On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 21:37:46 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 10/11/2021 18:33, abelard wrote:
>>
>> they're only 6
>>
>> do you think they'll grow up to be childhood sweethearts?
>
>Will you ever grow up at all? Arsehole!

as freud notes, the immature remain at the anal stage..
your fixation is noted

On 10/11/2021 22:04, abelard wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 21:37:46 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/11/2021 18:33, abelard wrote:
>>>
>>> they're only 6
>>>
>>> do you think they'll grow up to be childhood sweethearts?
>>
>> Will you ever grow up at all? Arsehole!
>
> as freud notes, the immature remain at the anal stage..
> your fixation is noted

Just as Freud never said anything scientifically testable, you have
never said anything scientifically useful.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <jcgoogt2q3qkn6tca8k1kepc2a77sap45a@4ax.com>,
abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 21:37:46 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:

> >On 10/11/2021 18:33, abelard wrote:
> >>
> >> they're only 6
> >>
> >> do you think they'll grow up to be childhood sweethearts?
> >
> >Will you ever grow up at all? Arsehole!

> as freud notes, the immature remain at the anal stage..
> your fixation is noted

JJ *always* has to call his opponents names like at school. For some
reason he thinks that helps his argument. Has he called you a bigot
yet, that's his current favourite, a good proportion of the group
have had that honour. You know you're on the right side when you get
it, it's like a confirmation of correctness.

Bob.

On 10/11/2021 12:34, Java Jive wrote:

> The Chinese aren't helping themselves by being uncooperative, but the
> point is that there's still no actual *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE*
> that it began in the lab, while there's quite a lot that it was a
> product of natural evolution, and that, rather than a political rumour
> mill if not actually initiated then at least highly politicised by Trump
> in an attempt to divert attention away from his disastrous handling of
> the pandemic in the US, is what should guide people's opinions.

For someone keen to demand *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE* from a
totalitarian regime concerning one of their blunders with research
possibly associated with advancing their capabilities in bioweapons
research, you seem remarkably unsighted into parallel happenings in the
USSR and Russia.

I suggest you read David Hoffman's book 'The Dead Hand' and Ken Alibek's
book 'Biohazard', as primers for what happens concerning such sensitive
research in Communist countries. Also, do some research into the anthrax
outbreak in Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg).

--
Spike

In article <slrnsoprhd.hut.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> > On 10/11/2021 17:03, Incubus wrote:
> >> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>> On 10/11/2021 14:05, Incubus wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm neither glossing over nor dismissing concerns, but the
> >>>>> *SCIENTIFIC*, as opposed to the political and/or
> >>>>> what-I-want-believe, evidence is still that the virus started
> >>>>> naturally.
> >>>>
> >>>> The scientific evidence is insufficient to make such a claim.
> >>>
> >>> How would you know? You didn't bother to read it!
> >>
> >> How do you know what I read?
> >
> > I posted a great deal of evidence that you refused to read, then you
> > claim that the scientific evidence is insufficient to claim the virus
> > is most likely to be zoonotic in origin, but you can't possibly say
> > that without reading all the evidence offered, and have admitted
> > yourself that you had not done this.

> I did no such thing.

> >> I gave you a number of links stating that further information is
> >> needed but is being blocked by China. That's how we know that there is
> >> insufficient evidence.
> >
> > Indeed, and I haven't disagreed with or disputed them, but they were
> > political not *SCIENTIFIC* evidence.

> So you are saying that the BMJ and the WHO are political, not scientific?

> > Meanwhile, we do have scientific evidence, both from the mission and
> > others who have analysed the virus genome, and they are agreed that
> > the most likely source is zoonotic, and the least likely man-made.

> We have incomplete evidence. No scientist worth their salt would form a
> conclusion based on incomplete evidence.

> You are becoming boring. I read your link. Even if Covid-19 does have a
> zoonotic origin, which it may have, that doesn't rule out it being leaked
> from the Wuhan lab where it was being studied. You may trust the
> evidence as you see fit but two august bodies have declared that there is
> need for further investigation. Obviously they should have consulted you
> as final arbiter of the value of the evidence available.

and there is a co-incidence in the origin and the lab.

