On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:58:23 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>> At a time when we are told to be worried by a new variant of the virus
>> with symptoms that are said to be mild, and from which I understand
>> nobody has died, I think the logic needs to be questioned.
>
>IIUC what has been said is that we don't yet know, and that it *may* be
>'mild' or it *may* be highly damaging. BUT that since it seems more
>infectious and has multiple changes which could mean a change in behaviour,
>we need to take care to avoid it getting out of control before we can
>evaluate the impact it will have - on covid deaths AND on the stretched
>NHS. It should be obvious to everyone by now that deaths and suffering
>amongst NON covid people are elevated as a result of covid needing so much
>NHS effort.

That seems a bit like saying that an approaching asteroid *may* be
about to collide with us or it *may* not, so let's all hide under our
beds just in case, as if it would make any difference anyway.

Your point about the effect of a stretched NHS on non-covid deaths is
a particularly pertinent one, that I think needs a lot more emphasis.
Our government's total obsession with just one illness may result in a
great many more people dying from other things, such as untreated
cancers, or anything else that doesn't get diagnosed in time, and if
that happens, what was it all for?

But I think this discussion started as a critique of a video by Neil
Oliver, which some seemed to dismiss on the strength of prevous
opinions of the man's other presentations and not what he said in the
video in question, a video which prior to your posting (my apologies
if I've got this wrong) you had apparently not even watched yourself.

Rod.

In article <XnsADF2A3C235B7137B93@144.76.35.252>, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does this YouTube replayer help?

> http://www.viewpure.com/PgFMkXxX07U

Dunno. But I tend to prefer to fetch a file, then look at it, often on
another system.

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 <so63l7$ugu$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

> Cloth masks need to be of a densely woven material to have best
> effectiveness, and they need to be worn properly, too many people don't
> wear them properly.

I've noticed this on many 'street' broadcasts on TV. I keep getting a
feeling that many people don't even realise they *have* a nose! Other seem
unware that the basic masks have a bendy strip to fit around it and
glasses.

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 30 Nov, noise@audiomisc.co.uk wrote:

> Given the comments, I'll have a look at the video.

Hmmm... The good news is that the rant video only lasts 9m 30s - so only a
short time was wasted.

No sign of any clue about science of any kind. Just a daft rant of OSAF.
NO seems to know less about science than I do about Duncan II, who did'nae
last lang according to my Scots Ruler.

TBH my main impression is that NO looked and behaved stressed and unwell to
me. Have the feeling his rant won't look good on his CV.

Oh well, shows that OffCom simply allow airspace for money. No quality
standards needed, just the money.

I'd thought his programmes on Scots (ancient) history were quite
interesting. But I now wonder what other historians think of them.

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 <qujeqgtt2v0ps0drnt752gbilfk1uabm5b@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >IIUC what has been said is that we don't yet know, and that it *may* be
> >'mild' or it *may* be highly damaging. BUT that since it seems more
> >infectious and has multiple changes which could mean a change in
> >behaviour, we need to take care to avoid it getting out of control
> >before we can evaluate the impact it will have - on covid deaths AND on
> >the stretched NHS. It should be obvious to everyone by now that deaths
> >and suffering amongst NON covid people are elevated as a result of
> >covid needing so much NHS effort.

> That seems a bit like saying that an approaching asteroid *may* be about
> to collide with us or it *may* not, so let's all hide under our beds
> just in case, as if it would make any difference anyway.

The flaw is in your "so...". taking for granted that it *can't* make any
difference.

The point here is that *experience* shows that having more people vaxxed
*does* make a "difference" of a significant kind. And that increased
precautions like mask wearing *will* make a difference even if the new
variant is or isn't a bad one. This is likely to be true even if no measure
offers absolute protection. This is the actual science. Sadly, it seems far
too complex for NO.

> Your point about the effect of a stretched NHS on non-covid deaths is a
> particularly pertinent one, that I think needs a lot more emphasis. Our
> government's total obsession with just one illness may result in a great
> many more people dying from other things, such as untreated cancers, or
> anything else that doesn't get diagnosed in time, and if that happens,
> what was it all for?

Your telescope is the wrong way about. The Government *failures to act
sufficiently, quickly, etc*, have made the impact on the NHS - and
consequences like higher non-covid deaths - WORSE. Underfunding the NHS
whilst wasting money on 'chums' of the top Tories have also made things
worse because that could have been better used in other ways.

