On 18/11/2021 18:11, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 14:04, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> I don't bother to argue with him most of the time.
>
> Because usually you lose, which is not surprising, because you're
> another adopter of conspiracy theories.

It is not a competition. People are allowed to have opinions that don't
align with yours, hence the comment below.
>
>> I think he as an OCD condition.
>
> Another example of a loser abusing the winner because he can't take
> losing. It's time to see some convincing *EVIDENCE* from both of you,
> either put up or shut up.
>
It is not a competition. People are allowed to have opinions that don't
align with yours, hence the comment above.

Jim

On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:
>
> "Indy Jess John"<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>>>
>> I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few personal
>> experiences. That is real factual information.
>
> On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual information.

You are making assumptions, not knowing who I spoke to nor the
circumstances at the time.
I have snipped the non-sequitur bollocks you spouted below.
>
Jim

On 19:14 18 Nov 2021, Alexander said:
>
> "Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in
> message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few
>> personal experiences. That is real factual information.
>
> On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual
> information.
>
> Various reasons for this. One is that people lie; they pretend to
> know lots of people who have "had the virus" and suffered terribly
> or died - this is a quick and dirty way to score social points and
> to show their loyalty to the narrative.

How are you able to tell that those liars you mention weren't lying
about the opposite to what you claim? Namely that they have not known
anyone with Covid nor knew anyone who had it.

> Others were lied to by doctors regarding cause of death when their
> loved one died, because the warped medical guidelines resulted in
> deaths from other causes being relabelled as "covid".

Are you referring to the English death certificate because that has
three causes of death in sequence and WHO guidelines for the pandemic
take care that death certificate are not over inclusive about
attributing the cause of death to Covid. It is more likely that people
died from Covid but it was not diagnosed with certainty (as in the
early days of the pandemic) and therefore was not put on the death
certificate. Additionally nursing home staff were being asked by GP
to certify themselves what they thought was the cause of death and few
felt competent enough to diagnose Covid. All this is common knowledge.

>> It seems that you will have to catch Covid-19 yourself before you
>> will recognise it feels nothing like influenza.
>
> I'm not the slightest bit concerned about catching the virus, if it
> even exists in the wild (which remains highly questionable), for the
> reasons already given.
>
> If you talk to medical staff (and they're brave enough to risk the
> sack by disregarding their gagging orders),

Which gagging orders are you referring to? Do you have a link which
shows the wording? If you visit the doctor-only forums such as
www.doctors.net.uk posters don't refer to this, not even obliquely.

> they'll tell you that in reality there was never a "first wave" and
> the hospitals are now full of people with jab-related adverse
> reactions and injuries - including blood clots, strokes, heart
> attacks - which many scientists had been warning about since before
> the first needle went into the first arm.

Can you provide a link to accounts by medical staff which illustrates
that?

On 18/11/2021 19:14, Alexander wrote:

More anti-covid anti-vax conspiracy garbage that has been reported to:
a b u s e @ e t e r n a l - s e p t e m b e r . o r g
>
> "Indy Jess John" <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote in message news:sn60d7$gdb$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>> I haven't "bought into the narrative", I have listened to a few personal
>> experiences. That is real factual information.
>
> On the contrary, that is anecodotal evidence - not factual information.

It's more factual than anything you have ever produced.

> Various reasons for this. One is that people lie;

As you do.

> they pretend to know
> lots of people who have "had the virus" and suffered terribly or died -
> this is a quick and dirty way to score social points and to show their
> loyalty to the narrative.

Or perhaps, like me, they're pretty damned sure they've actually had it.

> Others were lied to by doctors regarding cause of death when their
> loved one died, because the warped medical guidelines resulted in
> deaths from other causes being relabelled as "covid".

Nonsense, it's generally accepted that the number of deaths put down to
covid is an under-estimate, not an over-estimate, partly because at the
beginning of the pandemic there were insufficient tests available.