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

On 10/11/2021 12:50, Java Jive wrote:
> On 10/11/2021 10:02, Spike wrote:
>> On 09/11/2021 13:39, Java Jive wrote:

>>> And you don't help your cause by conflating covid origins conspiracy
>>> theories with climate denial conspiracy theories.

>> It's called 'drawing a parallel', and you don't help your case by
>> ignoring such things.

> You don't help either of your cases by lumping them together in such an
> unscientific way. The only parallel between them is that both have been
> highly politicised by dishonest people for reasons that have nothing to
> do with science. Be aware that both Jim, who has already replied to
> you, and I have scientific backgrounds, Jim having had a successful
> scientific career, and that most if not all of the unscientific bullshit
> and twaddle that has ever been uttered in either of these areas has
> already been paraded before us as 'ultimate proof' of whatever, only to
> be easily and swiftly debunked by one or other or both of us.

I'm taking this thread in the upm group, which is not in a good state as
regards on-topic postings. In order to make it readable, I run a watch
list of posters, which filters out the rubbish, and sometimes also other
stuff. Jim isn't in my watch list and so I have seen no messages of his,
or indeed any of his that have been replied to by people who are.

--
Spike

On 2021-11-11, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <slrnsoprhd.hut.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > On 10/11/2021 17:03, Incubus wrote:
>> >> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >>> On 10/11/2021 14:05, Incubus wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I'm neither glossing over nor dismissing concerns, but the
>> >>>>> *SCIENTIFIC*, as opposed to the political and/or
>> >>>>> what-I-want-believe, evidence is still that the virus started
>> >>>>> naturally.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The scientific evidence is insufficient to make such a claim.
>> >>>
>> >>> How would you know? You didn't bother to read it!
>> >>
>> >> How do you know what I read?
>> >
>> > I posted a great deal of evidence that you refused to read, then you
>> > claim that the scientific evidence is insufficient to claim the virus
>> > is most likely to be zoonotic in origin, but you can't possibly say
>> > that without reading all the evidence offered, and have admitted
>> > yourself that you had not done this.
>
>> I did no such thing.
>
>> >> I gave you a number of links stating that further information is
>> >> needed but is being blocked by China. That's how we know that there is
>> >> insufficient evidence.
>> >
>> > Indeed, and I haven't disagreed with or disputed them, but they were
>> > political not *SCIENTIFIC* evidence.
>
>> So you are saying that the BMJ and the WHO are political, not scientific?
>
>> > Meanwhile, we do have scientific evidence, both from the mission and
>> > others who have analysed the virus genome, and they are agreed that
>> > the most likely source is zoonotic, and the least likely man-made.
>
>> We have incomplete evidence. No scientist worth their salt would form a
>> conclusion based on incomplete evidence.
>
>> You are becoming boring. I read your link. Even if Covid-19 does have a
>> zoonotic origin, which it may have, that doesn't rule out it being leaked
>> from the Wuhan lab where it was being studied. You may trust the
>> evidence as you see fit but two august bodies have declared that there is
>> need for further investigation. Obviously they should have consulted you
>> as final arbiter of the value of the evidence available.
>
> and there is a co-incidence in the origin and the lab.

There is. There is also coincidence in terms of the "wet markets" in
Wuhan and Chinese patterns of animal consumption in addition to the
circumstantial evidence surrounding the lab, workers becoming ill with
an unknown pathogen etc. Making claims about the likelihood of the
virus' provenance as things stand is extremely illogical.

