In article <XnsAE1DA3565C7E737B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bob has moved on silently. He receives a lot of corrections but never
> says thank you.

Be cautious of assuming that means he understands and accepts all such
corrections and then *doesn't* essentialy make the same error again in a
different guise, over and over again.

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 13/01/2022 09:25, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In the Telegraph this morning.
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/13/lord-frost-covid-lockdowns-serious-mistake-government-needs/
>
> Article by Lord Frost.

Britain's Brexshit negotiator, that was a stunning mark of his abilities
wasn't it? Er, No!

No new facts, just another right-winger too full of his own
self-importance stating his own opinions as if they were facts.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 09:25 13 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
>
> In article <59a9c7fa4bbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> We could ague all day but it's about vaccine passports and
>> clearly with current circumstances they're a nonsense.
>
>> To extend the principal to sacking NHS staff is beyond stupid
>> when we're in such a none covid health crisis.
>
> One by one .. bit by bit .... the truth slowly comes out.
>
> In the Telegraph this morning.
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/13/lord-frost-
> covid-lockdowns-serious-mistake-government-needs/
>
> Article by Lord Frost.
>
> In which he says...
>
> �I think, honestly, people are going to look back at the last
> couple of years globally and see lockdown as a pretty serious
> public policy mistake,� he said.
>
> �I would like to see the Government ruling out lockdowns for the
> future; repealing the legislation; ending them. We can�t afford

It was only last month when Lord Frost slunk away from
renogotiating the revised Brexit agreement which he himself had
negotiated less than a year ago. Following Frost has put this
country into a deeper Brexit mess than before.

Listening to Lord Frost on Planet Normal talking to discredited
Allison Pearson and her sidekick is like listening to an echo
chamber.

Frost doesn't have a scintilla of experince of diseases or
pandemics nor of civil liberties. You may as well listen to the
man nursing a pint in the corner of the boozer. The biggest
mistake of all would be to take anything Lord Frost says
seriously.

The debate has plunged to new lows when wackos like Frost get
quoted in support of a point of view.

On 18:09 12 Jan 2022, Jim Lesurf said:

> In article <XnsAE1DA3565C7E737B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob has moved on silently. He receives a lot of corrections but
>> never says thank you.
>
> Be cautious of assuming that means he understands and accepts
> all such corrections and then *doesn't* essentialy make the same
> error again in a different guise, over and over again.
>
> Jim

Actually I assume the opposite. Namely that Bob has run out of
points to make to support his firmly held but erroneous view.

When he doesn't answer he has gone off to lick his wounds.

In article <59a9c7fa4bbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> I've not heard anyone, not even the BBC claim that you are more likely
> to get infected from contact with a none vaxed source than a vaxed one.

You've repeatedly claimed that you never watch/listen to the BBC. So hardly
surprising that you've not "heard" what you think they may 'claim'. Or are you
still using your wife as a "yes, dear" check on what the BBC conveys?

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 <XnsAE1E915BC832437B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually I assume the opposite. Namely that Bob has run out of points
> to make to support his firmly held but erroneous view.

> When he doesn't answer he has gone off to lick his wounds.

Alas, he just( re-) finds new paragons of reliability and relevance - like
the Daily Telegraph or Neil Oliver!

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 19:44 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
> In article <XnsAE1DBA75BEDF437B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17:07 12 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
>> > In article <XnsAE1DA304E945B37B93@144.76.35.252>,
>> > Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That comment is like me saying there are more people
>> >> unvaccinated in America than vaccinated in the UK and
>> >> America has had 690,000 more deaths than the UK.
>> >
>> > What are you on about?
>> >
>> > Is it or is it not true that at this moment in time, that the
>> > majority of people infected by covid are vaccinated? (There
>> > is no secret anti-vax argument coming from me here.)
>> >
>> > It's simple enough yes or no but we both know it's a very big
>> > yes.
>> >
>> > My only point on that statistic is that your chances of
>> > avoiding coming into contact with someone infected with covid
>> > are not improved by only meeting vaccinated people.
>
>> If the number of people are the same in both cases, then your
>> inference is untrue.
>
> That would be true if the number of people infected both vaxed
> and unvaxed were the same but I'm very sure they're not. Look at
> all the arguments you yourself passed to me yesterday about
> vaxed people changing behaviour etc. There's also vastly more
> vaxed people.

Those other factors I posted previously (footnotes written by the
author of the statistics data) further disprove your claim that
"your chances of avoiding coming into contact with someone
infected with covid are not improved by only meeting vaccinated
people".

>> I think you have got fooled by the false logic advanced by
>> Covidiots.
>
> Ok, if you wish to get a response from me you'll need to drop
> the silly insults like Covididiots. What is it with the left,
> you'll be giving me 'Brexshit' next like your mate, so childish.
>
>> An unvaccinated person has a greater likelihood of catching
>> Covid
>
> "Not much if at all" said the head of Pfizer yesterday. They
> will have a vaccine out by March that will protect against
> infection by this variant. I quoted his exact words earlier
> today.

It's peculiar you believe Pfizer when it suits you -- but
discredit them as an unreliable inherently-biassed source when it
doesn't.

>> and also has a higher viral load when infected.
>
>> That's why the majority of patients in ICU are unvaccinated,
>> yet the they form lss than a tenth of the population.
>
> I've not heard anyone, not even the BBC claim that you are more
> likely to get infected from contact with a none vaxed source
> than a vaxed one. That's a reach that is.

I haven't heard "you are more likely to get infected from contact
with a none vaxed source than a vaxed one" either. It seems to be
something you made up.

