On 2/20/2022 10:21 PM, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> Here, I'll give it to you again from the FDA web site Chris:
>>> "Drugs are defined as articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure,
>>>  mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease and as articles
>>> intended
>>>  to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or
>>> animals."
>>> <https://www.fda.gov/drugs/fda-drug-info-rounds-video/transcript-definition-drug-april-2017>
>>>
>>
>> Now compare it to the definition for vaccines. Very different.
>
> Funnily so, this shot meets the FDC definition of a drug far better.

What FDC definition of a vaccine did you use? Link? What specifically
makes the covid vaccine more like a drug?

Your statement is vague.

> a. Understand what this shot contains
> b. Compare it to the CDC vaccine definition
> c. Compare it to the FDC drug definition
>

Go ahead and make those comparisons. Show you actually know what you are
talking about.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>> American gun owners are the most frightened people in the world.
>>>>> NRAprey
>>>>> on people's fears. No citizen ever needs an AR-15. It's all bullshit.

>>>> Thats bullshit if someone shows up at your place with just a glock
>>>> and you prefer to kill them before they get close enough to kill you.

>>> You watch too many films.

>> Don't watch any at all. I look at the official stats.

> what official stats? There aren't any in the US.

Bullshit.

>> Even the cops manage to hit fuck all with their glocks. In spades with
>> stupid gang bangers.

> Clearly not true.

We'll see...

> Police shootings are responsible for about 1000 deaths a year.

I meant the number of shots they fire that don't even hit the target.

> The role of the police, however, is not to shoot and kill people.

That's pig ignorant bullshit if someone is shooting others.

And no matter how desperately you bullshit, an AR-15 works a hell of a lot
better
than a glock in plenty of situations so your original is mindless pig
ignorant bullshit.

Chris wrote:

> I already did that. SIX times. OK. maybe only 5 as one of them you did
> acknowledge.

Steve,
The only fact I got wrong was my memory of the location of the decimal place
on an article I read in November where the correction of that decimal place
only made my argument _stronger_ (and yours weaker).

Steve even denied that these facts even exist, which is why Steve brings up
Trump in every other sentence, and his "joe" nym brings up the Governor of
Florida (of all people) as his _only_ cite that backs up his "facts".

The only thing you can bring up is what I _knew_ you'd bring up, Chris:
a. Ignorance
b. Fear
c. Force

Remember, I don't mind at all that you're driven only by the first two.
What I mind is the _force_ you want to inflict on other people, Chris.

It's the _force_ that this thread SUBJECT is why Steve was gloating.
Don't you see why Steve is so gleeful about forcing people to be shot?
I do.

Steve can't convince people to get the drug based on facts.
Hence, Steve resorts to _force_ to inject them with a drug they don't want.
--
My argument is an adult argument - not a kindergarten argument.

joe wrote:

> What FDC definition of a vaccine did you use? Link? What specifically
> makes the covid vaccine more like a drug?

1. Chris knows _exactly_ the vax definition because _he_ provided it to me.
2. I already _knew_ what it was so I let Chris pick the CDC definition cite.
3. I also let Chris pick the FDC definition of a drug cite.

Chris is the only one here who "can" comprehend this simple observation:
*The shot fits the FDA 'drug' definition far better than the CDC 'vax'*
> Your statement is vague.

You're "Steve" most likely, but even so, my argument was stated in spades.
That _you_ whooshed on the argument doesn't make my argument vague.

I'm not one who is known for lacking comprehension of detail, mind you.

> Go ahead and make those comparisons. Show you actually know what you are
> talking about.

At the risk of stating what I've already stated a hundred times...
a. The CDC definition _skips_ the most important step of _how_ it works.
b. The FDA definition does not.

Simple as that.
But even that is too difficult for people like you to begin to comprehend.

And that's OK.
Most people are uneducated and unschooled in the sciences like you are.

Just don't force them to have a drug injected into their bodies, that's all.

Chris wrote:

>> Funnily so, this shot meets the FDC definition of a drug far better.
>
> Prove it.

Chris,
You lack education which you're shouting out to me when you claim that.

There is no way any CDC or FDA fact from me is going to fit in your brain.
I can't teach stupid (it's why I plonked Alan Baker - he's beyond hope).

However, you are the only iKook who even _read_ the cites I provided.
That alone puts you worlds above the rest of the uneducated iKooks, Chris.

So there's still hope for you yet, Chris.
1. Read the definition of a drug -> that's _exactly_ what the shot does.
2. Read the vax definition -> It's _completely_ missing what the shot does.