On 11:31 11 Nov 2021, Incubus said:

> On 2021-11-11, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>> In article <slrnsoprhd.hut.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
>><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> > On 10/11/2021 17:03, Incubus wrote:
>>> >> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> >>> On 10/11/2021 14:05, Incubus wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I'm neither glossing over nor dismissing concerns, but the
>>> >>>>> *SCIENTIFIC*, as opposed to the political and/or
>>> >>>>> what-I-want-believe, evidence is still that the virus
>>> >>>>> started naturally.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> The scientific evidence is insufficient to make such a claim.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> How would you know? You didn't bother to read it!
>>> >>
>>> >> How do you know what I read?
>>> >
>>> > I posted a great deal of evidence that you refused to read, then
>>> > you claim that the scientific evidence is insufficient to claim
>>> > the virus is most likely to be zoonotic in origin, but you can't
>>> > possibly say that without reading all the evidence offered, and
>>> > have admitted yourself that you had not done this.
>>
>>> I did no such thing.
>>
>>> >> I gave you a number of links stating that further information
>>> >> is needed but is being blocked by China. That's how we know
>>> >> that there is insufficient evidence.
>>> >
>>> > Indeed, and I haven't disagreed with or disputed them, but they
>>> > were political not *SCIENTIFIC* evidence.
>>
>>> So you are saying that the BMJ and the WHO are political, not
>>> scientific?
>>
>>> > Meanwhile, we do have scientific evidence, both from the mission
>>> > and others who have analysed the virus genome, and they are
>>> > agreed that the most likely source is zoonotic, and the least
>>> > likely man-made.
>>
>>> We have incomplete evidence. No scientist worth their salt would
>>> form a conclusion based on incomplete evidence.
>>
>>> You are becoming boring. I read your link. Even if Covid-19 does
>>> have a zoonotic origin, which it may have, that doesn't rule out
>>> it being leaked from the Wuhan lab where it was being studied.
>>> You may trust the evidence as you see fit but two august bodies
>>> have declared that there is need for further investigation.
>>> Obviously they should have consulted you as final arbiter of the
>>> value of the evidence available.
>>
>> and there is a co-incidence in the origin and the lab.
>
> There is. There is also coincidence in terms of the "wet markets"
> in Wuhan and Chinese patterns of animal consumption in addition to
> the circumstantial evidence surrounding the lab, workers becoming
> ill with an unknown pathogen etc. Making claims about the
> likelihood of the virus' provenance as things stand is extremely
> illogical.

Coincidence is not the same as correlation.

On 10:27 11 Nov 2021, Spike said:

> On 10/11/2021 12:34, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> The Chinese aren't helping themselves by being uncooperative, but
>> the point is that there's still no actual *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST
>> EVIDENCE* that it began in the lab, while there's quite a lot that
>> it was a product of natural evolution, and that, rather than a
>> political rumour mill if not actually initiated then at least
>> highly politicised by Trump in an attempt to divert attention away
>> from his disastrous handling of the pandemic in the US, is what
>> should guide people's opinions.
>
> For someone keen to demand *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE* from a
> totalitarian regime concerning one of their blunders with research
> possibly associated with advancing their capabilities in bioweapons
> research, you seem remarkably unsighted into parallel happenings in
> the USSR and Russia.
>
> I suggest you read David Hoffman's book 'The Dead Hand' and Ken
> Alibek's book 'Biohazard', as primers for what happens concerning
> such sensitive research in Communist countries. Also, do some
> research into the anthrax outbreak in Sverdlovsk (now
> Yekaterinburg).

Spike, as you have a record of claiming something which is not
supported by fact, could you say what you found so persuasive in those
books rather than rely on argumentum ab auctoritate.

I am referring to your previous comments about Juncker, also the
Sunderland Effect and most recently the French threatening to "punish"
Britain.