> We could ague all day but it's about vaccine passports and
> clearly with current circumstances they're a nonsense. In
> addition any form of apartheid and that's what it would be, is a
> marker of tyranny and is a weapon of nasty governments.
>
> To extend the principal to sacking NHS staff is beyond stupid
> when we're in such a none covid health crisis. Especially when
> we remember that 20 months ago we were all outside clapping NHS
> doctors and nurses trying to save lives without any jabs and
> precious little PPE. And now we have lunatics planning to sack
> those people? Fair and decent? I don't think so.

Nursing homes didn't collapse when unvaccinated workers were
sacked in November and the NHS won't collapse either when nurses
get removed in April. This is a good chance to wean out staff with
a selfish attitude with respect to patients. People with such a
"me first" attitude should never have been in nursing or social
care. Good riddance. Their training was wasted on them.

In article <XnsAE1EC19A83A3E37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> An unvaccinated person has a greater likelihood of catching
> >> Covid

Really?

Would you like to comment on these..

4 new studies (Ontario, Denmark, California, UK) confirm vaccine
effectiveness against Omicron infection is negative (vaccinated
people are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people), with
percentage ranging from 0.0% to -79.5% within 90 days.

http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide1.jpg
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide2.jpg
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide3.jpg
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide4.jpg

Bob.

In article <XnsAE1CB99F138AE37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bob's source is a Twitter poster called @10P8TRIOT. I notice he
> writes this:

Actually it looks like it's worse than that..

Pandemic of the jabbed.

4 new studies (Ontario, Denmark, California, UK) confirm vaccine
effectiveness against Omicron infection is negative (vaccinated
people are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people), with
percentage ranging from 0.0% to -79.5% within 90 days.

http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide1/jpg
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide2/jpg
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide3/jpg
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide4/jpg

On 19:22 13 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsAE1EC19A83A3E37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> An unvaccinated person has a greater likelihood of catching
>> Covid
>
> Really?
>
> Would you like to comment on these..
>
> 4 new studies (Ontario, Denmark, California, UK) confirm vaccine
> effectiveness against Omicron infection is negative (vaccinated
> people are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people),
> with percentage ranging from 0.0% to -79.5% within 90 days.
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide1.jpg
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide2.jpg
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide3.jpg
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide4.jpg
>
>
> Bob.

Before Omicron, some studies observed that for approx 3 months
vaccinated people had better resistance to Covid. Subsequently
there was a decline in resistance. When Omicron emerged and showed
greater resistance it was decided to use a booster to fully
vaccinate a person.

(1) Why are you referencing studies which test unboosted
participants when the full vaccine course contains the booster?

(2) Why do you fail to refer to 3 months of protection from the
vaccine?

(3) Why do you prefer to scour preprints of non peer-reviewed
articles in preference to fully reviewed final articles? See:

"We also urge ... other individuals who report on medical
research ... to consider this when discussing work ... and
emphasize .... the information presented may be erroneous."

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/what-unrefereed-preprint

If you genuinely believe the paranoid stuff you post here, then
why have you had 3 jabs? No one forced you. It was entirely your
choice.

On 19:23 13 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsAE1CB99F138AE37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob's source is a Twitter poster called @10P8TRIOT. I notice he
>> writes this:
>
> Actually it looks like it's worse than that..
>
> Pandemic of the jabbed.
>
> 4 new studies (Ontario, Denmark, California, UK) confirm vaccine
> effectiveness against Omicron infection is negative (vaccinated
> people are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people),
> with percentage ranging from 0.0% to -79.5% within 90 days.
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide1/jpg
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide2/jpg
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide3/jpg
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide4/jpg

See my reply to your other post:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=164210764900

or

MID <XnsAE1ED597DBCDB37B93@144.76.35.252>

On 13/01/2022 19:23, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> Actually it looks like it's worse than that..
>
> Pandemic of the jabbed.

Fake news reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t

> 4 new studies (Ontario, Denmark, California, UK) confirm vaccine
> effectiveness against Omicron infection is negative (vaccinated
> people are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people), with
> percentage ranging from 0.0% to -79.5% within 90 days.
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide1/jpg
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide2/jpg
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide3/jpg
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide4/jpg

More pointless breaches of other people's copyright. The original
report is here, fuck knows why you couldn't just link to it instead of
giving four faulty links to different pages of it, unless you were
trying to hide the fact that as usual it's something you read on Shitter:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.30.21268565v1.full.pdf

p3 ...

"Conclusions

Two doses of COVID-19 vaccines are unlikely to protect against infection
by Omicron. A third dose provides some protection in the immediate
term, but substantially less than against Delta. Our results may be
confounded by behaviours that we were unable to account for in our
analyses. Further research is needed to examine protection against
severe outcomes."

.... and p4 ...

"We excluded: long-term care residents; individuals who had received
only 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine or who had received their second dose <7
days prior to being tested; individuals who had received 2 doses of
ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca Vaxzevria, COVISHIELD) because VE for that schedule
is known to be lower; those who had received non-Health Canada
authorized vaccine(s); and those who received the Janssen (Johnson &
Johnson) vaccine (which, while approved for use in Canada, was largely
unavailable and very rarely used)."

But the majority of the UK population have had a mixture of A-Z and P/B
vaccines, and, as has already been explained to you multiple times in
this thread, other research has shown that two different vaccines are
more effective than repeated shots of the same type of vaccine, so the
Canadian findings are unlikely to apply here:

Science In Action - 2021: The year of variants
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l4t

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 13/01/2022 19:22, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> Actually it looks like it's worse than that..
>
> Pandemic of the jabbed.

