On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 18:54:57 UTC, Pamela wrote:
> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>
> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've chosen
> are are below and the full text can be found here:
>
> https://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-psychology/conspiracy-
> theories
>
Three reasons: -

1. Sometimes they are true / right - Marinus van der Lubbe did not fire the Reichstag, the nazis did it, similarly Poland did not invade Germany, Goebbels faked the Gleiwitz incident, part of Operation Himmler, Putin's spies murdered two people in the UK and so on.

2. Sometimes they are very plausible - Lee Harvey Oswald was trained by the KGB, the mafia were trying to remove Robert Kennedy from JFK's government and Oswald himself was assassinated a few days after he shot JFK, by a man dying from cancer.

3. Most times however it is just quasi-religious denial of obvious fact - e..g. the death of Princess Diana. Even if the never found white car did cause the accident, for it to be deliberate its driver would need to have arrived at the tunnel before her Merc', know it was coming, know she was in it, know it was speeding and the driver was drunk and drugged, know there was no Armco in the tunnel and that Diana was NOT wearing a seat belt (I personally survived a head on crash with similar velocity relatively unscathed because I was) and manouvre the car in exactly the right way to cause her Merc' to swerve and crash into a column and assess that the impact would be enough to kill her, but not cause enough damage to their vehicle to prevent their escape. Clearly a virtually impossible series of coincidences to be planned. OTOH a plane crash...

On 14:21 8 Nov 2021, Incubus said:
> On 2021-11-08, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> One might note how delusionalists such as Rand Paul, Marjorie
>> Taylor Greene, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Lindell, Donald
>> trump etc band together and present themselves as having secret
>> insights.
>
> You seem more familiar with their ideas than I. Can you give
> examples?

Rand Paul (undying supporter of Trump): Dr Fauci's expertise.

Marjorie Taylor Greene (space cadet): Pizzagate, LA massacre, etc.

Sidney Powell (true wacko): Venezuelan software in voting machines.

Rudy Giuliani (former NY prosecutor): total mental breakdown.

Mike Lindell (MyPillow): dramatic voter fraud non-proof.

Donald Trump (Queens mafiosi): fake president, bad loser.

Google for more.

On 2021-11-08, Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 08/11/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> It was a research virus, not a bio-weapon.  Of course, that research
>>> could easily be used to create a bio-weapon.  That should be genuinely
>>> concerning.
>>
>> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>>
>
> Where?

In his head.

On 15:41 8 Nov 2021, R. Mark Clayton said:

> On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 18:54:57 UTC, Pamela wrote:
>> "WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
>>
>>
>> Discussion with a conspiracy theory researcher. Extracts I've
>> chosen are are below and the full text can be found here:
>>
>> https://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-
>> psychology/conspiracy-theories
>
> Three reasons: -
>
> 1. Sometimes they are true / right - Marinus van der Lubbe did not
> fire the Reichstag, the nazis did it, similarly Poland did not
> invade Germany, Goebbels faked the Gleiwitz incident, part of
> Operation Himmler, Putin's spies murdered two people in the UK and
> so on.
>
> 2. Sometimes they are very plausible - Lee Harvey Oswald was trained
> by the KGB, the mafia were trying to remove Robert Kennedy from
> JFK's government and Oswald himself was assassinated a few days
> after he shot JFK, by a man dying from cancer.
>
> 3. Most times however it is just quasi-religious denial of obvious
> fact - e.g. the death of Princess Diana. Even if the never found
> white car did cause the accident, for it to be deliberate its driver
> would need to have arrived at the tunnel before her Merc', know it
> was coming, know she was in it, know it was speeding and the driver
> was drunk and drugged, know there was no Armco in the tunnel and
> that Diana was NOT wearing a seat belt (I personally survived a head
> on crash with similar velocity relatively unscathed because I was)
> and manouvre the car in exactly the right way to cause her Merc' to
> swerve and crash into a column and assess that the impact would be
> enough to kill her, but not cause enough damage to their vehicle to
> prevent their escape. Clearly a virtually impossible series of
> coincidences to be planned. OTOH a plane crash...

The article explains conspiracy theorists are able to simultaneously
hold two mutually exclusive explanations for the same event (as part
of their quest to make sense in their own terms about "something's not
right"). The example given was Diana faked her own death and was also
assassinated.