On 2021-11-11, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11:31 11 Nov 2021, Incubus said:
>
>> On 2021-11-11, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <slrnsoprhd.hut.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
>>><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> > On 10/11/2021 17:03, Incubus wrote:
>>>> >> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>> On 10/11/2021 14:05, Incubus wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> I'm neither glossing over nor dismissing concerns, but the
>>>> >>>>> *SCIENTIFIC*, as opposed to the political and/or
>>>> >>>>> what-I-want-believe, evidence is still that the virus
>>>> >>>>> started naturally.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> The scientific evidence is insufficient to make such a claim.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> How would you know? You didn't bother to read it!
>>>> >>
>>>> >> How do you know what I read?
>>>> >
>>>> > I posted a great deal of evidence that you refused to read, then
>>>> > you claim that the scientific evidence is insufficient to claim
>>>> > the virus is most likely to be zoonotic in origin, but you can't
>>>> > possibly say that without reading all the evidence offered, and
>>>> > have admitted yourself that you had not done this.
>>>
>>>> I did no such thing.
>>>
>>>> >> I gave you a number of links stating that further information
>>>> >> is needed but is being blocked by China. That's how we know
>>>> >> that there is insufficient evidence.
>>>> >
>>>> > Indeed, and I haven't disagreed with or disputed them, but they
>>>> > were political not *SCIENTIFIC* evidence.
>>>
>>>> So you are saying that the BMJ and the WHO are political, not
>>>> scientific?
>>>
>>>> > Meanwhile, we do have scientific evidence, both from the mission
>>>> > and others who have analysed the virus genome, and they are
>>>> > agreed that the most likely source is zoonotic, and the least
>>>> > likely man-made.
>>>
>>>> We have incomplete evidence. No scientist worth their salt would
>>>> form a conclusion based on incomplete evidence.
>>>
>>>> You are becoming boring. I read your link. Even if Covid-19 does
>>>> have a zoonotic origin, which it may have, that doesn't rule out
>>>> it being leaked from the Wuhan lab where it was being studied.
>>>> You may trust the evidence as you see fit but two august bodies
>>>> have declared that there is need for further investigation.
>>>> Obviously they should have consulted you as final arbiter of the
>>>> value of the evidence available.
>>>
>>> and there is a co-incidence in the origin and the lab.
>>
>> There is. There is also coincidence in terms of the "wet markets"
>> in Wuhan and Chinese patterns of animal consumption in addition to
>> the circumstantial evidence surrounding the lab, workers becoming
>> ill with an unknown pathogen etc. Making claims about the
>> likelihood of the virus' provenance as things stand is extremely
>> illogical.
>
> Coincidence is not the same as correlation.

It isn't but it does lead to questions and the search for explanations.

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 01:08:20 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 10/11/2021 22:04, abelard wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 21:37:46 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/11/2021 18:33, abelard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> they're only 6
>>>>
>>>> do you think they'll grow up to be childhood sweethearts?
>>>
>>> Will you ever grow up at all? Arsehole!
>>
>> as freud notes, the immature remain at the anal stage..
>> your fixation is noted
>
>Just as Freud never said anything scientifically testable, you have
>never said anything scientifically useful.

you are incapable of defining 'scientifically testable' in
a 'scientifically testable' manner

freud provided a useful model for discussion

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:40:46 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <jcgoogt2q3qkn6tca8k1kepc2a77sap45a@4ax.com>,
> abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 21:37:46 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>
>> >On 10/11/2021 18:33, abelard wrote:
>> >>
>> >> they're only 6
>> >>
>> >> do you think they'll grow up to be childhood sweethearts?
>> >
>> >Will you ever grow up at all? Arsehole!
>
>> as freud notes, the immature remain at the anal stage..
>> your fixation is noted
>
>JJ *always* has to call his opponents names like at school. For some
>reason he thinks that helps his argument. Has he called you a bigot
>yet, that's his current favourite, a good proportion of the group
>have had that honour. You know you're on the right side when you get
>it, it's like a confirmation of correctness.

why knock it? 'he' is a regular source of amusement

a child who believes he can argue with the adults

'cute' is a common term

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 10:19:25 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 10/11/2021 17:03, Incubus wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2021 14:05, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm neither glossing over nor dismissing concerns, but the *SCIENTIFIC*,
>>>>>> as opposed to the political and/or what-I-want-believe, evidence is
>>>>>> still that the virus started naturally.
>>>>>
>>>>> The scientific evidence is insufficient to make such a claim.
>>>>
>>>> How would you know? You didn't bother to read it!
>>>
>>> How do you know what I read?
>>
>> I posted a great deal of evidence that you refused to read, then you
>> claim that the scientific evidence is insufficient to claim the virus is
>> most likely to be zoonotic in origin, but you can't possibly say that
>> without reading all the evidence offered, and have admitted yourself
>> that you had not done this.
>
>I did no such thing.