Fake news reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t

> 4 new studies (Ontario, Denmark, California, UK) confirm vaccine
> effectiveness against Omicron infection is negative (vaccinated
> people are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people), with
> percentage ranging from 0.0% to -79.5% within 90 days.
>
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide1/jpg
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide2/jpg
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide3/jpg
> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide4/jpg

See other debunking of this duplicated OT post.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 13/01/2022 19:22, Bob Latham wrote:
> 4 new studies (Ontario, Denmark, California, UK) confirm vaccine
> effectiveness against Omicron infection is negative (vaccinated
> people are more likely to be infected than unvaccinated people)

A family I know had their son contract the Omicron variant in December.
He had received 2 doses. His parents lived in the same house and had
had 2 jabs and the booster, so they tested daily. Neither of them
caught it from their son, who recovered OK.

A real life experience which disproves disproves your studies.

Jim

On 11/01/2022 10:33, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <sriad9$vf8$1@dont-email.me>,
> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 10/01/2022 12:15, Bob Latham wrote:
>
>>> Erm, being vaccinated doesn't prevent you getting infected and it
>>> seems likely it makes it more likely. It also doesn't prevent you
>>> passing it to others so this argument is a good one. Stick to the
>>> NHS load argument, it has slightly more weight.
>
> First off my typo that should have been "argument is NOT a good one",
> sorry about that.
>
>> You do not have a source for that assertion.
>
>> That BTW is not a question, it's a statement. Feel free to prove me
>> wrong.
>
> I assume you mean that following vaccination your immune system is
> diminished for around 28 days. Well no, I wish I'd made a note of the
> link at the time but I didn't. Truth is, I have hundreds of links to
> sources for various things and all but a tiny minority I never get to
> write up and so lately I've tried to copy links to key stuff only.
> It's a bit like recording stuff you know you will not watch.
>
> It was a conversation between two UK doctors on twitter and someone
> from the Telegraph but it wasn't who it was that gave it credibility
> it was the graphs showing either a remarkable coincidence across the
> UK and Europe or a causational link. I'm not big on coincidences.
>

My understanding is that following the immunisation it won't take full
effect for a while.
That's a lot different to it _diminishing_ natural immunity.

>> I also note your wife's misfortune.
>
> As far as I know my wife has not had a misfortune. I think you may be
> referring to her friend who did. I didn't go into detail with them
> about the precise nature of the problem but it was concerning a blood
> vessel of some type which appeared very prominently across her chest
> within hours of her having AZ Jab1. He GP sent her to a specialist
> there and then. It was a very scary time for her and her family, they
> held their breath when eventually she got the second shot. I'm not
> sure if she's been boosted.
>

My apologies to your wife - I had indeed mixed her up!

>> A few weeks back someone told be that because of the reports on the
>> yellow card scheme he hadn't been jabbed.
>
> I don't know of a yellow card scheme.
>
It's not hard to find.

https://www.google.com/search?q=yellow+card+scheme

"Yellow Card Scheme - Website for reporting adverse drug reactions,
medical device adverse incidents, defective medicines, and counterfeit
or fake medicines ..."

>> I didn't have the numbers to hand; now I do.
>
>> Number of people in the UK who have died following the jab: ~1800.
>> Number who have died despite being fully immunised: ~750.
>
>> That's the downside.
>
> OK, what about if you in your early twenties and healthy. This
> vaccine may kill you or do long term damage to your health. There is
> no long term info on safety. The virus is extremely unlikely to kill
> you at that age/health.
>
> On the other hand, someone in their 70s with other health problems
> hasn't got a 'long term' to worry about and for them the decision is
> much easier.
>
> We need to respect people's choices like we're civilised and leave
> children alone.
>
In your early twenties and healthy the risk from both the virus _and_
the vaccine is trivial.

However if you are in your early twenties, and you do get infected,
there's a significant chance you'll pass it on. Or if you're really luck
breed a new variant.

>> Number of people who have died and had not been fully immunised:
>> 140,000.
>
>> I'll take odds of 140,000:2500 any day.
>
>> (By fully I mean: Only one jab, or only just had it when they
>> became infected. And of course most of the 2500 had pre-existing
>> conditions, usually low platelet count)
>
> I think propaganda has enhanced the truth there but I take your point.
>
> You seem to be arguing about getting the vaccine, perhaps you didn't
> read what I wrote, my wife and I DID GET ALL 3 VACCINES and I've been
> at pains to agree that the evidence is good for reducing how ill you
> get when infected.
>
> But having said that, hospitals are the number one spreading ground
> for covid, we both know that many of those deaths are people who went
> into hospital with a serious (not covid) condition and caught covid
> in there. Would they have died had it not been for covid? I don't
> suppose we'll ever know the true answer but you can bet the number
> that would have died anyway was substantial, this has already been
> admitted.
>
> The CDC in the US has this week stated that 75% of people who died
> of/with covid had 4 other potential life threatening conditions.
>
> But I'm still NOT arguing against getting vaccinated !!
>
> I am arguing that people should be allowed to make that decision for
> themselves based on facts not propaganda and that everyone should
> respect other people's decisions, it's called being a decent human
> being.
>
Apart from the mess the NHS are making (thank you, NHS) I don't think
that people should be allowed to make choices that endanger other people.

We don't let people drink and drive do we?

