On 21/06/2021 09:20, MrSpook_tG3@wruivnd0shhz0vwkgpyo.co.uk wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 16:57:18 +0100
> Java Jive<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 18/06/2021 14:51, MrSpook_epbp7gvl7v@q0bg261n_utdp7_.net wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 12:53:00 +0100
>>> Java Jive<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 18/06/2021 12:26, MrSpook_lv6s@b5q3wo7.co.uk wrote:
>>>>> A better example would be that supernovas
>>>>> haven't destroyed any of the galaxies we can see therefor its pretty safe
>> to
>>>>> say they won't destroy any ones we can't.
>>>>
>>>> AFAIAA, we don't have statistics either way on that, so it's no analogy
>>>> at all.
>>>
>>> Yes we do. Supernovas are used as standard candles to measure distance in
>>> astronomy for distances where parallax no longer works so they are studied
>>> in fine detail.
>>
>> No, that's Cepheid variables and just type 1a supernovae, not all
>> supernovae in general.
>>
>> https://lco.global/spacebook/distance/cepheid-variable-stars-supernovae-and-dis
>> tance-measurement/
>
> And that invalidates my point how? How do you think they know which type
> they are without studying them first you muppet?
>
But that is what astronomers do, so that other people don't need to.

An astronomical event normally referred to as a supernova is a one-off
event, albeit of significant duration. Only type 1a supernovae (rare
events where one star strips material off a binary twin until it suffers
gravitational collapse) can be used for distance measurement, the other
types are dying stars and provide no formula to calculate distances. A
cepheid variable is a recurring event which has a regular timescale that
allows distance to be calculated from the apparent brightness which is
why those in particular, rather than supernovae in general, can be used
for astronomical measurement.

Jim

On 21/06/2021 06:59, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2021 15:29:02 +0100, JNugent<jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> On 20/06/2021 02:54 pm, Max Demian wrote:
>>> On 20/06/2021 12:07, Java Jive wrote:
>>>> On 20/06/2021 08:33, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 12:40:51 +0100, JNugent<jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's hard to picture any (temporary) financial or social-isolation
>>>>>> difficulty which trumps death.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, but they're not simple alternatives. Certain death is not the
>>>>> inevitable consequence of failure to observe government orthodoxy, and
>>>>> many people now realise this. Some have realied it from the beginning.
>>>>
>>>> And 128,000 people have died.
>>>
>>> Many of which would have died anyway, just a few months later. I think
>>> about 500,000 people die in this country every year.
>>
>> I think you are right about the number being bumped up, unjustifiedly in
>> strict terms, in order to make people more aware of the situation. But
>> that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
>
> I disagree. I think it is. I think distorting the truth is a bad
> thing. I think a government attempting to control the people by
> distorting the truth is a very bad thing. It doesn't make anybody
> "more aware of the situation". It makes everybody aware of the fact
> that the government hasn't told the truth.
>
> The trouble with bullshit is that however convincing it may be at
> first, people eventually see through it

Some people never do. There is still a flat earth society ...

, and then assume that
> everything you say subsequently will be bullshit too. You may think
> that a little dishonesty is trivial, but it only takes a little
> dishonesty to destroy all of your credibility. You only get to cry
> "wolf" once.

Also unlikely to be true.
Once could be a simple mistake. Twice could be coincidence. You need at
least 3 wolves to form a proper conclusion. Anything less is just an
example of the odious "cancel culture".

You also have to bear in mind that what people say and what people do
might be different. A high proportion of anti-vaxers have had at least
one jab.

Jim

On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:14:35 +0100
Indy Jess John <jimwarren@OMITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On 21/06/2021 09:20, MrSpook_tG3@wruivnd0shhz0vwkgpyo.co.uk wrote:
>> And that invalidates my point how? How do you think they know which type
>> they are without studying them first you muppet?
>>
>But that is what astronomers do, so that other people don't need to.
>
>An astronomical event normally referred to as a supernova is a one-off
>event, albeit of significant duration. Only type 1a supernovae (rare
>events where one star strips material off a binary twin until it suffers
>gravitational collapse) can be used for distance measurement, the other
>types are dying stars and provide no formula to calculate distances. A
>cepheid variable is a recurring event which has a regular timescale that
>allows distance to be calculated from the apparent brightness which is
>why those in particular, rather than supernovae in general, can be used
>for astronomical measurement.