>> It seems that you will have to catch Covid-19 yourself before you will
>> recognise it feels nothing like influenza.
>
> I'm not the slightest bit concerned about catching the virus, if it
> even exists in the wild (which remains highly questionable), for the
> reasons already given.

It exists alright, and, as a vulnerable person, I consider myself to
have survived it tolerably well.

> If you talk to medical staff (and they're brave enough to risk the sack
> by disregarding their gagging orders), they'll tell you that in reality
> there was never a "first wave" and the hospitals are now full of people
> with jab-related adverse reactions and injuries - including blood clots,
> strokes, heart attacks - which many scientists had been warning about
> since before the first needle went into the first arm.

More anti-covid anti-vax conspiracy garbage that has been reported to:
a b u s e @ e t e r n a l - s e p t e m b e r . o r g

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18/11/2021 20:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 18/11/2021 18:11, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 18/11/2021 14:04, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't bother to argue with him most of the time.
>>
>> Because usually you lose, which is not surprising, because you're
>> another adopter of conspiracy theories.
>
> It is not a competition. People are allowed to have opinions that don't
> align with yours, hence the comment below.

Then why the resorting to abuse?

>>> I think he as an OCD condition.
>>
>> Another example of a loser abusing the winner because he can't take
>> losing.  It's time to see some convincing *EVIDENCE* from both of you,
>> either put up or shut up.
>>
> It is not a competition. People are allowed to have opinions that don't
> align with yours, hence the comment above.

Then why the resorting to abuse?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18/11/2021 20:45, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 20:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 18/11/2021 18:11, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18/11/2021 14:04, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't bother to argue with him most of the time.
>>>
>>> Because usually you lose, which is not surprising, because you're
>>> another adopter of conspiracy theories.
>>
>> It is not a competition. People are allowed to have opinions that don't
>> align with yours, hence the comment below.
>
> Then why the resorting to abuse?
>
>>>> I think he as an OCD condition.
>>>
>>> Another example of a loser abusing the winner because he can't take
>>> losing. It's time to see some convincing *EVIDENCE* from both of you,
>>> either put up or shut up.
>>>
>> It is not a competition. People are allowed to have opinions that don't
>> align with yours, hence the comment above.
>
> Then why the resorting to abuse?
>
It is not abuse, it is my opinion, based on the way you responded to me.

Jim

On 18/11/2021 18:08, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 13:56, Spike wrote:
>> On 18/11/2021 12:25, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>> On 18/11/2021 11:03, Java Jive wrote:

>>>> At*MILITARY* institutions possibly, but these are*CIVILIAN*
>>>> institutions

>>> *EVERYTHING* in China is under the control of the Chinese Government.
>>> All businesses in China are required by law to deliver to the Chinese
>>> Government any information asked for. That is one of the reasons why
>>> Huawei has been banned from supplying Britain's 5G infrastructure.

>>> There is no need to have a distinction between Civilian and Military in
>>> such an environment.

>> The naivety shown by Java Jive is astounding.

> The naivety shown by you in thinking you can win an argument without
> presenting relevant an realistic *EVIDENCE* is astounding; let's see
> *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.

You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.

--
Spike

On 18/11/2021 18:06, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 13:55, Spike wrote:
>> On 18/11/2021 11:42, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 18/11/2021 11:25, Spike wrote:

>>>> Ah! So you HAVEN'T SEEN ALL THE EVIDENCE.

> I've supported my case, you're the one with 'the case', but you have yet
> to support it with any convincing *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE*, put
> up or shut up.

You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.

--
Spike

On 18/11/2021 18:13, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 14:15, Spike wrote:

>> Perhaps he should engage the Elements of Music part of his 'good
>> sci-tech' OU degree to bring some calm to his life.

> Perhaps you should learn to lose an argument without resorting to
> abusing the winner.

It was YOU who BOASTED of 'a good sci-tech degree'.

The 'sci' part was S101 Foundations of Science! LOL

> Produce some convincing *EVIDENCE*! Put up or shut up.