> But I think this discussion started as a critique of a video by Neil
> Oliver, which some seemed to dismiss on the strength of prevous opinions
> of the man's other presentations and not what he said in the video in
> question, a video which prior to your posting (my apologies if I've got
> this wrong) you had apparently not even watched yourself.

I have now watched it. It is actually poorer in terms of science than I'd
guessed! It's a science-free rant.

So in this case, my original assumption proved to be more than well
founded.

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 10:49 1 Dec 2021, Roderick Stewart said:

> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 10:58:23 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> At a time when we are told to be worried by a new variant of the
>>> virus with symptoms that are said to be mild, and from which I
>>> understand nobody has died, I think the logic needs to be
>>> questioned.
>>
>>IIUC what has been said is that we don't yet know, and that it *may*
>>be 'mild' or it *may* be highly damaging. BUT that since it seems
>>more infectious and has multiple changes which could mean a change
>>in behaviour, we need to take care to avoid it getting out of
>>control before we can evaluate the impact it will have - on covid
>>deaths AND on the stretched NHS. It should be obvious to everyone by
>>now that deaths and suffering amongst NON covid people are elevated
>>as a result of covid needing so much NHS effort.
>
> That seems a bit like saying that an approaching asteroid *may* be
> about to collide with us or it *may* not, so let's all hide under
> our beds just in case, as if it would make any difference anyway.
>
> Your point about the effect of a stretched NHS on non-covid deaths
> is a particularly pertinent one, that I think needs a lot more
> emphasis. Our government's total obsession with just one illness may
> result in a great many more people dying from other things, such as
> untreated cancers, or anything else that doesn't get diagnosed in
> time, and if that happens, what was it all for?

The prupose was to limit the spread and harm of the virus. The fact
you are now able to be so complacent in the face of the virus is a
testament to how well it was done.

> But I think this discussion started as a critique of a video by Neil
> Oliver, which some seemed to dismiss on the strength of prevous
> opinions of the man's other presentations and not what he said in
> the video in question,

I have never seen another of Neil Oliver's videos or any of his tv
programmes. I made my judgement of his video purely on its contents.
It is tripe. Watch it again as you appear to be talking about
something else.

> a video which prior to your posting (my
> apologies if I've got this wrong) you had apparently not even
> watched yourself.
>
> Rod.

It's a bit like a situation where adults saved ungrateful children
from danger. Now the children demand to go out and play.

In article <5994033af0noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <qujeqgtt2v0ps0drnt752gbilfk1uabm5b@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> > >IIUC what has been said is that we don't yet know, and that it
> > >*may* be 'mild' or it *may* be highly damaging. BUT that since
> > >it seems more infectious and has multiple changes which could
> > >mean a change in behaviour, we need to take care to avoid it
> > >getting out of control before we can evaluate the impact it will
> > >have - on covid deaths AND on the stretched NHS. It should be
> > >obvious to everyone by now that deaths and suffering amongst NON
> > >covid people are elevated as a result of covid needing so much
> > >NHS effort.

> > That seems a bit like saying that an approaching asteroid *may*
> > be about to collide with us or it *may* not, so let's all hide
> > under our beds just in case, as if it would make any difference
> > anyway.

> The flaw is in your "so...". taking for granted that it *can't*
> make any difference.

> The point here is that *experience* shows that having more people
> vaxxed *does* make a "difference" of a significant kind.

Yes true but the people are vaxxed..

> And that increased precautions like mask wearing *will* make a
> difference even if the new variant is or isn't a bad one.

Masks do nothing. Countries with enforced mask wearing do no better
than anyone else. Sorry.

> This is likely to be true even if no measure offers absolute
> protection. This is the actual science.

Ah, claims to be science expert. A very biased one.

> > Your point about the effect of a stretched NHS on non-covid
> > deaths is a particularly pertinent one, that I think needs a lot
> > more emphasis. Our government's total obsession with just one
> > illness may result in a great many more people dying from other
> > things, such as untreated cancers, or anything else that doesn't
> > get diagnosed in time, and if that happens, what was it all for?

> Your telescope is the wrong way about. The Government *failures to
> act sufficiently, quickly, etc*, have made the impact on the NHS -
> and consequences like higher non-covid deaths - WORSE.