Even if the unvaccinated don't die they are taking up hospital space in
our "wonderful" NHS that could be used to treat other conditions.

Andy

On 21:09 13 Jan 2022, Java Jive said:
> On 13/01/2022 19:23, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> Actually it looks like it's worse than that..
>>
>> Pandemic of the jabbed.
>
> Fake news reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t
>
>> 4 new studies (Ontario, Denmark, California, UK) confirm
>> vaccine effectiveness against Omicron infection is negative
>> (vaccinated people are more likely to be infected than
>> unvaccinated people), with percentage ranging from 0.0% to
>> -79.5% within 90 days.
>>
>> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide1/jpg
>> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide2/jpg
>> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide3/jpg
>> http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/cv19/VEslide4/jpg
>
> More pointless breaches of other people's copyright. The
> original report is here, fuck knows why you couldn't just link
> to it instead of giving four faulty links to different pages of
> it, unless you were trying to hide the fact that as usual it's
> something you read on Shitter:
>
> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.30.
> 21268565v1.full.pdf
>
> p3 ...
>
> "Conclusions
>
> Two doses of COVID-19 vaccines are unlikely to protect against
> infection by Omicron. A third dose provides some protection in
> the immediate term, but substantially less than against Delta.
> Our results may be confounded by behaviours that we were unable
> to account for in our analyses. Further research is needed to
> examine protection against severe outcomes."
>
> ... and p4 ...
>
> "We excluded: long-term care residents; individuals who had
> received only 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine or who had received
> their second dose <7 days prior to being tested; individuals who
> had received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca Vaxzevria,
> COVISHIELD) because VE for that schedule is known to be lower;
> those who had received non-Health Canada authorized vaccine(s);
> and those who received the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine
> (which, while approved for use in Canada, was largely
> unavailable and very rarely used)."
>
> But the majority of the UK population have had a mixture of A-Z
> and P/B vaccines, and, as has already been explained to you
> multiple times in this thread, other research has shown that two
> different vaccines are more effective than repeated shots of the
> same type of vaccine, so the Canadian findings are unlikely to
> apply here:
>
> Science In Action - 2021: The year of variants
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct1l4t

It is becoming clearer and clearer Bob scours Twitter and other
unreliable forums where Covidiots gather and reposts their junk
science here.

If he genuinely believed the weird stuff he reposts, he would take no
precautions. Yet he's had three jabs and uses an FFP2 respirator for
protection. I imagine he follows social distancing guidelines too.

Does Bob believe the junk science he posts?

In article <XnsAE1ED597DBCDB37B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> Before Omicron, some studies observed that for approx 3 months
> vaccinated people had better resistance to Covid. Subsequently
> there was a decline in resistance. When Omicron emerged and showed
> greater resistance it was decided to use a booster to fully
> vaccinate a person.

> (1) Why are you referencing studies which test unboosted
> participants when the full vaccine course contains the booster?

> (2) Why do you fail to refer to 3 months of protection from the
> vaccine?

> (3) Why do you prefer to scour preprints of non peer-reviewed
> articles in preference to fully reviewed final articles? See:

> "We also urge ... other individuals who report on medical
> research ... to consider this when discussing work ... and
> emphasize .... the information presented may be erroneous."
>
> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/what-unrefereed-preprint

The answer to those questions is that I KNOW the media are liars and
have no interest in the truth only pushing an agenda. So I have to
look for other sources myself.

> If you genuinely believe the paranoid stuff you post here,

Except most if not all of it is true and slowly, bit by bit that
truth is coming out.

> then why have you had 3 jabs?

Because I weighed up the very limited information I had available to
me at the time and made a decision just like anyone else capable of
thought and not behaving like virtue signalling sheep.

> No one forced you.

Not literally no, not yet but tyrants are trying very hard.

> It was entirely your choice.

With a lot of pressure yes true.

Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
upwards - extreme transmission.

How is that possible when 90% of population is jabbed and people are
wearing masks and there are vaccine passports? In some countries N95
masks compulsory for many months - made no difference.

How can you carry on pushing these things when clearly, they don't
work!!

I believe the words from the prof in Israel who said something to the
effect that - you cannot stop an airborne respiratory virus, all you
can do is mitigate it's effects on patients.

As I've said, I think there is good evidence that the vaccines help
to prevent serious illness but protection against infection is poor
if any.

I think that has been shown to be true again and again across the
globe, nothing done by man stops it or makes a dent in it and we do
incredible inhuman harm trying.

Bob.

In article <srq5g7$9n0$1@dont-email.me>,
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/01/2022 10:33, Bob Latham wrote:
> > In article <sriad9$vf8$1@dont-email.me>,
> > Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 10/01/2022 12:15, Bob Latham wrote:

> > OK, what about if you in your early twenties and healthy. This
> > vaccine may kill you or do long term damage to your health. There
> > is no long term info on safety. The virus is extremely unlikely
> > to kill you at that age/health.
> >
> > On the other hand, someone in their 70s with other health
> > problems hasn't got a 'long term' to worry about and for them the
> > decision is much easier.
> >
> > We need to respect people's choices like we're civilised and
> > leave children alone.

> In your early twenties and healthy the risk from both the virus
> _and_ the vaccine is trivial.

I dispute that. There are suddenly a significant numbers of athletes
and sports people having heart problems and we have zero long term
data on the effects of these vaccines.

> However if you are in your early twenties, and you do get infected,
> there's a significant chance you'll pass it on.

Yes, but at the moment the vaccines plus points are in preventing
serious illness, it's not scoring well at all on preventing
infection. Seen the infection curves (or should I say vertical
graphs) I take it?