I know all that, but my reply was to Java Joke who claimed that there were
no statistics on supernovas, but of course now after 2 mins googling he's
an expert.

On 20/06/2021 22:54, Java Jive wrote:
> On 20/06/2021 22:01, Max Demian wrote:
>>
>> On 20/06/2021 17:53, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20/06/2021 14:54, Max Demian wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 20/06/2021 12:07, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And 128,000 people have died.
>>>>
>>>> Many of which would have died anyway, just a few months later. I
>>>> think about 500,000 people die in this country every year.
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000wz3z
>>>
>>> "More or Less - Covid deaths, outdoor swimming and care homes
>>>
>>> The official number of deaths attributed to Covid 19 around the world
>>> in the whole of 2020 is 1.88 million. The global toll this year
>>> surpassed this figure on 11th of June. We look at how things are
>>> worse worldwide, despite vaccines and lock downs.
>>>
>>> [...]"
>>
>> So?
>
> Debunks the idea that many would have died anyway.
>
>> A question that programme is always asking is, "Is that a big number?"
>
> It's certainly not a small one.

Compared to what?

--
Max Demian

On 21/06/2021 in message <mLZzI.19340$um1.3570@fx07.ams4> Indy Jess John
wrote:

>>The trouble with bullshit is that however convincing it may be at
>>first, people eventually see through it
>
>Some people never do. There is still a flat earth society ...

And it has members all round the globe :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
There is absolutely no substitute for a genuine lack of preparation

On 21/06/2021 09:23, MrSpook_z1lbzlld@imwix123evjorjd8i.biz wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:51:34 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 18/06/2021 16:59, MrSpook_qft8jv@kkkodg4p9lor2z3jo8ji.org wrote:
>>> like the recent BS with a black woman cast as Ann Boleyn. I wonder how the
>>> wokerati would respond if a white guy played nelson mandela? I think we know
>>> the answer.
>>
>> And which programme was that?
>
> The black ann boleyn? Oh come on man, even you can't be that out of touch. It
> was all over the news only 2 weeks ago. Google it FFS.

Apparently Bill's favourite channel before GB News arrived, Ch 5, which
explains why I hadn't heard about it. Well that's his & their funeral.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/06/2021 11:55, MrSpook_24qIq0e@db02fdqxd9rt9eu0kbc.edu wrote:
>
> I know all that, but my reply was to Java Joke who claimed that there were
> no statistics on supernovas, but of course now after 2 mins googling he's
> an expert.

No, my reply was to your attempt to move the goalposts away from a
losing argument by claiming ...

On 18/06/2021 12:26, MrSpook_lv6s@b5q3wo7.co.uk wrote:
>
> A better example would be that supernovas haven't destroyed any of
> the galaxies we can see therefor its pretty safe to say they won't
> destroy any ones we can't.

.... and I don't believe there are much if any statistics on that. For a
start, how would we know if a supernova *had* destroyed a galaxy,
especially if it was a long way away? By definition, we only see ones
that haven't been destroyed, or, more correctly, that hadn't been
destroyed by the time their light left on its journey to us. Your claim
was like saying: "I can't see any dead people, therefore nobody dies!",
which is obviously false.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/06/2021 09:31, MrSpook_r0tm@zwgkxi375a4rrdoeqwo42u.biz wrote:
>
> Its become pretty apparent that a majority of the population are risk averse
> cowards unable to face mild adversity. If there was ever a really serious
> crisis, not one that only affected 0.5% of the population then god help us,
> because these wimps would be a burden, not a solution.

No, the social burden is people like you who don't care about others,
and recklessly endanger them by moronic behaviour such as riding around
the London Underground without wearing a mask.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/06/2021 06:59, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> The trouble with bullshit is that however convincing it may be at
> first, people eventually see through it, and then assume that
> everything you say subsequently will be bullshit too. You may think
> that a little dishonesty is trivial, but it only takes a little
> dishonesty to destroy all of your credibility. You only get to cry
> "wolf" once.

