qualifications, which I
suspect are non-existent or trivial, and to supply *EVIDENCE* to support
your claims. When you answer both of those, I'll answer yours, but I
can already tell that it's more than you have.

>> The Laotian discovery is real evidence
>
> Of what?

That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
already existed in nature.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/12/2021 19:24, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
>> On 20/12/2021 23:46, Java Jive wrote:

>>> The Laotian discovery is real evidence
>>
>> Of what?
>
> That there was no need for a lab to create this virus, because it
> already existed in nature.
>
If it is "this virus" that decimated the population of Wuhan and ran
rampant round the rest of the world, it would have decimated the
population of Laos and then run rampant round the rest of the world.
But it didn't, which shows that the virus, whilst similar, is nowhere
near as infectious to humans.

Therefore it is not convincing evidence. It is best described as a
similarity. Others might more accurately describe it as a diversionary
tactic. One that you appear to have fallen for.

Jim

On 19:24 21 Dec 2021, Java Jive said:
> On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
>> On 20/12/2021 23:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 18/12/2021 09:05, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You might be /familiar/ with the technique of weasel-wording, but
>>>> you don't seem to be able to /recognise it/, even if it occurs
>>>> several times in a short paragraph.
>>>>
>>>> The Laotian discovery is of mild interest but very little
>>>> relevance to the Wuhan case. Any /real/ evidence to offer?
>>>> Thought not.
>>
>> I have repeatedly asked you how many of the Wuhan-relevant
>> scientific papers - which does not mean media reports or anecdata -
>> you have read. So far you have not answered.
>
> I've repeatedly asked you about your scientific qualifications,

I gave up asking Spike what his qualifications were.

> which I suspect are non-existent or trivial, and to supply
> *EVIDENCE* to support your claims. When you answer both of those,
> I'll answer yours, but I can already tell that it's more than you
> have.

On 21/12/2021 19:05, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/12/2021 09:41, Spike wrote:
>> On 20/12/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:

>>> what possible motive would [the Chinese] have for killing their own
>>> population indiscriminately? Why would they be doing military work
>>> in a civilian lab with a long history of collaboration with and frequently
>>> visited by foreigners? Etc, etc, etc, etc. Neither you nor anyone else
>>> has ever been able to answer a number of these very obvious questions.

>> Your knowledge of Communist methodology is breathtaking in its paucity.

> At least it's knowledge

No knowledge = no knowledge

--
Spike