> Or if you're really luck breed a new variant.

Even that is in dispute. There are profs saying that the more we
block the main infection's path, the more variants will become the
new dominant.

> > But I'm still NOT arguing against getting vaccinated !!
> >
> > I am arguing that people should be allowed to make that decision
> > for themselves based on facts not propaganda and that everyone
> > should respect other people's decisions, it's called being a
> > decent human being.
> >
> Apart from the mess the NHS are making (thank you, NHS) I don't
> think that people should be allowed to make choices that endanger
> other people.

I think forcing people to undergo any medical treatment without
informed consent is - well to be honest, I can't think of a word bad
enough, it's evil.

I'm really shocked that people can think that's okay.

When I here people say stuff like this it makes me wonder if this
mass psychosis idea is true.

> We don't let people drink and drive do we?

Entirely different.

> Even if the unvaccinated don't die they are taking up hospital
> space in our "wonderful" NHS that could be used to treat other
> conditions.

Terrible, terrible thinking. Can't you see where thinking like that
will take us?

Bob.

On 10:45 14 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> In article <XnsAE1ED597DBCDB37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Before Omicron, some studies observed that for approx 3 months
>> vaccinated people had better resistance to Covid. Subsequently
>> there was a decline in resistance. When Omicron emerged and
>> showed greater resistance it was decided to use a booster to
>> fully vaccinate a person.
>
>> (1) Why are you referencing studies which test unboosted
>> participants when the full vaccine course contains the booster?
>
>> (2) Why do you fail to refer to 3 months of protection from the
>> vaccine?
>
>> (3) Why do you prefer to scour preprints of non peer-reviewed
>> articles in preference to fully reviewed final articles? See:
>
>> "We also urge ... other individuals who report on medical
>> research ... to consider this when discussing work ... and
>> emphasize .... the information presented may be erroneous."
>>
>> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/what-unrefereed-preprint
>
> The answer to those questions is that I KNOW the media are liars
> and have no interest in the truth only pushing an agenda. So I
> have to look for other sources myself.

There is a difference bewteen mass media "pushing an agenda" and
scientific papers. My three questions ask why you are relying on
unreviewed potentially erroneous scientific papers and why you
ignore established proof contrary to your (or your paranoid
friends') thesis, such as the three month period of good
protection. You haven't answered what was asked.

>> If you genuinely believe the paranoid stuff you post here,
>
> Except most if not all of it is true and slowly, bit by bit that
> truth is coming out.
>
>> then why have you had 3 jabs?
>
> Because I weighed up the very limited information I had
> available to me at the time and made a decision just like anyone
> else capable of thought and not behaving like virtue signalling
> sheep.

Are you saying you were fooled into having the jabs and you now
regret having them? Next time would you refuse them?

>> No one forced you.
>
> Not literally no, not yet but tyrants are trying very hard.
>
>> It was entirely your choice.
>
> With a lot of pressure yes true.

Don't be silly. You had to attend your vaccination (perhaps after
applying for an appointment) and did that three times. Every step
is entirely voluntary.

> Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
> Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
> upwards - extreme transmission.
>
> How is that possible when 90% of population is jabbed and people
> are wearing masks and there are vaccine passports? In some
> countries N95 masks compulsory for many months - made no
> difference.
>
> How can you carry on pushing these things when clearly, they
> don't work!!
>
> I believe the words from the prof in Israel who said something
> to the effect that - you cannot stop an airborne respiratory
> virus, all you can do is mitigate it's effects on patients.
>
> As I've said, I think there is good evidence that the vaccines
> help to prevent serious illness but protection against infection
> is poor if any.

Isn't that what government scientists have been saying ever since
Omicron emerged?

Why do you select and cling to outlying scientific opinion?
There's always a clever but mistaken scientist somewhere: Linus
Pauling won two Nobel prizes but he was wrong about the role of
vitamin C which he promoted enthusiastically but erroneously to
the end of his life.

I guess I know the answer to that: you share the flawed
psychological characteristics of Covid deniers, antivaxxers, etc
and no amount of factual discussion will shake that.

In article <XnsAE1F78275836837B93@144.76.35.252>,
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10:45 14 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:

> > In article <XnsAE1ED597DBCDB37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> > Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Because I weighed up the very limited information I had
> > available to me at the time and made a decision just like anyone
> > else capable of thought and not behaving like virtue signalling
> > sheep.

> Are you saying you were fooled into having the jabs and you now
> regret having them?

No.

However, I think it's fair to say that at the time, I had higher
expectations of my jabs than has transpired with regard to preventing
transmission.

> Next time would you refuse them?

I don't know yet, I have little if anything to go on.

> >> No one forced you.
> >
> > Not literally no, not yet but tyrants are trying very hard.
> >
> >> It was entirely your choice.
> >
> > With a lot of pressure yes true.

> Don't be silly. You had to attend your vaccination (perhaps after
> applying for an appointment) and did that three times. Every step
> is entirely voluntary.

You don't think there is pressure on people to take the vaccine?

I don't know where to begin to answer that it is so far removed from
reality. The pressure to get jabbed is unrelenting and constant, what
nonsense.

> > Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
> > Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
> > upwards - extreme transmission.
> >
> > How is that possible when 90% of population is jabbed and people
> > are wearing masks and there are vaccine passports? In some
> > countries N95 masks compulsory for many months - made no
> > difference.
> >
> > How can you carry on pushing these things when clearly, they
> > don't work!!
> >
> > I believe the words from the prof in Israel who said something
> > to the effect that - you cannot stop an airborne respiratory
> > virus, all you can do is mitigate it's effects on patients.
> >
> > As I've said, I think there is good evidence that the vaccines
> > help to prevent serious illness but protection against infection
> > is poor if any.