It's said conspiracy theorists are trying to make sense of something
which can't be explained by their usual understanding of the world and
so they embrace ideas which seem weird to anyone else. It's as if they
have experienced severe traumatic shock and are trying to work out
what's happened using a poor personal knowledge base and usually poor
education too.

Conspiracy theorists are said to strongly dislike all forms of
authority (which may be down to some past experience or just an
inferiority complex in their personality) and this makes them are
reflexively resistant to anything told by experts, preferring to do
their own "research". They also seem to enjoy the power of the
"secret" inside knowledge which the "sheeple" don't possess.

Conspiracy theorists will "know" that everything I have written above
is part of a clever plot to suppress the truth.

I honestly believe they may be part of the undiagnosed quasi
psychotic, which is said to form something like 0.5 percent of the
population.

On 08/11/2021 15:53, Incubus wrote:
>
> On 2021-11-08, Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>>
>> Where?
>
> In his head.

In a number of respected scientists' heads, reproduced by me elsewhere
in this thread, as per my reply to Pancho.

Are you sure you haven't nym-shifted?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 16:40 8 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:

> On 08/11/2021 15:53, Incubus wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-11-08, Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>>>
>>> Where?
>>
>> In his head.
>
> In a number of respected scientists' heads, reproduced by me
> elsewhere in this thread, as per my reply to Pancho.
>
> Are you sure you haven't nym-shifted?

I can vouch for Incubus. He's no sock. He's generally a nice guy who
makes a lot of sense but tends towards the conspiratorial more than I
would like.

On 08/11/2021 15:16, Java Jive wrote:
> On 08/11/2021 14:38, Pancho wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
> [Quoting broken: Incubus wrote:]
>>>>
>>>> It was a research virus, not a bio-weapon.  Of course, that research
>>>> could easily be used to create a bio-weapon.  That should be genuinely
>>>> concerning.
>>>
>>> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>>
>> Where?
>
> See my posts of 6/11 19:20 in reply to Indy Jess John, and my follow-up
> to that of 7/11 23:36.
>

Ah I see, the fallacy of an appeal to a wall of rambling bollocks.

Something you refer to as proof, confident in the knowledge it is too
tedious for anyone to read. First para "Although it's not strictly
relevant" and references to Gerald Durrell.

You're spot on, it was to tedious to read.

If you have an actual argument, could you summarise it in a few
sentences, without meandering asides.

> Note the particularly the point that once they've obtained the genome,
> they don't deal in live viruses, precisely because they're too dangerous.
>

What point! How would we know it was true.

On 08/11/2021 16:54, Pamela wrote:

> I can vouch for Incubus. He's no sock. He's generally a nice guy who
> makes a lot of sense but tends towards the conspiratorial more than I
> would like.
>

Are you calling Incubus is a bender?

On 08/11/2021 12:40, Max Demian wrote:
> There seems to be a principle that if you think your enemy *might* be
> developing a weapon, you make one of your own "To see what the effects
> might be". Then, having developed it, it would be wasteful not to use it
> on someone, even if it's a different lot, like dropping The Bomb on the
> Japs in WW2. And while we're about it, we'll drop two, so we can test
> out both the uranium (Hiroshima) and plutonium (Nagasaki) varieties.

The A bombs saved a lot of American lives. The invasion of Japan would
have been a bloodbath. I don't count Jap lives as being worth a light
because of the way they treated POWs.

Bill

On 2021-11-08, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16:40 8 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:
>
>> On 08/11/2021 15:53, Incubus wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2021-11-08, Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/11/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>>>>
>>>> Where?
>>>
>>> In his head.
>>
>> In a number of respected scientists' heads, reproduced by me
>> elsewhere in this thread, as per my reply to Pancho.
>>
>> Are you sure you haven't nym-shifted?
>
> I can vouch for Incubus. He's no sock. He's generally a nice guy who
> makes a lot of sense but tends towards the conspiratorial more than I
> would like.

Thanks Pamela. Where do I send the cheque? :)

On 08/11/2021 17:01, Pancho wrote:
> On 08/11/2021 15:16, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 08/11/2021 14:38, Pancho wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>> [Quoting broken: Incubus wrote:]
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a research virus, not a bio-weapon.  Of course, that research
>>>>> could easily be used to create a bio-weapon.  That should be genuinely
>>>>> concerning.
>>>>
>>>> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>>>
>>> Where?
>>
>> See my posts of 6/11 19:20 in reply to Indy Jess John, and my
>> follow-up to that of 7/11 23:36.
>>
>
> Ah I see, the fallacy of an appeal to a wall of rambling bollocks.
>
> Something you refer to as proof, confident in the knowledge it is too
> tedious for anyone to read. First para "Although it's not strictly
> relevant" and references to Gerald Durrell.