Nothing stops this virus except vaccines and even they have
unintended consequences, as do lock downs and fear peddling.

As this virus will continue to mutate forever and at any time it
could produce the most deadly and infectious virus ever, at what
point will it be ok with you to stop wetting the bed at a mention of
a new variant?

One other problem with this policy is crying wolf. If we wet the bed
each time and then the variant turns out to be nothing special and
the same with the next one, normal people will stop responding to the
nonsense and then if something extra nasty does come along.

> Underfunding the NHS whilst wasting money on 'chums' of the top
> Tories have also made things worse because that could have been
> better used in other ways.

Utter nonsense from the a left. The NHS problem is too many managers
and stupid wasteful spending. Whilst the NHS employs people as
Diversity managers on huge salaries we know they lack any priority
and will waste any money however large on stupidity.

> > But I think this discussion started as a critique of a video by
> > Neil Oliver, which some seemed to dismiss on the strength of
> > prevous opinions of the man's other presentations and not what he
> > said in the video in question, a video which prior to your
> > posting (my apologies if I've got this wrong) you had apparently
> > not even watched yourself.

> I have now watched it. It is actually poorer in terms of science
> than I'd guessed! It's a science-free rant.

> So in this case, my original assumption proved to be more than well
> founded.

I don't like it, so its' a rant.

I can't deny a true point so it's a cherry.

It's a very good point, so it's a sour cherry - I get it.

Oh how the left love a controlled society and loss of freedom just
like the communists. Listen to the self confessed commie in sage -
always the same - lockdown, control, take away freedoms. Always the
loony left. Any excuse to take people's freedoms away.

So glad I'm not a lefty, I value personal freedom and responsibility.

Bob.

On 13:00 1 Dec 2021, Jim Lesurf said:

> On 30 Nov, noise@audiomisc.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Given the comments, I'll have a look at the video.
>
> Hmmm... The good news is that the rant video only lasts 9m 30s - so
> only a short time was wasted.
>
> No sign of any clue about science of any kind. Just a daft rant of
> OSAF. NO seems to know less about science than I do about Duncan II,
> who did'nae last lang according to my Scots Ruler.
>
> TBH my main impression is that NO looked and behaved stressed and
> unwell to me. Have the feeling his rant won't look good on his CV.
>
> Oh well, shows that OffCom simply allow airspace for money. No
> quality standards needed, just the money.
>
> I'd thought his programmes on Scots (ancient) history were quite
> interesting. But I now wonder what other historians think of them.
>
> Jim

Got to admit Neil Oliver speaks with passion and makes a rather good
orator. If he stopped cultivating his caveman look, he might dupe
thousands more with his illogical arguments.

On 01/12/2021 14:18, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <5994033af0noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <qujeqgtt2v0ps0drnt752gbilfk1uabm5b@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> IIUC what has been said is that we don't yet know, and that it
>>>> *may* be 'mild' or it *may* be highly damaging. BUT that since
>>>> it seems more infectious and has multiple changes which could
>>>> mean a change in behaviour, we need to take care to avoid it
>>>> getting out of control before we can evaluate the impact it will
>>>> have - on covid deaths AND on the stretched NHS. It should be
>>>> obvious to everyone by now that deaths and suffering amongst NON
>>>> covid people are elevated as a result of covid needing so much
>>>> NHS effort.
>
>>> That seems a bit like saying that an approaching asteroid *may*
>>> be about to collide with us or it *may* not, so let's all hide
>>> under our beds just in case, as if it would make any difference
>>> anyway.
>
>> The flaw is in your "so...". taking for granted that it *can't*
>> make any difference.
>
>> The point here is that *experience* shows that having more people
>> vaxxed *does* make a "difference" of a significant kind.
>
> Yes true but the people are vaxxed..
>
>> And that increased precautions like mask wearing *will* make a
>> difference even if the new variant is or isn't a bad one.
>
> Masks do nothing. Countries with enforced mask wearing do no better
> than anyone else. Sorry.

TROLL! PROVEN LIE REFUTED MULTIPLE TIMES RESTATED YET AGAIN!