you denied the dogmatic ramblings of the idiot.... you must obviously
therefore believe some the crude construction of the 'opposite'
i fear you will not get past that mental block

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:34:58 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>Coincidence is not the same as correlation.

neither is coincidence is the opposite of correlation

On 2021-11-11, abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 10:19:25 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2021 17:03, Incubus wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2021 14:05, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm neither glossing over nor dismissing concerns, but the *SCIENTIFIC*,
>>>>>>> as opposed to the political and/or what-I-want-believe, evidence is
>>>>>>> still that the virus started naturally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The scientific evidence is insufficient to make such a claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you know? You didn't bother to read it!
>>>>
>>>> How do you know what I read?
>>>
>>> I posted a great deal of evidence that you refused to read, then you
>>> claim that the scientific evidence is insufficient to claim the virus is
>>> most likely to be zoonotic in origin, but you can't possibly say that
>>> without reading all the evidence offered, and have admitted yourself
>>> that you had not done this.
>>
>>I did no such thing.
>
> you denied the dogmatic ramblings of the idiot.... you must obviously
> therefore believe some the crude construction of the 'opposite'
> i fear you will not get past that mental block

Maybe he'll call me a bigot or an incel next.

On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:42:43 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2021-11-11, abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 10:19:25 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2021 17:03, Incubus wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/11/2021 14:05, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm neither glossing over nor dismissing concerns, but the *SCIENTIFIC*,
>>>>>>>> as opposed to the political and/or what-I-want-believe, evidence is
>>>>>>>> still that the virus started naturally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The scientific evidence is insufficient to make such a claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would you know? You didn't bother to read it!
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know what I read?
>>>>
>>>> I posted a great deal of evidence that you refused to read, then you
>>>> claim that the scientific evidence is insufficient to claim the virus is
>>>> most likely to be zoonotic in origin, but you can't possibly say that
>>>> without reading all the evidence offered, and have admitted yourself
>>>> that you had not done this.
>>>
>>>I did no such thing.
>>
>> you denied the dogmatic ramblings of the idiot.... you must obviously
>> therefore believe some the crude construction of the 'opposite'
>> i fear you will not get past that mental block
>
>Maybe he'll call me a bigot or an incel next.

a badge of honour

On 11/11/2021 12:01, abelard wrote:
>
> freud provided a useful model for discussion

Unlike you.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 11/11/2021 11:41, Pamela wrote:
> On 10:27 11 Nov 2021, Spike said:
>> On 10/11/2021 12:34, Java Jive wrote:

>>> The Chinese aren't helping themselves by being uncooperative, but
>>> the point is that there's still no actual *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST
>>> EVIDENCE* that it began in the lab, while there's quite a lot that
>>> it was a product of natural evolution, and that, rather than a
>>> political rumour mill if not actually initiated then at least
>>> highly politicised by Trump in an attempt to divert attention away
>>> from his disastrous handling of the pandemic in the US, is what
>>> should guide people's opinions.

>> For someone keen to demand *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE* from a
>> totalitarian regime concerning one of their blunders with research
>> possibly associated with advancing their capabilities in bioweapons
>> research, you seem remarkably unsighted into parallel happenings in
>> the USSR and Russia.

>> I suggest you read David Hoffman's book 'The Dead Hand' and Ken
>> Alibek's book 'Biohazard', as primers for what happens concerning
>> such sensitive research in Communist countries. Also, do some
>> research into the anthrax outbreak in Sverdlovsk (now
>> Yekaterinburg).

> Spike, as you have a record of claiming something which is not
> supported by fact, could you say what you found so persuasive in those
> books rather than rely on argumentum ab auctoritate.

Perhaps they are persuasive, because one of them was Deputy Director of
an organisation that was acting as cover for the bioweapons research,
and the other presents the issue in wider and well-researched
perspective of those times.

> I am referring to your previous comments about Juncker, also the
> Sunderland Effect and most recently the French threatening to "punish"
> Britain.