You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.

--
Spike

On 18/11/2021 20:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 18:11, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 18/11/2021 14:04, Indy Jess John wrote:

>>> I don't bother to argue with him most of the time.

>> Because usually you lose, which is not surprising, because you're
>> another adopter of conspiracy theories.

> It is not a competition.

It is for Java Jive, that's why he posted details of his 'good sci-tech
degree', the sci part being Science 101.

> People are allowed to have opinions that don't
> align with yours.

Java Jive is having difficulty with that concept.

--
Spike

On 18/11/2021 18:08, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 13:56, Spike wrote:
>> On 18/11/2021 12:25, Indy Jess John wrote:

>>> There is no need to have a distinction between Civilian and Military in
>>> such an environment.

>> The naivety shown by Java Jive is astounding.

> The naivety shown by you in thinking you can win an argument without
> presenting relevant an realistic *EVIDENCE* is astounding; let's see
> *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.

You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.

--
Spike

On 09:56 19 Nov 2021, Spike said:
> On 18/11/2021 18:13, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 18/11/2021 14:15, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps he should engage the Elements of Music part of his 'good
>>> sci-tech' OU degree to bring some calm to his life.
>
>> Perhaps you should learn to lose an argument without resorting to
>> abusing the winner.
>
> It was YOU who BOASTED of 'a good sci-tech degree'.
>
> The 'sci' part was S101 Foundations of Science! LOL
>
>> Produce some convincing *EVIDENCE*! Put up or shut up.
>
> You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.

I must admit I haven't followed this drawn-out exchange closely but I
thought you claimed there was a lab leak.

Why don't you show the evidence which leads you to believe that?

On 12:25 18 Nov 2021, Indy Jess John said:
> On 18/11/2021 11:03, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>
>> At*MILITARY* institutions possibly, but these are*CIVILIAN*
>> institutions
>
> *EVERYTHING* in China is under the control of the Chinese
> Government. All businesses in China are required by law to deliver
> to the Chinese Government any information asked for. That is one of
> the reasons why Huawei has been banned from supplying Britain's 5G
> infrastructure.
>
> There is no need to have a distinction between Civilian and Military
> in such an environment.
>
> Jim

That's true but it does not mean there are only military institutions
in China. It means civilian institutions are supervised (and
occasionally controlled) by the state.

The Chinese state can wield control by other means than the military.
For example through local committees of the communist party, the
police, etc.

On 19/11/2021 10:58, Pamela wrote:
> On 09:56 19 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>> On 18/11/2021 18:13, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 18/11/2021 14:15, Spike wrote:

>>>> Perhaps he should engage the Elements of Music part of his 'good
>>>> sci-tech' OU degree to bring some calm to his life.

>>> Perhaps you should learn to lose an argument without resorting to
>>> abusing the winner.

>> It was YOU who BOASTED of 'a good sci-tech degree'.

>> The 'sci' part was S101 Foundations of Science! LOL

>>> Produce some convincing *EVIDENCE*! Put up or shut up.

>> You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.

> I must admit I haven't followed this drawn-out exchange closely but I
> thought you claimed there was a lab leak.

> Why don't you show the evidence which leads you to believe that?

You do tend to miss key items, but essentially Java Jive nailed himself
to a tree by rubbishing the possibility of a lab leak, When, following
extensive interchanges with several contributors, he shifted his ground,
he went on the attack with a barrage of assertions, ad-homs, abuse,
fallacious arguments, ground-shifting, deflections, a good larding of
false authority, and in essence, demands that we prove his case for him.
That's not how science works. I guess S101 didn't cover that.

--
Spike

On 19/11/2021 09:56, Spike wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 18:06, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 18/11/2021 13:55, Spike wrote:
>>> On 18/11/2021 11:42, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 18/11/2021 11:25, Spike wrote:
>
>>>>> Ah! So you HAVEN'T SEEN ALL THE EVIDENCE.
>
>> I've supported my case, you're the one with 'the case', but you have yet
>> to support it with any convincing *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE*, put
>> up or shut up.
>
> You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.