The real world is not a lab experiment where you can vary one factor of
interest while keeping constant all the other factors that might skew
the results, and so be sure that any conclusions drawn from the results
of varying the one factor the are valid. You may be surprised to
discover that there have been no experiments done on whether washing
your hands after going to the toilet is a good thing, because it
wouldn't be ethical to run such an experiment, yet most of us accept
that washing our hands after going to the toilet is a good thing, and do
it without complaint. Likewise, there has been no such experiment on
whether or how much the wearing of face masks in an infectious
environment reduces infection rates because it would be equally
unethical to do as asking people not to wash their hands, nevertheless,
just as you should wash your hands after going to the toilet, so you
should also wear face-masks when the situation demands it, like being on
public transport, or in a shop or other indoor public space.

See the links below, this first video is a particularly convincing
watch, and the other links are also worth reading:

Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with Laser Light
Scattering:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2007800

Can Masks Capture Coronavirus Particles?
https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/can-masks-capture-coronavirus/

8 dangerous COVID-19 face mask myths you need to stop believing
https://www.cnet.com/health/8-dangerous-covid-19-face-mask-myths-you-need-to-stop-believing/

BBC Inside Science - Should the public wear face masks?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hvt6 , starting 00:40

More or Less - Coronavirus deaths, face masks and a potential baby boom
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000h6cb , starting 14:05.

>> This is likely to be true even if no measure offers absolute
>> protection. This is the actual science.
>
> Ah, claims to be science expert. A very biased one.

You are a disgustingly dishonest and hypocritical liar.

>>> Your point about the effect of a stretched NHS on non-covid
>>> deaths is a particularly pertinent one, that I think needs a lot
>>> more emphasis. Our government's total obsession with just one
>>> illness may result in a great many more people dying from other
>>> things, such as untreated cancers, or anything else that doesn't
>>> get diagnosed in time, and if that happens, what was it all for?
>
>> Your telescope is the wrong way about. The Government *failures to
>> act sufficiently, quickly, etc*, have made the impact on the NHS -
>> and consequences like higher non-covid deaths - WORSE.
>
> Nothing stops this virus except vaccines and even they have
> unintended consequences, as do lock downs and fear peddling.

The unintended consequences of the vaccines are minimal, and far less
problematic than either the disease itself or other medication that
people frequently take. AFAIAA, the risk of every side effect from the
vaccines that so far has hit the news has been less from the vaccines
than from the disease itself, and less than, say, the contraceptive pill.

> As this virus will continue to mutate forever and at any time it
> could produce the most deadly and infectious virus ever, at what
> point will it be ok with you to stop wetting the bed at a mention of
> a new variant?
>
> One other problem with this policy is crying wolf. If we wet the bed
> each time and then the variant turns out to be nothing special and
> the same with the next one, normal people will stop responding to the
> nonsense and then if something extra nasty does come along.

Use of immaturely emotive language instead of rational argument,
presumably because you haven't actually got a rational argument. We've
already lost 168,000 people to this virus, and comparisons with other
countries that have handled the pandemic better show that most of those
deaths have been entirely avoidable. It would criminally irresponsible
of the government not to take this new variant seriously.

>> Underfunding the NHS whilst wasting money on 'chums' of the top
>> Tories have also made things worse because that could have been
>> better used in other ways.
>
> Utter nonsense from the a left. The NHS problem is too many managers
> and stupid wasteful spending. Whilst the NHS employs people as
> Diversity managers on huge salaries we know they lack any priority
> and will waste any money however large on stupidity.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim.

>>> But I think this discussion started as a critique of a video by
>>> Neil Oliver, which some seemed to dismiss on the strength of
>>> prevous opinions of the man's other presentations and not what he
>>> said in the video in question, a video which prior to your
>>> posting (my apologies if I've got this wrong) you had apparently
>>> not even watched yourself.
>
>> I have now watched it. It is actually poorer in terms of science
>> than I'd guessed! It's a science-free rant.
>
>> So in this case, my original assumption proved to be more than well
>> founded.
>
> I don't like it, so its' a rant.
>
> I can't deny a true point so it's a cherry.
>
> It's a very good point, so it's a sour cherry - I get it.
>
> Oh how the left love a controlled society and loss of freedom just
> like the communists. Listen to the self confessed commie in sage -
> always the same - lockdown, control, take away freedoms. Always the
> loony left. Any excuse to take people's freedoms away.

Nobody wants to take anybody's freedom away, but the freedoms of others
besides the selfish fringe that you represent have to be treated equally
to your own, and it's about time that you stopped whingeing like a child
and learnt to think of others besides yourself as a responsible adult.