If only it were true! Blowjob would never have happened. Brexit would
never have happened. Trump would never have happened. But all three
did happen, disastrously, but people still vote for them now!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 14:39:11 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 21/06/2021 11:55, MrSpook_24qIq0e@db02fdqxd9rt9eu0kbc.edu wrote:
>>
>> I know all that, but my reply was to Java Joke who claimed that there were
>> no statistics on supernovas, but of course now after 2 mins googling he's
>> an expert.
>
>No, my reply was to your attempt to move the goalposts away from a
>losing argument by claiming ...
>
>On 18/06/2021 12:26, MrSpook_lv6s@b5q3wo7.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > A better example would be that supernovas haven't destroyed any of
> > the galaxies we can see therefor its pretty safe to say they won't
> > destroy any ones we can't.
>
>.... and I don't believe there are much if any statistics on that. For a
>start, how would we know if a supernova *had* destroyed a galaxy,
>especially if it was a long way away? By definition, we only see ones
>that haven't been destroyed, or, more correctly, that hadn't been
>destroyed by the time their light left on its journey to us. Your claim
>was like saying: "I can't see any dead people, therefore nobody dies!",
>which is obviously false.

If people were in full view the whole time and when they died disappeared
in a light bright enough to see across the universe which latest for hundreds
of years then it would be impossible not to see dead people and their effect.

On 21/06/2021 12:28, Max Demian wrote:
>
> On 20/06/2021 22:54, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 20/06/2021 22:01, Max Demian wrote:
>>>
>>> A question that programme is always asking is, "Is that a big number?"
>>
>> It's certainly not a small one.
>
> Compared to what?

Did'n't you actually *listen* to the programme? Compared to the normal
death rate!

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 14:42:01 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 21/06/2021 09:31, MrSpook_r0tm@zwgkxi375a4rrdoeqwo42u.biz wrote:
>>
>> Its become pretty apparent that a majority of the population are risk averse
>> cowards unable to face mild adversity. If there was ever a really serious
>> crisis, not one that only affected 0.5% of the population then god help us,
>> because these wimps would be a burden, not a solution.
>
>No, the social burden is people like you who don't care about others,
>and recklessly endanger them by moronic behaviour such as riding around
>the London Underground without wearing a mask.

Why reckless? Who's going to get hurt? All you geriatrics have had your double
jabs and people who can't have them won't be on the tube in the first place.
Perhaps you just like wearing a gimp mask for fetish reasons and are upset that
you'll go back to looking like a wierdo if Bozo ever does lift restrictions.

On 20/06/2021 15:29, JNugent wrote:
>
> I think you are right about the number being bumped up, unjustifiedly in
> strict terms, in order to make people more aware of the situation. But
> that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Again, see the More Or Less link in my reply to Max Demian.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/06/2021 14:46, MrSpook_8gPGg@iyy_ec2wyka6xkvrdr7.gov.uk wrote:
>
> If people were in full view the whole time and when they died disappeared
> in a light bright enough to see across the universe which latest for hundreds
> of years then it would be impossible not to see dead people and their effect.

Again, you are making claims about what we don't know and can't see
based upon what we can, but, anyway, this whole irrelevant subthread was
only ever just another of your attempts to move the goalposts away from
your obviously erroneous claims, in this particular case:

On 18/06/2021 10:20, MrSpook_g42aadw@wcjf.net wrote:
>
> You only need 1 example to prove a theory

To which I replied ...

On 18/06/2021 11:52, Java Jive wrote:
>
> "The earth is a habitable planet, therefore all other planets must be
> habitable also." I think not.
>
> Your grasp of logic, even numeracy, let alone statistics, are all
> virtually non-existent.

.... and you've posted nothing since to persuade anyone away from that
conclusion.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/06/2021 14:48, MrSpook_d6yqfBjGp@38o0y029njf3ilkv.gov wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 14:42:01 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> No, the social burden is people like you who don't care about others,
>> and recklessly endanger them by moronic behaviour such as riding around
>> the London Underground without wearing a mask.
>
> Why reckless? Who's going to get hurt? All you geriatrics have had your double
> jabs and people who can't have them won't be on the tube in the first place.