If you can't see that, it's just more proof of what I say about you.
a. You have no perspective on immunology
b. You have no perspective on genetics
c. You have no perspective on virology
and now...
d. You have no perspective on pharmacology

None.
And that's OK.

It's OK that you're ignorant Chris.
Most people are as ignorant as you are.

But don't be so confident in wanting to _force_ others to be like you.
That's all.

>> Notice you can't argue without demonizing everyone else, Chris?
>
> The people responsible for enabling mass deaths of children under the guise
> of self defence. Should be demonised: they dance on the graves of the dead.

Chris,
Remember I said all your arguments I can predict years in advance?
Do you remember _why_ I said that?
a. You base _every_ argument not on facts, but on fear & ignorance
b. You come up with too-simple (kindergarten) solutions that can't work
c. You completely ignore the (rather difficult) facts of the situation

Every argument from ill educated people like you and Steve is the same.
Where do you discuss the 2nd Amendment, Chris?

Because _that_ is what it's about.

Until you present an argument that shows an education of and understanding
of what the 2nd Amendment is there for, you'll remain a kindergarten kid.

>> I said the 2nd amendment is about governance.
>
> Nope. You said it was about freedom.

It's about governance.
It's not about fear or kids or schools or emotions.

It's about governance.
Anyone educated in history knows this, Chris.

You lack perspective.
Like a kindergarten kid lacks perspective.

Again, that's OK that you're ignorant of the Constitution, Chris.
Plenty of people are like you - completely unschooled in history.

The problem you have with me is that I'm not.
I'm rather well educated in history, Chris.

Wanna see my books! :) <=== while true... that was humor

>> You said that's bullshit - you said it's about ignorance & fear.
>
> Yup. The NRA are fear mongers.

I didn't say a single word about the NRA.
While you & Steve instantly demonize those you don't like, I speak facts.

You and Steve can't converse like _educated_ people should, Chris.
What can you tell me about the 2nd Amendment, Chris?

Why did James Madison write the 2nd Amendment, Chris?
What did _he_ say about tyrannical federal government.

Here, I'll give you an historical hint, OK? Fair enough head start?
"James Madison introduced the Second Amendment to placate various
fears regarding the military, the balance of power between the
federal and state governments, and the use of standing armies."

Do you want more history lessons, Chris?
Whom does the second amendment apply to (according to the Supreme Court)?
Whom?

> It's funny how you use the risk of harm and lack of benefit to children to
> push an antivax view. Yet when guns are a clear and present danger to
> children then everything is fine.

Chris,
You can't predict my arguments like I can predict yours because mine are
_not_ those of kindergarten kids just as you can't predict what I think
about Apple because Apple doesn't feed me how to think about my iPads.

I am a rather well educated person.
I have at least average intelligence (I almost aced all my standard tests).
You're not going to hear from me a kindergarten argument from any political
party.

For example, I may even know your (kindergarten) stance on abortion, Chris.
Perhaps better'n you think you do.

Mine is based on science, logic, and fact... not politics or religion.
a. It's homicide
b. Worse, it's homicide of the most innocent person on the planet
c. Your own flesh & blood - and you "homicided" it
d. It's just as dead as if you murdered your own cats and dogs, Chris.
e. And that's ugly - very ugly - I won't pretend it's not very ugly indeed.
f. It's not about "choice"... it's about death of an innocent baby Chris
g. And it's not about "viability" (NY State law proves that in spades)
h. Nobody but God herself can determine viability in fact
i. Certainly not a legally mandated "line in the sand" doesn't determine it
Yet...
A. I'm all for abortion
B. But I'm not fooled in the least by Roe v Wade "privacy" arguments
C. Yet, I'll not argue against them because I'm all for abortion
D. It's not for religious reason, as I'm only religious in a foxhole
E. It's not for "choice" reason either as homicide is a bad choice
Yet... I'm all for abortion

Why?
Simple. Logical. Sensible.

A. Society commits homicide all the time for the good of society
B. We have about 50 criminal executions per year, for example.
C. We have many case of justifiable homicides (e.g., self defense).
D. The police kill plenty of people every single day for society.
E. Even suicide, in some cases, I would think is justifiable homicide.

I'm all for abortion, knowing all of the above, because it's good for the
mother (we can hope) and it's good for the family (we can hope) and, as a
result, it's good for society.

No other reason.
But don't pretend it's not ugly.

I'm not a kindergarten child, Chris.
I'm too well educated to believe it's about 'choice' or 'privacy' Chris.

It's about homicide.
I own adult perspective.