> So glad I'm not a lefty, I value personal freedom and responsibility.

Which you abuse by abusing others because you have no rational arguments
to make.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <599409118bbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5994033af0noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > The point here is that *experience* shows that having more people
> > vaxxed *does* make a "difference" of a significant kind.

> Yes true but the people are vaxxed..

Yes. As I said.

> > And that increased precautions like mask wearing *will* make a
> > difference even if the new variant is or isn't a bad one.

> Masks do nothing. Countries with enforced mask wearing do no better than
> anyone else. Sorry.

No need for you to apologise for your lack of understanding. You've been
mislead by your choice of 'expert'. However...

Having posted the NO rant as if it were 'evidence', your assertions/beliefs
might be doubted by others. And note that when comparing countries, the
assessed mask wearing rates are far from the only relevant factor.

In practice the aim is that the *combination* of measures put in place act
together to reduce the rates of infections, serious illness, and deaths.
(All different in terms of impact.) The results may also vary with local
climate, population, behaviour, density, etc.

> > This is likely to be true even if no measure offers absolute
> > protection. This is the actual science.

> Ah, claims to be science expert.

Nope, just someone basing their understanding on what the virologists,
epidemiologists, etc, seem to be saying. Not on the basis of the views of
an archeologist appearing on Gor-Blimy Nonsense.

The basic 'science' of masks is fairly simple. Some of the virus 'load' in
the air is intercepted and captured by the mask material. This reduces the
load that gets from one person to another. Which in turn reduces the chance
of infection taking hold, or being serious, etc. That's why mask use is the
norm in risky situations.

The variations are wrt to people using optimally suitable masks and wearing
them correctly. Those factors affect the impact on infection transfer.
Hence it matters if people *do* wear masks when they should, and keep
distance, etc.

How much the infection rate is affected depends on the details of the
situation.

So far as I know, this has been standard epidemiology for a long time, and
why mask wearing is so generally used by medics and recommended for others
when a pathogen is about.

No bias. Just the basic science.

> Nothing stops this virus except vaccines

Erm, that assertion is a tad vague-and-sweeping...

You do realise that sunlight and dry air also tends to destroy a virus
given sufficient exposure? Which is one reason people are recommended to
keep their distance. AIUI a virus lacks the 'envelope' which gives some
protection to bacteria, but bacteria also tend to be damaged given
sufficient exposure.

Hence distance, propagation time, exposure, and masks can and do all
generally reduce infection likelyhood rates. Just then a matter of trying
to get a sufficient mix/combination of these so that you reduce the
infection rates significantly. Ideally to keep R below unity. This matters
less once you have deployed sufficient satisfactory vaccinations. And an
effective vaccine can make a very significant difference.

> and even they have unintended consequences, as do lock downs and fear
> peddling.

Peddling scientifically-ignorant bilge also has consequences if people fall
for the delusions you and some others peddle.

> As this virus will continue to mutate forever and at any time it could
> produce the most deadly and infectious virus ever, at what point will it
> be ok with you to stop wetting the bed at a mention of a new variant?

Erm, you do realise that it is - as yet - quite possible that new variants
may be *less* damaging to victims than earlier versions? The problem is
that that issue isn't yet clear for the current VOC. However the comments
I've seen from epidemiologists, etc, thus far say that it is likely that
vaccination and masks will tend to help reduce infections and the
seriousness of the ones that arise. We''ll know better soon. But winding up
a vaccination campaign seems wise as a precaution at this point. If nothing
else it may lower the rate of serious illnesses and NHS pressure compared
with not doing so as we go into Winter.

Yes, new variations crop up. But from evolution's POV having variations
that are infectious but do NOT kill most hosts is long-term advantageous
for the virus because more of those hosts remain available for re-infection
later on. Killing off your own foodstock is perhaps as bad for a virus in
evolution terms as humans damaging the climate and thus making survival
harder for their own offspring!

You don't need to wet yourself about this,or deny it out of fear. You just
have to learn about the actual science upon which the above is based. Not
fall for any old rant on TV.

> So glad I'm not a lefty, I value personal freedom and responsibility.

Alas, the virus doesn't care what you 'value' or wish to believe.