> Isn't that what government scientists have been saying ever since
> Omicron emerged?

> Why do you select and cling to outlying scientific opinion?

I look at a spectrum of scientists not just Sage, who for me are
clearly driving propaganda not giving us the truth and that has been
blatant on many occasions. Do I need to remind you about chopping the
edge of graphs because it made things look worse, giving briefings
with data they knew when the gave it was wrong etc. etc. etc.

> There's always a clever but mistaken scientist somewhere: Linus
> Pauling won two Nobel prizes but he was wrong about the role of
> vitamin C which he promoted enthusiastically but erroneously to
> the end of his life.

Sage and the always spectacularly wrong Neil Ferguson?

> I guess I know the answer to that: you share the flawed
> psychological characteristics of Covid deniers, antivaxxers, etc
> and no amount of factual discussion will shake that.

I'm not going to dignify that blinkered narrow thinking with a reply.

All I will say that the left seem to think they have a monopoly on
truth and even have "fact checkers" who are like everyone else,
people with an opinion a left opinion, nothing more.

Bob.

On 14/01/2022 10:45, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <XnsAE1ED597DBCDB37B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Before Omicron, some studies observed that for approx 3 months
>> vaccinated people had better resistance to Covid. Subsequently
>> there was a decline in resistance. When Omicron emerged and showed
>> greater resistance it was decided to use a booster to fully
>> vaccinate a person.
>>
>> (1) Why are you referencing studies which test unboosted
>> participants when the full vaccine course contains the booster?
>>
>> (2) Why do you fail to refer to 3 months of protection from the
>> vaccine?
>>
>> (3) Why do you prefer to scour preprints of non peer-reviewed
>> articles in preference to fully reviewed final articles? See:
>
>> "We also urge ... other individuals who report on medical
>> research ... to consider this when discussing work ... and
>> emphasize .... the information presented may be erroneous."
>>
>> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/what-unrefereed-preprint
>
> The answer to those questions is that I KNOW the media are liars and
> have no interest in the truth only pushing an agenda. So I have to
> look for other sources myself.

YOU are the LIAR here! FFS, you couldn't even be honest enough to link
to the original material wherever you found it, presumably Shitter, but
didn't want to admit that's where you'd found it hence the dishonest
rigmarole of screen captures and broken links to your own site in a
pathetic effort to disguise their (lack of) provenance, let alone find a
link to the original paper on the server, which was the first hit in a
simple search. You couldn't even accomplish any of that properly, yet
you expect to be able to understand a medical preprint???!!!

>> If you genuinely believe the paranoid stuff you post here,
>
> Except most if not all of it is true and slowly, bit by bit that
> truth is coming out.

No it's not, all that is happening is that you're just completely
deceiving yourself, and probably, hopefully, absolutely no-one else.

>> then why have you had 3 jabs?
>
> Because I weighed up the very limited information I had available to
> me at the time and made a decision just like anyone else capable of
> thought and not behaving like virtue signalling sheep.

Except that everything you post is exactly that of a 'virtue' signalling
sheep, it's just that yours are the wrong 'virtues'!

>> No one forced you.
>
> Not literally no, not yet but tyrants are trying very hard.

Oh FFS grow up and stop this childish victim signalling response, the
real victims here are the rest of the ng, because of your wasting of
everyone's time. No one's behaviour here is more tyrannical than yours:
We MUST listen to you, we MUST read your crap, we MUST put up with your
endless whingeing and victim signalling, we MUST believe your paranoia.

>> It was entirely your choice.
>
> With a lot of pressure yes true.
>
> Have you seen the rate at which people have become infected with
> Omicron in countries including this one? The graphs are vertical
> upwards - extreme transmission.
>
> How is that possible when 90% of population is jabbed and people are
> wearing masks and there are vaccine passports? In some countries N95
> masks compulsory for many months - made no difference.

It's possible because approximately 6-7 million people in this country
are unvaccinated because dangerous fools like you keep posting
misinformation, while even more are not yet fully protected by three
jabs including at least one of a different type. It's possible because
omicron is a new variant which can evade the antibodies of those who've
had only one type of vaccine. It's possible because a proportion of the
population are selfish and anti-social and won't wear masks or wear
inadequate ones or wear adequate one improperly, etc, etc.

However, despite it all, as far as the UK is concerned, there are
tentatively encouraging signs that maybe the outbreak has peaked, but
probably it's too soon to say.

> How can you carry on pushing these things when clearly, they don't
> work!!

For the same reasons as you keep obeying the rules while railing against
them, because actually they work.

> I believe the words from the prof in Israel who said something to the
> effect that - you cannot stop an airborne respiratory virus, all you
> can do is mitigate it's effects on patients.

It depends on the virus, the vaccines available, the responsible
behaviour of the general public, and professors not spreading fake news
for political reasons.

> As I've said, I think there is good evidence that the vaccines help
> to prevent serious illness but protection against infection is poor
> if any.
>
> I think that has been shown to be true again and again across the
> globe, nothing done by man stops it or makes a dent in it and we do
> incredible inhuman harm trying.

TROLL! DEBUNKED LIE POSTED AGAIN!