To me, abortion is justifiable homicide for the reasons above.
I'll bet your stance doesn't have anywhere near the perspective as mine.

Am I right Chris?
--
(HINT: I can predict your arguments _years_ in advance, not because I'm a
genius mind you, but because ALL your arguments are that of uneducated
people.)

On 2022-02-21 11:42 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> I already did that. SIX times. OK. maybe only 5 as one of them you
>> did acknowledge.
>
> Steve,

His name isn't Steve, so you've already got that wrong.

> The only fact I got wrong was my memory of the location of the
> decimal place on an article I read in November where the correction
> of that decimal place only made my argument _stronger_ (and yours weaker).
>
How about you calling the size of the SARS-CoV-2 genome "huge"

"The fact you don't even realize that the genome of this virus is huge,"

That was wrong.

>
> Steve even denied that these facts even exist,

It's wrong to imply that what Steve says is irrelevant in a reply to Chris.

> which is why Steve brings up Trump in every other sentence, and his
> "joe" nym brings up the Governor of Florida (of all people) as his
> _only_ cite that backs up his "facts".

You have this fantasy world where if more than one person disagrees with
you, it must be because they are all actually one person.

Wrong.

On 2022-02-21 11:42 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> Funnily so, this shot meets the FDC definition of a drug far better.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> Chris, You lack education which you're shouting out to me when you claim
> that.
>
> There is no way any CDC or FDA fact from me is going to fit in your brain.
> I can't teach stupid (it's why I plonked Alan Baker - he's beyond hope).

Nope. You killfiled me because I demanded you back up your bullshit.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> I already did that. SIX times. OK. maybe only 5 as one of them you did
>> acknowledge.
>
> Steve,

Bzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> Funnily so, this shot meets the FDC definition of a drug far better.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> Chris,
> You lack education which you're shouting out to me when you claim that.

So you can't. Got it. Yet another "fact" you can't support.

Not Chris or Steve or Joe wrote:

> How about you calling the size of the SARS-CoV-2 genome "huge"

Everything I claim is based on well-known published scientific facts.
Not meaningless emotional fear-mongering political wacko clickbait.

1. I have an education in this field which means I have perspective on
a. Genetics
b. Immunology
c. Virology

2. Chris does not.
Which is fine.
Most people are ignorant of {genetics,immunology,virology}/

3. The topic was mutations of the virus which I assessed based on facts.
a. That assessment was based on the fact it's an RNA genome
b. That assessment was based on the fact it's a _huge_ RNA genome
c. And that assessment was based on the number of mutations

People who are not versed in such things can't make that assessment.
That's why everything Chris claimed about the above - was wrong.

And that's OK.
Almost all people are ignorant of such things.

As long as they don't force their ignorance on everyone else,
I'm perfectly OK with the knowledge that most people are ignorant.

It's only when people like Steve _force_ others to do the same ignorant
things that ignorant people like Steve would do that I say anything.

*It's the most ignorant who are forcing drugs to be injected into people!*

Chris wrote:

>> Steve,
>
> Bzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing.

Have you _ever_ responded to a post _not_ as a kindergarten child, Chris?

Chris wrote:

>> You lack education which you're shouting out to me when you claim that.
>
> So you can't. Got it. Yet another "fact" you can't support.

Name a _single_ fact that I stated that you claim is wrong.
*Name just one*
--
And no, being slightly off by a point isn't a big deal considering either
decimal place _destroys_ your argument and only makes mine stronger.

On 2022-02-21 1:30 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> You lack education which you're shouting out to me when you claim that.
>>
>> So you can't. Got it. Yet another "fact" you can't support.
>
> Name a _single_ fact that I stated that you claim is wrong.
> *Name just one*

"Funnily so, this shot meets the FDC definition of a drug far better."

No surprise that you clipped it from your reply

On 2/21/2022 4:22 AM, joe wrote:

> What FDC definition of a vaccine did  you use?  Link? What specifically
> makes the covid vaccine more like a drug?

Pfizer is developing a drug to tread Covid-19, and it is in clinical
trials. But it's important for people to understand that a vaccine to
prevent a viral infection is very different than a drug to treat a viral
infection.

Some people, including Andy/Arlen/Harry, also don't know the difference
between a bacterial infection and a viral infection, which is something
that doctors often have to explain to patients demanding antibiotics for
viral infections.

sms wrote:

> Some people, including Andy/Arlen/Harry, also don't know the difference
> between a bacterial infection and a viral infection

Steve is _desperate_ now... given such outlandish strawman fabrications.