Hyposhite! I have backed my claims, you're also making claims, and
you've supplied zilch convincing *EVIDENCE* to back them up; let's see
*EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 19/11/2021 13:28, Spike wrote:
>
> You do tend to miss key items, but essentially Java Jive nailed himself
> to a tree by rubbishing the possibility of a lab leak, When, following
> extensive interchanges with several contributors, he shifted his ground,

The above is simply *LYING*, as anyone can satisfy themselves of by
bothering to reread the thread. I haven't shifted my ground, and I have
provided various links that disprove or discount the lab-leak claim.

> he went on the attack with a barrage of assertions, ad-homs, abuse,
> fallacious arguments, ground-shifting, deflections, a good larding of
> false authority, and in essence, demands that we prove his case for him.

Hyposhite! Stop trying to lie yourself out of losing an argument. To
summarise in one sentence, all along you have claimed a lab-leak, but
have never been able to produce convincing *EVIDENCE* to back up this
claim; let's see *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.

> That's not how science works. I guess S101 didn't cover that.

And what are your qualifications exactly? Amongst many other things, my
degree taught me to rely on *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE* for your
claims, put up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 18/11/2021 22:42, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 18/11/2021 20:45, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 18/11/2021 20:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> It is not a competition. People are allowed to have opinions that don't
>>> align with yours, hence the comment above.
>>
>> Then why the resorting to abuse?
>
> It is not abuse, it is my opinion, based on the way you responded to me.

It's an abusive opinion = abuse. Perhaps the way I respond to you has
something to do with the way you persist in believing in some absurd and
laughably improbable conspiracy theories against all rational evidence
to the contrary?

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 19/11/2021 09:56, Spike wrote:
>
> On 18/11/2021 20:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> It is not a competition.
>
> It is for Java Jive, that's why he posted details of his 'good sci-tech
> degree', the sci part being Science 101.

We're still waiting to hear of your probably non-existent qualifications.

>> People are allowed to have opinions that don't
>> align with yours.
>
> Java Jive is having difficulty with that concept.

I'm debunking fake news, if you don't like it, stop trying to support it
without any convincing *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE*, put up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 19/11/2021 09:57, Spike wrote:
>
> You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.

On 19/11/2021 09:56, Spike wrote:
>
> You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.

As anyone re-reading the thread can see, I have based my claims upon
*EVIDENCE*, whereas you've never been able to back your claims with any
convincing *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE* in support of your lab-leak
claim, put up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 14:11 19 Nov 2021, Java Jive said:
> On 19/11/2021 09:56, Spike wrote:
>> On 18/11/2021 20:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> It is not a competition.
>>
>> It is for Java Jive, that's why he posted details of his 'good
>> sci-tech degree', the sci part being Science 101.
>
> We're still waiting to hear of your probably non-existent
> qualifications.

I'm all ears for that info. I asked Spike several times about his science
qualifications but hasn't able to say what they are.

He's keen to demand proof from others though.

On 13:28 19 Nov 2021, Spike said:

> On 19/11/2021 10:58, Pamela wrote:
>> On 09:56 19 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>>> On 18/11/2021 18:13, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 18/11/2021 14:15, Spike wrote:
>
>>>>> Perhaps he should engage the Elements of Music part of his 'good
>>>>> sci-tech' OU degree to bring some calm to his life.
>
>>>> Perhaps you should learn to lose an argument without resorting to
>>>> abusing the winner.
>
>>> It was YOU who BOASTED of 'a good sci-tech degree'.
>
>>> The 'sci' part was S101 Foundations of Science! LOL
>
>>>> Produce some convincing *EVIDENCE*! Put up or shut up.
>
>>> You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.
>
>> I must admit I haven't followed this drawn-out exchange closely but
>> I thought you claimed there was a lab leak.
>
>> Why don't you show the evidence which leads you to believe that?
>
> You do tend to miss key items, but essentially Java Jive nailed
> himself to a tree by rubbishing the possibility of a lab leak, When,
> following extensive interchanges with several contributors, he
> shifted his ground, he went on the attack with a barrage of
> assertions, ad-homs, abuse, fallacious arguments, ground-shifting,
> deflections, a good larding of false authority, and in essence,
> demands that we prove his case for him. That's not how science
> works. I guess S101 didn't cover that.