At the time you claimed to be riding around the London Underground with
no mask, very few people had been vaccinated even once, and almost
no-one twice.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 15:07:18 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 21/06/2021 14:46, MrSpook_8gPGg@iyy_ec2wyka6xkvrdr7.gov.uk wrote:
>>
>> If people were in full view the whole time and when they died disappeared
>> in a light bright enough to see across the universe which latest for hundreds
>
>> of years then it would be impossible not to see dead people and their effect.
>
>
>Again, you are making claims about what we don't know and can't see
>based upon what we can, but, anyway, this whole irrelevant subthread was
>only ever just another of your attempts to move the goalposts away from
>your obviously erroneous claims, in this particular case:

Translation: "Ooops, can't argue with that".

On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 15:09:37 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 21/06/2021 14:48, MrSpook_d6yqfBjGp@38o0y029njf3ilkv.gov wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 14:42:01 +0100
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> No, the social burden is people like you who don't care about others,
>>> and recklessly endanger them by moronic behaviour such as riding around
>>> the London Underground without wearing a mask.
>>
>> Why reckless? Who's going to get hurt? All you geriatrics have had your
>double
>> jabs and people who can't have them won't be on the tube in the first place.
>
>At the time you claimed to be riding around the London Underground with
>no mask, very few people had been vaccinated even once, and almost
>no-one twice.

But snivelling cowards like you wouldn't have been on the tube then, you'd
have been hiding under the bed in full PPE so no harm done. But frankly I
wouldn't give a toss if harm was done. If I really cared passionately about my
fellow man I wouldn't drive a car in case I ran someone down or the pollution
caused someone to die. But I bet you do and unlike you I'm not a hypocrite
who pretends to care about others but only gives a shit about himself.

On 21/06/2021 09:31 am, MrSpook_r0tm@zwgkxi375a4rrdoeqwo42u.biz wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 19/06/2021 03:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:

>>> Not everyone will die.
>
>> Actually, we all will. Most of us want to put it off for as long as
>> possible.
>
> That depends on what the alternative is. If god forbid I ended up quadraplegic
> or with severe MND I'd be heading off to Dignitas.
>
>>> And natural selection will favour those with a natural immunity.
>>
>> I don't know about you, but if I'm not one of those selected for
>> "natural immunity", I want to give other people as little opportunity as
>> possible to pass the virus to me, to family and friends.
>
> Presumably that applied to every single risk in life so you do nothing, ever?

Er... *I* make that decision. Not other people (and that, of course,
includes you).

>> I trust this is not coming as a surprise. It should be a very widespread
>> view. Judging from the proportion of the population supporting the four
>> week extension, it does seem to be a generally-held attitude.
>
> Its become pretty apparent that a majority of the population are risk averse
> cowards unable to face mild adversity. If there was ever a really serious
> crisis, not one that only affected 0.5% of the population then god help us,
> because these wimps would be a burden, not a solution.

What a convincing argument.

On 21/06/2021 16:31, MrSpook_e6n7q@3xav7i_kzrpm.info wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 15:07:18 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 21/06/2021 14:46, MrSpook_8gPGg@iyy_ec2wyka6xkvrdr7.gov.uk wrote:
>>>
>>> If people were in full view the whole time and when they died disappeared
>>> in a light bright enough to see across the universe which latest for hundreds
>>
>>> of years then it would be impossible not to see dead people and their effect.
>>
>>
>> Again, you are making claims about what we don't know and can't see
>> based upon what we can, but, anyway, this whole irrelevant subthread was
>> only ever just another of your attempts to move the goalposts away from
>> your obviously erroneous claims, in this particular case:

Snipping of lost argument noted.

>
> Translation: "Ooops, can't argue with that".