For Steve to fabricate such a preposterous and clearly fake claim is like me
claiming that Steve doesn't know a battery from a resistor, given Steve has
an EE degree (and if Steve used an example of a battery which shows its
internal resistance).

Steve is _desperate_ to the point of this preposterous fabrication of his.

The fact remains that out of his ignorance & fear Steve wants to use force.
All his outlandish fabrications & denials of fact don't change that fact.

*Steve can't create a logical argument based on facts*
So he resorts to force to make you do what _he_ wants you to do.
*Your Body*. *His Choice*.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> Steve,
>>
>> Bzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing.
>
> Have you _ever_ responded to a post _not_ as a kindergarten child, Chris?

It's called humour. I get it that you don't understand humour.

Chris wrote:

>>> Bzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing.
>>
>> Have you _ever_ responded to a post _not_ as a kindergarten child, Chris?
>
> It's called humour. I get it that you don't understand humour.

I asked you for facts.
Instead of providing any facts, you played silly kindergarten games.

Hence, I responded as any adult would that you always act like a child.
It's what _defines_ all of you iKooks, Chris.

None of you have any education.
All of you act like kindergarten children.

Your own brain is _why_ you gravitate to the toy operating systems, Chris.

On 21/02/2022 17:36, Rod Speed wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> American gun owners are the most frightened people in the world.
>>>>>> NRAprey
>>>>>> on people's fears. No citizen ever needs an AR-15. It's all bullshit.
>
>>>>> Thats bullshit if someone shows up at your place with just a glock
>>>>> and you prefer to kill them before they get close enough to kill you.
>
>>>> You watch too many films.
>
>>> Don't watch any at all. I look at the official stats.
>
>> what official stats? There aren't any in the US.
>
> Bullshit.

Cite?

>>> Even the cops manage to hit fuck all with their glocks. In spades with
>>> stupid gang bangers.
>
>> Clearly not true.
>
> We'll see...
>
>> Police shootings are responsible for about 1000 deaths a year.
>
> I meant the number of shots they fire that don't even hit the target.

I'd love to know where you have data on this. Given that US police
forces don't track shots fired. Unlike in the UK where every bullet is
counted out and counted back in.

>> The role of the police, however, is not to shoot and kill people.
>
> That's pig ignorant bullshit if someone is shooting others.

Many shootings involve unarmed individuals.

> And no matter how desperately you bullshit, an AR-15 works a hell of a
> lot better
> than a glock in plenty of situations so your original is mindless pig
> ignorant bullshit.

You're just making things up.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Not Chris or Steve or Joe wrote:
>
>> How about you calling the size of the SARS-CoV-2 genome "huge"
>
> Everything I claim is based on well-known published scientific facts.

No it isn't. It's based on photos of 40 yo books.

I quoted and cited a paper stating that RNA viral genomes are "small". I
have also cited a paper which states that even for an RNA virus the size of
SARS-CoV-2 genome is nothing special. You have preferred to ignore and snip
that. You are intentionally blinkering yourself so that you can make
*baseless* claims.

You are far from factual or scientific.

On 2/22/2022 12:40 AM, Chris wrote:
> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>>>> Steve,
>>>
>>> Bzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing.
>>
>> Have you _ever_ responded to a post _not_ as a kindergarten child, Chris?
>
> It's called humour. I get it that you don't understand humour.

Well at least you should learn to speak American, and spell things
properly, it's humor, not humour. Then I wouldn't get those red squiggly
lines indicating misspelled words.

Chris wrote:

>> Everything I claim is based on well-known published scientific facts.
>
> No it isn't. It's based on photos of 40 yo books.

The fact that your only excuse for _you_ getting the facts wrong is a fact.
a. You disputed like a child the immunological words that I used
b. You disputed like a moron the size of the RNA genome
c. You disputed like an idiot the CDC facts I presented

You have no education Chris, so you lack perspective.
No educated person would ever claim what you do.

For years I wondered what's wrong with you iKooks.
The answer is none of you iKooks has any education to speak of.
> I quoted and cited a paper stating that RNA viral genomes are "small". I
> have also cited a paper which states that even for an RNA virus the size of
> SARS-CoV-2 genome is nothing special. You have preferred to ignore and snip
> that. You are intentionally blinkering yourself so that you can make
> *baseless* claims.
>
> You are far from factual or scientific.

Chris,
The fact remains I know & always knew exactly the size of the viral genome.
a. What I knew that you didn't know was how _huge_ it is in perspective.
b. Also what I knew that you didn't know was why it matters that it's RNA.
c. And, I knew what you didn't know which was that it matters for mutations.