One wonders whether it is a correlation or a coincidence that you miss
the key news items of the day.

--
Spike

On 11/11/2021 12:04, abelard wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 09:40:46 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <jcgoogt2q3qkn6tca8k1kepc2a77sap45a@4ax.com>,
>> abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 21:37:46 +0000, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/11/2021 18:33, abelard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> they're only 6
>>>>>
>>>>> do you think they'll grow up to be childhood sweethearts?
>>>>
>>>> Will you ever grow up at all? Arsehole!
>>
>>> as freud notes, the immature remain at the anal stage..
>>> your fixation is noted
>>
>> JJ *always* has to call his opponents names like at school. For some
>> reason he thinks that helps his argument. Has he called you a bigot
>> yet, that's his current favourite, a good proportion of the group
>> have had that honour. You know you're on the right side when you get
>> it, it's like a confirmation of correctness.

HYPOSHITE! The moment anyone debunks any fake news posted by Bob
LieToThem, they are immediately denounced as 'lefties', as if that
somehow makes his lies become true.

> why knock it? 'he' is a regular source of amusement
>
> a child who believes he can argue with the adults
>
> 'cute' is a common term

Another HYPOSHITE! No-one has been more childish in this thread than
yourself.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 11/11/2021 10:19, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 10/11/2021 17:03, Incubus wrote:
>>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2021 14:05, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-11-10, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm neither glossing over nor dismissing concerns, but the *SCIENTIFIC*,
>>>>>> as opposed to the political and/or what-I-want-believe, evidence is
>>>>>> still that the virus started naturally.
>>>>>
>>>>> The scientific evidence is insufficient to make such a claim.
>>>>
>>>> How would you know? You didn't bother to read it!
>>>
>>> How do you know what I read?
>>
>> I posted a great deal of evidence that you refused to read, then you
>> claim that the scientific evidence is insufficient to claim the virus is
>> most likely to be zoonotic in origin, but you can't possibly say that
>> without reading all the evidence offered, and have admitted yourself
>> that you had not done this.
>
> I did no such thing.

Apologies, I've just checked back and it was someone else.

>>> I gave you a number of links stating
>>> that further information is needed but is being blocked by China.
>>> That's how we know that there is insufficient evidence.
>>
>> Indeed, and I haven't disagreed with or disputed them, but they were
>> political not *SCIENTIFIC* evidence.
>
> So you are saying that the BMJ and the WHO are political, not
> scientific?

They aren't political in intent, but inevitably they interact with the
politics of the world.

>> Meanwhile, we do have scientific
>> evidence, both from the mission and others who have analysed the virus
>> genome, and they are agreed that the most likely source is zoonotic, and
>> the least likely man-made.
>
> We have incomplete evidence. No scientist worth their salt would form a
> conclusion based on incomplete evidence.

Every scientist has to go with what the science tells them at any
particular point in time. That doesn't preclude keeping an open mind to
the possibility of new evidence appearing, or indeed searching for it,
whereas ...

> You are becoming boring. I read your link. Even if Covid-19 does have
> a zoonotic origin, which it may have, that doesn't rule out it being
> leaked from the Wuhan lab where it was being studied. You may trust the
> evidence as you see fit but two august bodies have declared that there
> is need for further investigation. Obviously they should have consulted
> you as final arbiter of the value of the evidence available.

.... you are becoming irrational. If covid-19 has a zoonotic origin, as
seems most likely from the evidence known to date, there is no
scientific need to assume an escape from the lab at Wuhan, and therefore
any such assumption is based on something else, probably either a
tendency to believe in conspiracy theories or political bias.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 11/11/2021 11:31, Incubus wrote:
>
> On 2021-11-11, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>> In article <slrnsoprhd.hut.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
>> <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I read your link. Even if Covid-19 does have a
>>> zoonotic origin, which it may have, that doesn't rule out it being leaked
>>> from the Wuhan lab where it was being studied. You may trust the
>>> evidence as you see fit but two august bodies have declared that there is
>>> need for further investigation. Obviously they should have consulted you
>>> as final arbiter of the value of the evidence available.
>>
>> and there is a co-incidence in the origin and the lab.
>
> There is. There is also coincidence in terms of the "wet markets" in
> Wuhan and Chinese patterns of animal consumption in addition to the
> circumstantial evidence surrounding the lab, workers becoming ill with
> an unknown pathogen etc.