Real translation: You don't get away with moving goalposts, and you
don't know very much about astronomy.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:45:18 +0100
JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On 21/06/2021 09:31 am, MrSpook_r0tm@zwgkxi375a4rrdoeqwo42u.biz wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 19/06/2021 03:44 pm, Max Demian wrote:
>
>>>> Not everyone will die.
>>
>>> Actually, we all will. Most of us want to put it off for as long as
>>> possible.
>>
>> That depends on what the alternative is. If god forbid I ended up
>quadraplegic
>> or with severe MND I'd be heading off to Dignitas.
>>
>>>> And natural selection will favour those with a natural immunity.
>>>
>>> I don't know about you, but if I'm not one of those selected for
>>> "natural immunity", I want to give other people as little opportunity as
>>> possible to pass the virus to me, to family and friends.
>>
>> Presumably that applied to every single risk in life so you do nothing, ever?
>
>
>Er... *I* make that decision. Not other people (and that, of course,
>includes you).

Fine, but don't tell others what they should do re covid restrictions.

>> Its become pretty apparent that a majority of the population are risk averse
>> cowards unable to face mild adversity. If there was ever a really serious
>> crisis, not one that only affected 0.5% of the population then god help us,
>> because these wimps would be a burden, not a solution.
>
>What a convincing argument.

Truth hurts.

On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:46:45 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 21/06/2021 16:31, MrSpook_e6n7q@3xav7i_kzrpm.info wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 15:07:18 +0100
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 21/06/2021 14:46, MrSpook_8gPGg@iyy_ec2wyka6xkvrdr7.gov.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If people were in full view the whole time and when they died disappeared
>>>> in a light bright enough to see across the universe which latest for
>hundreds
>>>
>>>> of years then it would be impossible not to see dead people and their
>effect.
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, you are making claims about what we don't know and can't see
>>> based upon what we can, but, anyway, this whole irrelevant subthread was
>>> only ever just another of your attempts to move the goalposts away from
>>> your obviously erroneous claims, in this particular case:
>
>Snipping of lost argument noted.
>
>>
>> Translation: "Ooops, can't argue with that".
>
>Real translation: You don't get away with moving goalposts, and you
>don't know very much about astronomy.

Says Mr Google-It.

On 21/06/2021 02:42 pm, Java Jive wrote:
> On 21/06/2021 09:31, MrSpook_r0tm@zwgkxi375a4rrdoeqwo42u.biz wrote:
>>
>> Its become pretty apparent that a majority of the population are risk
>> averse
>> cowards unable to face mild adversity. If there was ever a really serious
>> crisis, not one that only affected 0.5% of the population then god
>> help us,
>> because these wimps would be a burden, not a solution.
>
> No, the social burden is people like you who don't care about others,
> and recklessly endanger them by moronic behaviour such as riding around
> the London Underground without wearing a mask.

Well, for once, we can agree.

On 21/06/2021 16:33, MrSpook_t4dthr7l41@95_1x8_3_hjcp.com wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 15:09:37 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 21/06/2021 14:48, MrSpook_d6yqfBjGp@38o0y029njf3ilkv.gov wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 14:42:01 +0100
>>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, the social burden is people like you who don't care about others,
>>>> and recklessly endanger them by moronic behaviour such as riding around
>>>> the London Underground without wearing a mask.
>>>
>>> Why reckless? Who's going to get hurt? All you geriatrics have had your
>> double
>>> jabs and people who can't have them won't be on the tube in the first place.
>>
>> At the time you claimed to be riding around the London Underground with
>> no mask, very few people had been vaccinated even once, and almost
>> no-one twice.
>
> But

[Snip abuse intended to cover lost argument]

> only gives a shit about himself.

That's you in a one phrase, as exemplified by this:

On 25/02/2021 17:08, mickspud@potatofield.co.uk wrote:
>
> this particular pneumonia bug doesn't bother me at all.
> I've been travelling twice a week on the tube for months with no face
nappy.

Oh, and don't try and deny that was your previous nym, because I still
have a record of you admitting that too.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/06/2021 16:49, MrSpook_oz7uk@sq0ybrnlmkmim_wu_h.co.uk wrote:
>
> Truth hurts.

You wouldn't know anything about that.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 21/06/2021 16:49, MrSpook_mkvwjd@wt1x4.gov.uk wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2021 16:46:45 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Real translation: You don't get away with moving goalposts, and you
>> don't know very much about astronomy.
>
> Says Mr Google-It.

Says someone who has studied it.

--

Fake news kills!

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