Very interesting but what's your evidence for a lab leak?

Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 19/11/2021 09:57, Spike wrote:
>>
>> You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.
>
> On 19/11/2021 09:56, Spike wrote:
>>
>> You're the one making the claims, so YOU BACK THEM UP.
>
> As anyone re-reading the thread can see, I have based my claims upon
> *EVIDENCE*, whereas you've never been able to back your claims with any
> convincing *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE* in support of your lab-leak
> claim, put up or shut up.
>

Nature has both sides of the argument well written up. I’m not sure there’s
more to add,

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3

On 19/11/2021 11:16, Pamela wrote:
> On 12:25 18 Nov 2021, Indy Jess John said:
>>
>> There is no need to have a distinction between Civilian and Military
>> in such an environment.
>
> That's true but it does not mean there are only military institutions
> in China. It means civilian institutions are supervised (and
> occasionally controlled) by the state.
>
> The Chinese state can wield control by other means than the military.
> For example through local committees of the communist party, the
> police, etc.

And indeed if you look at the power structure in WIV ...

http://english.whiov.cas.cn/About_Us2016/Directors2016/

.... you find it stated quite openly that one of the senior managers is
the duly expected party apparatchik, but that is entirely normal in
communist systems, you'll almost certainly find the same things in
*anything* run by the state - hospitals, schools, public transport,
etc - and doesn't mean that WIV was doing military research, on the
contrary, as previously explained there has never been any proof to this
claim, and it's vastly improbable: Why would China be conducting
bio-warfare research in a comparatively open lab that has had sustained
links to the outside world, long-term collaborations with other labs in
France, the US, etc, hosted visiting scientists who have worked there
for significant periods of time, been open to inspection by foreign
funding bodies and had received such funding, and whose scientists
frequently visit foreign labs, when a much more natural approach would
be to do such research in closed military institutions inaccessible to
foreigners? What is claimed about bio-warfare research being done in
WIV is both completely without evidence and completely nonsensical.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 19/11/2021 14:31, Tweed wrote:
>
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> As anyone re-reading the thread can see, I have based my claims upon
>> *EVIDENCE*, whereas you've never been able to back your claims with any
>> convincing *EVIDENCE*; let's see *EVIDENCE* in support of your lab-leak
>> claim, put up or shut up.
>
> Nature has both sides of the argument well written up. I’m not sure there’s
> more to add,
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3

Yes, although it's getting a little out of date and there's been some
new information since, it's a fair canter around the topic, and for the
most part debunks the lab-leak claim - it can't be ruled out, but it
remains the least likely origin.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 19/11/2021 14:08, Java Jive wrote:
> On 18/11/2021 22:42, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 18/11/2021 20:45, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 18/11/2021 20:11, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is not a competition. People are allowed to have opinions that don't
>>>> align with yours, hence the comment above.
>>>
>>> Then why the resorting to abuse?
>>
>> It is not abuse, it is my opinion, based on the way you responded to me.
>
> It's an abusive opinion = abuse.

It isn't. But your view that it is suggests that there is at least an
element of truth in my opinion. The following is an excessive argument
too, so perhaps I have touched a raw nerve?

> Perhaps the way I respond to you has
> something to do with the way you persist in believing in some absurd and
> laughably improbable conspiracy theories against all rational evidence
> to the contrary?
>
I haven't offered any conspiracy theories, I just put forward a
realistic observation that your approach is a "balance of probability"
position and it doesn't *prove* that there is no other possible answer.

Jim