It so happens that the Trust founded by Gerald Durrell is intimately
involved in this story.

> You're spot on, it was to tedious to read.

If you're too goddamned idle to read something that informs you on a
subject you've been posting bollocks about, that's your problem. It
only remains to give a well-known quote that applies to you: "It's
better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool than
to open it and remove all shadow of doubt!"

> If you have an actual argument, could you summarise it in a few
> sentences, without meandering asides.

This is a complex subject, reading what I wrote won't take you a tenth
of the time it did me to research and write it, and the least you can do
is read it *before* slagging it off.

>> Note the particularly the point that once they've obtained the genome,
>> they don't deal in live viruses, precisely because they're too dangerous.
>
> What point! How would we know it was true.

Because it comes from the actual scientists involved who've seen first
hand what was going on in the Wuhan lab.

Either read it, or if you prefer listen to the programmes linked
instead, or stop spouting bollocks about something you don't understand
and have admitted that you are too lazy to understand.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 17:32 8 Nov 2021, Incubus said:

> On 2021-11-08, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 16:40 8 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:
>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 15:53, Incubus wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2021-11-08, Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/11/2021 13:12, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, comprehensively debunked elsewhere in this very thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where?
>>>>
>>>> In his head.
>>>
>>> In a number of respected scientists' heads, reproduced by me
>>> elsewhere in this thread, as per my reply to Pancho.
>>>
>>> Are you sure you haven't nym-shifted?
>>
>> I can vouch for Incubus. He's no sock. He's generally a nice guy
>> who makes a lot of sense but tends towards the conspiratorial more
>> than I would like.
>
> Thanks Pamela. Where do I send the cheque? :)

You and I differ about many things but you have always been courteous
and sincere.

In article <iut4rpF3t4uU1@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 08/11/2021 12:40, Max Demian wrote:
> > There seems to be a principle that if you think your enemy *might* be
> > developing a weapon, you make one of your own "To see what the effects
> > might be". Then, having developed it, it would be wasteful not to use
> > it on someone, even if it's a different lot, like dropping The Bomb on
> > the Japs in WW2. And while we're about it, we'll drop two, so we can
> > test out both the uranium (Hiroshima) and plutonium (Nagasaki)
> > varieties.

> The A bombs saved a lot of American lives. The invasion of Japan would
> have been a bloodbath. I don't count Jap lives as being worth a light
> because of the way they treated POWs.

> Bill

and British Lives,

I had an uncle who was one of those PoWs. He never recovered from the
experience.

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

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 17:39:58 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>If you're too goddamned idle to read something that informs you on a
>subject you've been posting bollocks about, that's your problem.

excision

>This is a complex subject, reading what I wrote won't take you a tenth
>of the time it did me to research and write it, and the least you can do
>is read it *before* slagging it off.

you seem remarkably dogmatic for a poster claiming that the 'subject'
is 'complex'

i also have as yet not read your interminable text

On 08/11/2021 18:02, abelard wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 17:39:58 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> If you're too goddamned idle to read something that informs you on a
>> subject you've been posting bollocks about, that's your problem.
>
> excision
>
>> This is a complex subject, reading what I wrote won't take you a tenth
>> of the time it did me to research and write it, and the least you can do
>> is read it *before* slagging it off.
>
> you seem remarkably dogmatic for a poster claiming that the 'subject'
> is 'complex'

Almost as dogmatic as some claiming the leak was from the lab on zilch
real evidence?