Where is your evidential source for this?

> Making claims about the likelihood of the
> virus' provenance as things stand is extremely illogical.

No-one is making claims, only stating the simple truth that the balance
of scientific evidence so far doesn't favour a lab-leak origin.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 11/11/2021 13:00, abelard wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2021 12:42:43 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <u9536612@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2021-11-11, abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> you denied the dogmatic ramblings of the idiot.... you must obviously
>>> therefore believe some the crude construction of the 'opposite'
>>> i fear you will not get past that mental block

I fear you will never provide any useful comment to any adult debate.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 11/11/2021 10:27, Spike wrote:
> On 10/11/2021 12:34, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> The Chinese aren't helping themselves by being uncooperative, but the
>> point is that there's still no actual *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE*
>> that it began in the lab, while there's quite a lot that it was a
>> product of natural evolution, and that, rather than a political rumour
>> mill if not actually initiated then at least highly politicised by Trump
>> in an attempt to divert attention away from his disastrous handling of
>> the pandemic in the US, is what should guide people's opinions.
>
> For someone keen to demand *SCIENTIFICALLY ROBUST EVIDENCE* from a
> totalitarian regime concerning one of their blunders with research
> possibly associated with advancing their capabilities in bioweapons
> research, you seem remarkably unsighted into parallel happenings in the
> USSR and Russia.
>
> I suggest you read David Hoffman's book 'The Dead Hand' and Ken Alibek's
> book 'Biohazard', as primers for what happens concerning such sensitive
> research in Communist countries. Also, do some research into the anthrax
> outbreak in Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg).

These are political arguments, not scientific ones. We have scientific
evidence, and it doesn't favour a lab-leak origin. Therefore, until new
evidence comes to light that changes things, it's irrational to presume
a lab-leak origin.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 11/11/2021 11:06, Spike wrote:
>
> I'm taking this thread in the upm group, which is not in a good state as
> regards on-topic postings. In order to make it readable, I run a watch
> list of posters, which filters out the rubbish, and sometimes also other
> stuff. Jim isn't in my watch list and so I have seen no messages of his,
> or indeed any of his that have been replied to by people who are.

Understandable. Jim Le Surf is a retired research scientist with a
fairly distinguished academic career, whom you'd do well to include in
your 'in' list. By comparison, I merely have a good scientific
background and degree, but used it in the commercial rather than the
scientific world.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <slrnsoprhd.hut.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> We have incomplete evidence. No scientist worth their salt would form a
> conclusion based on incomplete evidence.

Misleading oversimplification. Many experiments and observations have to be
based on 'incomplete' evidence. You may then be able to draw some
*provisonal* conclusions that are generally pretty reliable. And are
therefore useful in practice and better than 'wishful thinking' or 'what I
want to believe'.

e.g. Newton and his Theory for Gravitation and Mass, and the orbits of the
planets. This used limited evidence and came up with conclusions that were
pretty good.

However later experimental evidence showed departures... and led to General
Relativity which is significantly better as a conclusion.

.... only for us now to be be puzzled by new evidence we label pro tem as
"Dark Matter", etc. Thus needing to do more work and come up with another,
better set of conclusions.

So in practice, many conclusions are provisional and they tend to be based
on 'incomplete' evidence. Science is a *process* not a book of facts. It
then keeps an eye on looking for new evidence that is reliably obtainable
and which doesn't fit, so either requires new 'conclusions'... or is duff.

Cycle this though the decades, and you learn. You check and use the
evidence you have, weeding out dodgy bits, then look for more evidence
later to check and make any corrections or improvements to your conclusions
that show they are needed.

Very different from "Here's a pretty cherry" AKA "It's a plot". 8-]

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