Here again is the evidence posted twice in the last day or two, for you
to ignore again, and then lie again claiming that you've never seen
anyone say it:

"The Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC), which
has been monitoring activity throughout the pandemic, provides
information on admissions to intensive care.3 Its latest report,
published on 31 December, showed that the proportion of patients
admitted to critical care in December 2021 with confirmed covid-19 who
were unvaccinated was 61%. This proportion had previously fallen from
75% in May 2021 to 47% in October 2021—consistent with the decreasing
proportion of the general population who were unvaccinated—before rising
again in December 2021."

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o5

"Separate data from November 1 on the same report from Public Health
Wales suggests you are around three times more likely to need hospital
treatment if you haven't had a Covid jab than if you have.

On that date there were 244 vaccinated 18-60-year-olds in hospital out
of 1.4m in Wales who've had a jab. That's a rate of 17 in every 100k
people. In comparison there were 155 unvaccinated people in hospital
with Covid out of 308,000 who haven't had a jab. That's a rate of 50 in
every 100k people - three times higher."

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/number-vaccinated-unvaccinated-people-hospital-22564491

"Vaccination reduced the risk of infection during both the Alpha and
Delta period. Two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca
vaccine were more effective than one dose at preventing symptomatic
infection. The booster vaccine provided over 90% protection against
symptomatic infection in adults aged 50 years and over.

Two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were
estimated to be 96% and 92% effective against hospitalisation with the
Delta variant, respectively."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/vaccines

"Vaccine effectiveness

Several studies of vaccine effectiveness have been conducted in the UK
which indicate that 2 doses of vaccine are between 65 and 95% effective
at preventing symptomatic disease with COVID-19 with the Delta variant,
with higher levels of protection against severe disease including
hospitalisation and death."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1039677/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_49.pdf

"‘Help us to help you’: doctors in England make pleas to unvaccinated

Frontline staff report that all or nearly all admissions at their
hospitals have not been jabbed

Frontline doctors have issued desperate pleas for more people to get
vaccinated after reporting that in some hospitals all new intensive care
Covid patients have not had jabs.

An estimated 5 million people, or 10% of the eligible population, have
not had been inoculated, and it is this group who are seemingly draining
the most resources from overstretched hospitals, experts say.

The problem is worst in parts of London, but Cambridge’s Royal Papworth
hospital said more than 80% of its Covid patients requiring the most
care were unjabbed."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/dec/22/help-us-to-help-you-doctors-in-england-make-pleas-to-unvaccinated

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 14/01/2022 12:36, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <XnsAE1F78275836837B93@144.76.35.252>,
> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10:45 14 Jan 2022, Bob Latham said:
>
>>> In article <XnsAE1ED597DBCDB37B93@144.76.35.252>,
>>> Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Because I weighed up the very limited information I had
>>> available to me at the time and made a decision just like anyone
>>> else capable of thought and not behaving like virtue signalling
>>> sheep.
>>
>> Are you saying you were fooled into having the jabs and you now
>> regret having them?
>
> No.
>
> However, I think it's fair to say that at the time, I had higher
> expectations of my jabs than has transpired with regard to preventing
> transmission.

Because you won't read what is written in reply to you here, because you
can't handle being proven wrong:

On 19/10/2020 01:58, Java Jive wrote:
>
> Science in Action
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cszh0x
>
> "Why covid-19 vaccines may not stop transmission
>
> While vaccines against covid-19 are being developed at an
> unprecedented speed, none of them have been tested to see if they can
> actually stop transmission of the virus. They are designed to stop
> those who are vaccinated from developing covid-19 disease, but not
> becoming infected. This says Virologist Malik Peiris from Hong Kong
> University means while vaccinated people themselves may be protected
> they might also spread the virus."

>> Next time would you refuse them?
>
> I don't know yet, I have little if anything to go on.

You have plenty to go on, but you need to stop reading fake news about them.

>>>> No one forced you.
>>>
>>> Not literally no, not yet but tyrants are trying very hard.
>>>
>>>> It was entirely your choice.
>>>
>>> With a lot of pressure yes true.
>>
>> Don't be silly. You had to attend your vaccination (perhaps after
>> applying for an appointment) and did that three times. Every step
>> is entirely voluntary.

+1 Bob is fond of victim-signalling ...

> You don't think there is pressure on people to take the vaccine?
>
> I don't know where to begin to answer that it is so far removed from
> reality. The pressure to get jabbed is unrelenting and constant, what
> nonsense.

.... and this is just another example of it.

>>> As I've said, I think there is good evidence that the vaccines
>>> help to prevent serious illness but protection against infection
>>> is poor if any.
>>
>> Isn't that what government scientists have been saying ever since
>> Omicron emerged?
>>
>> Why do you select and cling to outlying scientific opinion?
>
> I look at a spectrum of scientists not just Sage, who for me are
> clearly driving propaganda not giving us the truth and that has been
> blatant on many occasions. Do I need to remind you about chopping the
> edge of graphs because it made things look worse, giving briefings
> with data they knew when the gave it was wrong etc. etc. etc.

LIAR! It's blindingly obvious to everyone here that you don't look at a
spectrum of scientists and wouldn't even understand them if you did. We
know this because of what you link to, which has hardly ever been an
actual scientific paper, let alone one which has been peer-reviewed and
accepted for publication. You read only right-wing fake news on
Shitter, which is why the vast majority of your links are to screen
captures or graph images saved on your own site which have been
carefully cropped to disguise the source of your alleged 'information',
or else to right-wing main stream media that happens to support the fake
news of the day, such as the Telegraph or the Spectator, both of whose
so-called 'science' reporting during the pandemic has often been so
misleading as to be actually fraudulent.