BTW NO seems to be an archeologist. Will your next 'expert' on covid be,
say, a professional accordianist? After all, they suck and blow a lot of
air, so must know a lot more about airbourne virus transmission than an
archeologist, eh! :-)

And I expect Bob to dismiss the above. But it may help someone else who
doesn't regard GBN as the fountain of Revealed Truth about 'science'.

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 01/12/2021 15:05, Pamela wrote:

>
> Got to admit Neil Oliver speaks with passion and makes a rather good
> orator. If he stopped cultivating his caveman look, he might dupe
> thousands more with his illogical arguments.
>

Don't you think he's rather sexy Pamela?

Bill

On 19:05 1 Dec 2021, williamwright said:
> On 01/12/2021 15:05, Pamela wrote:
>>
>>
>> Got to admit Neil Oliver speaks with passion and makes a rather good
>> orator. If he stopped cultivating his caveman look, he might dupe
>> thousands more with his illogical arguments.
>>
>
> Don't you think he's rather sexy Pamela?
>
> Bill

Not looking like that. He needs a haircut and a shave.

On 01/12/2021 17:52, Java Jive wrote:
> On 01/12/2021 14:18, Bob Latham wrote:

> Which you abuse by abusing others because you have no rational arguments
> to make.

I killfiled the idiot over a year ago. I doubt he'll find this enlightening:
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>

--

Jeff

On 02/12/2021 09:04, Jeff Layman wrote:
>
> On 01/12/2021 17:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 01/12/2021 14:18, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> Which you abuse by abusing others because you have no rational arguments
>> to make.
>
> I killfiled the idiot over a year ago. I doubt he'll find this
> enlightening:
> <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>

However unpalatable the death of a fellow human being is - "Ask not
for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee!" - it's difficult to
resist the temptation to say: "Serves the bloody fool right!"

Probably that story will be in the next Darwin awards.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <soa261$ak1$1@dont-email.me>,
Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 01/12/2021 17:52, Java Jive wrote:
> > On 01/12/2021 14:18, Bob Latham wrote:

> > Which you abuse by abusing others because you have no rational arguments
> > to make.

> I killfiled the idiot over a year ago. I doubt he'll find this enlightening:
> <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>

Who is going to find that enlightening who is the anti-vaxxer?

Bob.

Jeff Layman wrote:

> <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>

If anyone believes that the worst that will happen to them is that
they'll "[go] home to be with the Lord" why would they worry?

On 03/12/2021 13:17, Andy Burns wrote:
> Jeff Layman wrote:
>
>> <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>
>
> If anyone believes that the worst that will happen to them is that
> they'll "[go] home to be with the Lord" why would they worry?

With any luck it'll be the Lord of Darkness!

--

Jeff

On 09:04 2 Dec 2021, Jeff Layman said:
> On 01/12/2021 17:52, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 01/12/2021 14:18, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>>
>> Which you abuse by abusing others because you have no rational
>> arguments to make.
>
> I killfiled the idiot over a year ago. I doubt he'll find this
> enlightening:
> <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-
> covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>

Ah, the secret joys of schadenfreude!

There are now several web sites which list anti-vaxxers who died from
taking their own advice, such as this:

https://ucommblog.com/section/safety/thank-god-they-are-dead

I like this one for its frequently updated citations. They never end.

https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/

On Fri, 03 Dec 2021 13:29:47 GMT, Pamela
<pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 09:04 2 Dec 2021, Jeff Layman said:
>> On 01/12/2021 17:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 01/12/2021 14:18, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Which you abuse by abusing others because you have no rational
>>> arguments to make.
>>
>> I killfiled the idiot over a year ago. I doubt he'll find this
>> enlightening:
>> <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-
>> covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>
>
>Ah, the secret joys of schadenfreude!
>
>There are now several web sites which list anti-vaxxers who died from
>taking their own advice, such as this:
>
>https://ucommblog.com/section/safety/thank-god-they-are-dead
>
>I like this one for its frequently updated citations. They never end.
>
>https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/

Are there any websites listing all the people who decided not to be
vaccinated but *didn't* die? A balanced view should include them.

Rod.