> i also have as yet not read your interminable text

But at least you have had the courtesy not to try to dis it without
doing so. It's long precisely because this is a complex subject, and
one needs to look at the different strands of evidence coming from
different scientists to understand it. I can state here in one sentence
that they add up to a lab leak as being the least likely source, but to
understand why anyone should believe that statement as opposed to the
numerous other conspiracy theories about it, you have read and
understand the evidence supporting that statement.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 18:16:14 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 08/11/2021 18:02, abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 17:39:58 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you're too goddamned idle to read something that informs you on a
>>> subject you've been posting bollocks about, that's your problem.
>>
>> excision
>>
>>> This is a complex subject, reading what I wrote won't take you a tenth
>>> of the time it did me to research and write it, and the least you can do
>>> is read it *before* slagging it off.
>>
>> you seem remarkably dogmatic for a poster claiming that the 'subject'
>> is 'complex'
>
>Almost as dogmatic as some claiming the leak was from the lab on zilch
>real evidence?
>
>> i also have as yet not read your interminable text
>
>But at least you have had the courtesy not to try to dis it without
>doing so. It's long precisely because this is a complex subject, and
>one needs to look at the different strands of evidence coming from
>different scientists to understand it. I can state here in one sentence
>that they add up to a lab leak as being the least likely source, but to
>understand why anyone should believe that statement as opposed to the
>numerous other conspiracy theories about it, you have read and
>understand the evidence supporting that statement.

does that amount t the 'evidence' is presently equivocal?

On 08/11/2021 19:04, abelard wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 18:16:14 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/2021 18:02, abelard wrote:
>>>
>>> i also have as yet not read your interminable text
>>
>> But at least you have had the courtesy not to try to dis it without
>> doing so. It's long precisely because this is a complex subject, and
>> one needs to look at the different strands of evidence coming from
>> different scientists to understand it. I can state here in one sentence
>> that they add up to a lab leak as being the least likely source, but to
>> understand why anyone should believe that statement as opposed to the
>> numerous other conspiracy theories about it, you have read and
>> understand the evidence supporting that statement.
>
> does that amount t the 'evidence' is presently equivocal?

No, not if you take the trouble to understand it; of the possible
sources of the virus, most scientists in the field think a lab leak is
the least likely, and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly
improbable.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 19:09:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 08/11/2021 19:04, abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 18:16:14 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 18:02, abelard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> i also have as yet not read your interminable text
>>>
>>> But at least you have had the courtesy not to try to dis it without
>>> doing so. It's long precisely because this is a complex subject, and
>>> one needs to look at the different strands of evidence coming from
>>> different scientists to understand it. I can state here in one sentence
>>> that they add up to a lab leak as being the least likely source, but to
>>> understand why anyone should believe that statement as opposed to the
>>> numerous other conspiracy theories about it, you have read and
>>> understand the evidence supporting that statement.
>>
>> does that amount t the 'evidence' is presently equivocal?
>
>No, not if you take the trouble to understand it; of the possible
>sources of the virus, most scientists in the field think a lab leak is
>the least likely, and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly
>improbable

'improbable' and 'highly improbable' are not really numbers

'least likely' is relative and therfore relies on opinion

On 08/11/2021 19:46, abelard wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 19:09:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 08/11/2021 19:04, abelard wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 18:16:14 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/11/2021 18:02, abelard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> i also have as yet not read your interminable text
>>>>
>>>> But at least you have had the courtesy not to try to dis it without
>>>> doing so. It's long precisely because this is a complex subject, and
>>>> one needs to look at the different strands of evidence coming from
>>>> different scientists to understand it. I can state here in one sentence
>>>> that they add up to a lab leak as being the least likely source, but to
>>>> understand why anyone should believe that statement as opposed to the
>>>> numerous other conspiracy theories about it, you have read and
>>>> understand the evidence supporting that statement.
>>>
>>> does that amount t the 'evidence' is presently equivocal?
>>
>> No, not if you take the trouble to understand it; of the possible
>> sources of the virus, most scientists in the field think a lab leak is
>> the least likely, and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly
>> improbable
>
> 'improbable' and 'highly improbable' are not really numbers
>
> 'least likely' is relative and therfore relies on opinion

Bullshit, if you want to argue the case, come up with something better
yourself than pointless semantics. By the time you've continued this
exchange much further, you could have just read my original posts,
listened to the radio clips linked therein, and got a better informed
opinion than you can from arguing such pointless semantics with me here,
so it's beginning to look as though simply you don't *WANT* to read the
relevant information. If that's the case, fine, but don't then try to
continue to argue about it, sight unseen.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 08/11/2021 15:06, Java Jive wrote:
> There is still no*SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST* evidence that the outbreak
> began in the lab.

There won't be. The WHO inspectors who went to Wuhan were not allowed to
go to the lab, and had to accept the assurances of the (probably
scripted) staff members who assured them that the lab was squeaky clean.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But without the ability to examine what
goes on in there and decide for themselves how protected the outside
world is from what goes on inside, it will always be an unknown. Thus
there is no scientifically robust evidence that the outbreak didn't
begin in the lab either.