>> There's always a clever but mistaken scientist somewhere: Linus
>> Pauling won two Nobel prizes but he was wrong about the role of
>> vitamin C which he promoted enthusiastically but erroneously to
>> the end of his life.
>
> Sage and the always spectacularly wrong Neil Ferguson?

Except that, as has been explained to you any number of times, the
purpose of such modelling is often to ensure that, by clarifying them in
black and white, its worst predictions don't come true.

>> I guess I know the answer to that: you share the flawed
>> psychological characteristics of Covid deniers, antivaxxers, etc
>> and no amount of factual discussion will shake that.
>
> I'm not going to dignify that blinkered narrow thinking with a reply.
>
> All I will say that the left seem to think they have a monopoly on
> truth and even have "fact checkers" who are like everyone else,
> people with an opinion a left opinion, nothing more.

Who said Pamela was 'left', or fact-checkers, or indeed me or Jim. Here
we see again the broken and pathetic psychology of labelling someone
pejoratively to provide a convenient excuse to ignore them because you
have no rational answer to their arguments.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 14/01/2022 10:45, Pamela wrote:
>
> Does Bob believe the junk science he posts?

I neither know or care, the point is that he is dishonest enough to post
it, and keep on reposting it even after it has been debunked.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 14/01/2022 11:06, Bob Latham wrote:
>
>> In article <srq5g7$9n0$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, what about if you in your early twenties and healthy. This
>>> vaccine may kill you or do long term damage to your health. There
>>> is no long term info on safety. The virus is extremely unlikely
>>> to kill you at that age/health.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, someone in their 70s with other health
>>> problems hasn't got a 'long term' to worry about and for them the
>>> decision is much easier.
>>>
>>> We need to respect people's choices like we're civilised and
>>> leave children alone.
>>
>>
>> In your early twenties and healthy the risk from both the virus
>> _and_ the vaccine is trivial.
>
> I dispute that. There are suddenly a significant numbers of athletes
> and sports people having heart problems and we have zero long term
> data on the effects of these vaccines.

When this claim was made previously, you were asked for provenance of it
but of course never gave any, so we shall assume that it's just another lie:

Fake news reported to n e w s @ i n d i v i d u a l . n e t

>> However if you are in your early twenties, and you do get infected,
>> there's a significant chance you'll pass it on.
>
> Yes, but at the moment the vaccines plus points are in preventing
> serious illness, it's not scoring well at all on preventing
> infection. Seen the infection curves (or should I say vertical
> graphs) I take it?

Yes, I have, and in the UK they appear to have peaked, though really
it's too soon to be sure.

>> Or if you're really luck breed a new variant.
>
> Even that is in dispute. There are profs saying that the more we
> block the main infection's path, the more variants will become the
> new dominant.

So? That's exactly what we want to happen, we want to block the
variants that are most dangerous. If any variants result that are less
dangerous, then that's an improvement is the state of things.

>> Apart from the mess the NHS are making (thank you, NHS) I don't
>> think that people should be allowed to make choices that endanger
>> other people.
>
> I think forcing people to undergo any medical treatment without
> informed consent is - well to be honest, I can't think of a word bad
> enough, it's evil.

For things that affect only themselves, I and most others would agree
with you, but why should any of us run greater risks because selfish
and/or foolish people unnecessarily put us in greater danger.

> I'm really shocked that people can think that's okay.
>
> When I here people say stuff like this it makes me wonder if this
> mass psychosis idea is true.

Nonsense, it's a perfectly rational balancing of the interests of the
many against the interests of the few, that's what democracy is all about.

>> We don't let people drink and drive do we?
>
> Entirely different.

No, we used to allow much greater freedom on drinking and driving, and
by exactly the same reasoning as is now being applied to vaccinations,
we put a stop to it because selfish and/or foolish people were
unnecessarily putting others in greater danger.

>> Even if the unvaccinated don't die they are taking up hospital
>> space in our "wonderful" NHS that could be used to treat other
>> conditions.
>
> Terrible, terrible thinking. Can't you see where thinking like that
> will take us?

Towards a governable country that can handle outbreaks of deadly disease
a lot better than currently, whereas the current situation is just
leading to and ungovernable country and the far greater personal dangers
that result, such as dying in a pandemic because selfish people won't
obey rules put in place for greater general safety.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <XnsAE1F78275836837B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess I know the answer to that: you share the flawed psychological
> characteristics of Covid deniers, antivaxxers, etc and no amount of
> factual discussion will shake that.

Bob's SOP MO. He starts from what he is determined to believe as an article
of faith. Then cherry-picks, misrepresents, misunderstands, dismisses, etc,
anything and everything to forge the shapes he requires. His approach is
the antithesis of science.

Then, alas, keeps posting the resulting drivel here. Despite it being plain
we regard his behavious as tedious and idiotic.

Been doing it for years. Never learns because he already "KNOWS" the TRUTH.

JJ has the patience to detail the ongoing idiocy. I got bored with doing
that after the utterly ludicrous 'two point paper' and Bob's visible terror
when invited to read a useful book on Climate Change that has hundreds of
good references to substantiate and clarify the reality he denies. To suit
himself he dismissed it as a "Bible" - having, of course, not read a word
of it.

Since then he's trotted out idiocies like the NO comments as if they were
worth more than a sad laugh. Seems not to notice that its OT and no-one is
really wanting him to sell his religion here.

Maybe he insists on raising digital tv tech on political or religious
newsgroups as well.... Oh well, EM waves are really 'magic' anyway aren't
they?... 8-]

Yawn,

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