In article <6l7kqgp7vafllsgjgqgolb9tn1hu16p144@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2021 13:29:47 GMT, Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> >On 09:04 2 Dec 2021, Jeff Layman said:
> >> On 01/12/2021 17:52, Java Jive wrote:
> >>> On 01/12/2021 14:18, Bob Latham wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Which you abuse by abusing others because you have no rational
> >>> arguments to make.
> >>
> >> I killfiled the idiot over a year ago. I doubt he'll find this
> >> enlightening:
> >> <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/01/marcus-lamb-
> >> covid-19-daystar-christian-tv-network-dies>
> >
> >Ah, the secret joys of schadenfreude!
> >
> >There are now several web sites which list anti-vaxxers who died from
> >taking their own advice, such as this:
> >
> >https://ucommblog.com/section/safety/thank-god-they-are-dead
> >
> >I like this one for its frequently updated citations. They never end.
> >
> >https://www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/

> Are there any websites listing all the people who decided not to be
> vaccinated but *didn't* die?

Haven't died yet.

> A balanced view should include them.

> Rod.

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

On 03/12/2021 14:13, charles wrote:
> Haven't died yet.

Some forget that the human race has a 100% mortality rate!

"Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5992fd1ee9bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgFMkXxX07U
> Worth a watch, sounds about right to me.
>

If you can tolerate the poor audio quality, Neil Oliver also appears in
a 2 hour podcast here with two Israeli activists:
https://www2.iono.fm/e/1125880

In our current political climate, podcasts (and the alternative media in
general) are a much better source of free and uncensored information.

On the very rare occasions when critics of the "Covid" tyranny are
allowed to speak on the mainstream media, they are strictly limited in
what they are allowed to say, because of Soviet-style OFCOM restrictions,
and the financial and/or political interests of the host broadcaster (and
possibly worse).

On 04/12/2021 14:30, Alexander wrote:
>
> "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:5992fd1ee9bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgFMkXxX07Uv = P g F M k X x X 0 7 U
>> Worth a watch, sounds about right to me.
>
> If you can tolerate the poor audio quality, Neil Oliver also appears in
> a 2 hour podcast here with two Israeli activists:
> h t t p s : / / w w w 2 . i o n o . f m / e / 1 1 2 5 8 8 0

The poor quality of the content is much more likely to be a problem.

> In our current political climate, podcasts (and the alternative media in
> general) are a much better source of free and uncensored information.

Not judging by their effect on you, as evidenced by the absurd
conspiracy theories you subscribe to, such as ...

> On the very rare occasions when critics of the "Covid" tyranny are
> allowed to speak on the mainstream media, they are strictly limited in
> what they are allowed to say, because of Soviet-style OFCOM restrictions,
> and the financial and/or political interests of the host broadcaster (and
> possibly worse).

QED.

--

Fake news kills!

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

In article <sog1bl$td6$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On 04/12/2021 14:30, Alexander wrote:
> >
> > "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:5992fd1ee9bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgFMkXxX07Uv = P g F M k X x X 0 7 U
> >> Worth a watch, sounds about right to me.
> >
> > If you can tolerate the poor audio quality, Neil Oliver also appears
> > in a 2 hour podcast here with two Israeli activists: h t t p s : / / w
> > w w 2 . i o n o . f m / e / 1 1 2 5 8 8 0

> The poor quality of the content is much more likely to be a problem.

After having endured less than 10 mins of NO's Gor Blimy Numpty video I
doubt the wisdom of bothering to follow anything else he may say. Watching
paint dry is probably more educational... so...

I spent a few hours today dis-assembling an ancient old microwave /
convection oven that was clapped out. Did this because, as-was, it was far
too heavy for me to lift away to make space for the new one. Dissasembled,
it was easier to remove. Seemed more profitable than watching more from NO
- with or without added 'activists'.

Presumably, such internet videos tend to be a way for someone to 'promote'
themselves. i.e. the more people watch, the more 'popular' they can be
'seen' to be. i.e. drum up income, etc, as well as make vacuous views seem
'accepted'. Were any kittens involved, playing pianos? If the GBN waffle
had included that it might have raised the intellectual level a bit.

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 <5995a6cfbdnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> After having endured less than 10 mins of NO's Gor Blimy Numpty
> video I doubt the wisdom of bothering to follow anything else he
> may say. Watching paint dry is probably more educational... so...

Dripping with hate and venom because someone dared to have an opinion
different to yours. You couldn't just say I disagree because...

It was the same when you recently described the Linn LP12, a whole
paragraph of bile and hate, you couldn't just say It's not my cup of
tea.

Have you been radicalised or something?

Bob.