Hence the wide range of views, mainly dictated by assumptions and
probabilities. You think that the virus mutated naturally from an
original non-human origin, I think that no natural mutation would merge
a bat and pangolin genome so it was probably an enhanced version that
escaped. Neither of us will ever get proof of which is right and which
is wrong, and the Chinese will continue to keep whatever they know a
carefully guarded secret.

Realistically, it doesn't really matter what the actual origin was
because it has already spread world wide and is mutating naturally
enough, so that there are few original versions left and we have to live
with what is around now.

Jim

On 08/11/2021 17:49, charles wrote:
> In article <iut4rpF3t4uU1@mid.individual.net>,
> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>> On 08/11/2021 12:40, Max Demian wrote:
>>> There seems to be a principle that if you think your enemy *might* be
>>> developing a weapon, you make one of your own "To see what the effects
>>> might be". Then, having developed it, it would be wasteful not to use
>>> it on someone, even if it's a different lot, like dropping The Bomb on
>>> the Japs in WW2. And while we're about it, we'll drop two, so we can
>>> test out both the uranium (Hiroshima) and plutonium (Nagasaki)
>>> varieties.
>
>> The A bombs saved a lot of American lives. The invasion of Japan would
>> have been a bloodbath. I don't count Jap lives as being worth a light
>> because of the way they treated POWs.
>
>> Bill
>
> and British Lives,
>
> I had an uncle who was one of those PoWs. He never recovered from the
> experience.
>
Oddly enough the probably saved Japanese lives too.

Rather than fight over every inch they just surrendered. Which meant
that Japan wasn't carpet bombed throughout

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo>

says Tokyo had 100,000 casualties; the effects on the other cities would
presumably have been similar.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't kill many times more.

Andy

On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 20:20:52 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 08/11/2021 19:46, abelard wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 19:09:30 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2021 19:04, abelard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 18:16:14 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/11/2021 18:02, abelard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i also have as yet not read your interminable text
>>>>>
>>>>> But at least you have had the courtesy not to try to dis it without
>>>>> doing so. It's long precisely because this is a complex subject, and
>>>>> one needs to look at the different strands of evidence coming from
>>>>> different scientists to understand it. I can state here in one sentence
>>>>> that they add up to a lab leak as being the least likely source, but to
>>>>> understand why anyone should believe that statement as opposed to the
>>>>> numerous other conspiracy theories about it, you have read and
>>>>> understand the evidence supporting that statement.
>>>>
>>>> does that amount t the 'evidence' is presently equivocal?
>>>
>>> No, not if you take the trouble to understand it; of the possible
>>> sources of the virus, most scientists in the field think a lab leak is
>>> the least likely, and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly
>>> improbable
>>
>> 'improbable' and 'highly improbable' are not really numbers
>>
>> 'least likely' is relative and therfore relies on opinion
>
>Bullshit,

rest binned unread

In article <smc6km$790$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

> Realistically, it doesn't really matter what the actual origin was
> because it has already spread world wide and is mutating naturally
> enough, so that there are few original versions left and we have to
> live with what is around now.

Well I for one would like to know who to hold accountable for this.

It was conspiracy but it's now the main theory, that the US and the
EU were funding gain of function research on viruses at the lab. Is
that true? I mean what could possibly go wrong with that plan?

Bob.

On 08/11/2021 19:09, Java Jive wrote:

> [Of] the possible sources of the [Wuhan] virus,
> most scientists in the field think a lab leak is the least likely,
> and classify it as somewhere from improbable to highly improbable.

That doesn't make them right. 'Most scientists', it is claimed. support
the current 'CO2 causes global warming' narrative, yet is can be shown
that for the alleged heating mechanism ism to work, it has to violate
the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and trash the Stefan
Boltzmann Law. 'Scientific consensus' is a double-edged sword.

And you don't help your cause by conflating two fallacious arguments in
that one sentence: argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad verecundiam.

--
Spike

In message <iuut4hFe4lsU1@mid.individual.net>, Spike
<Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> writes

>
>And you don't help your cause by conflating two fallacious arguments in
>that one sentence: argumentum ad populem and argumentum ad verecundiam.
>
Which is exactly what I keep trying to say in many of my pro-Remain
posts - only I don't have 'The Latin'!
--
Ian