The fact I knew all of this forty years ago and you _still_ don't know it is
what's most telling of all. You have _zero_ perspective on Covid, Chris.

All you have is
a. Ignorance
b. Emotion
c. Fear

And that's OK.

Most people are just as ignorant (and hence fearful) as you are.
All they know is the emotional clickbait, Chris.

And that's fine.

All the wacko Democrats like Steve are the same way.
As Gavin Newsom clearly said, he doesn't have patience for intellectuals.

As long as you don't try to force others to get a new drug injected into
them at gunpoint that those others may not want, it doesn't matter to me
that you're ignorant, and filled with emotional fears. Not facts.

On 2/22/2022 3:44 AM, Chris wrote:
> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Not Chris or Steve or Joe wrote:
>>
>>> How about you calling the size of the SARS-CoV-2 genome "huge"
>>
>> Everything I claim is based on well-known published scientific facts.
>
> No it isn't. It's based on photos of 40 yo books.
>
> I quoted and cited a paper stating that RNA viral genomes are "small". I
> have also cited a paper which states that even for an RNA virus the size of
> SARS-CoV-2 genome is nothing special. You have preferred to ignore and snip
> that. You are intentionally blinkering yourself so that you can make
> *baseless* claims.
>
> You are far from factual or scientific.

One thing that Andy/Arlen/Harry definitely should consider doing is to
use credible sources. Basing his posts on things that he reads on
right-wing Qanon websites and fake news sites like OAN or Fox News, is
not serving him well, nor of course is trying to extrapolate something
from photos seen in decades old books.

The problem is that there are no non-lunatic web sites that he can use
that support anything he claims.

With Covid, what we are dealing with in the U.S., more than any
first-world country, is a small, but sufficiently significant number of
people like Andy/Arlen/Harry, that have no educational background that
enables them to understand epidemiology, statistics, or logic, but that
feel compelled to display their lack of knowledge by trying to spread
misinformation.

In some poorer countries, or some densely populated countries, the
spread of Covid is because of a lack of financial resources for
vaccines, or the crowded living conditions that are conducive to the
spread of viral infections. In the U.S. the spread of Covid is more
related to low-information people that reject factual information for
political reasons.

On 2022-02-22 12:45 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>>> Bzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing.
>>>
>>> Have you _ever_ responded to a post _not_ as a kindergarten child,
>>> Chris?
>>
>> It's called humour. I get it that you don't understand humour.
>
> I asked you for facts.

But you rarely provide them yourself.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>> American gun owners are the most frightened people in the world.
>>>>>>> NRAprey
>>>>>>> on people's fears. No citizen ever needs an AR-15. It's all
>>>>>>> bullshit.
>>
>>>>>> Thats bullshit if someone shows up at your place with just a glock
>>>>>> and you prefer to kill them before they get close enough to kill
>>>>>> you.
>>
>>>>> You watch too many films.
>>
>>>> Don't watch any at all. I look at the official stats.
>>
>>> what official stats? There aren't any in the US.

>> Bullshit.

> Cite?

Pathetic.

>>>> Even the cops manage to hit fuck all with their glocks. In spades with
>>>> stupid gang bangers.
>>
>>> Clearly not true.
>> We'll see...
>>
>>> Police shootings are responsible for about 1000 deaths a year.

>> I meant the number of shots they fire that don't even hit the target.

> I'd love to know where you have data on this.

From particularly incidents where the cops have gunned down someone.

> Given that US police forces don't track shots fired.

But the investigation of situations where the cops have gunned down
someone do.

> Unlike in the UK where every bulletis counted out and counted back in.

Thats just one way of doing it.

>>> The role of the police, however, is not to shoot and kill people.

>> That's pig ignorant bullshit if someone is shooting others.

> Many shootings involve unarmed individuals.

Fuck all by cops.

>> And no matter how desperately you bullshit, an AR-15 works a hell of a
>> lot better
>> than a glock in plenty of situations so your original is mindless pig
>> ignorant bullshit.
>
> You're just making things up.

Nope, there might just be a reason why the military used those instead of
glocks, fuckwit.

And why hunters of large animals do too.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 12:40 AM, Chris wrote:
>> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Steve,
>>>>
>>>> Bzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing.
>>>
>>> Have you _ever_ responded to a post _not_ as a kindergarten child, Chris?
>>
>> It's called humour. I get it that you don't understand humour.
>
> Well at least you should learn to speak American, and spell things
> properly, it's humor, not humour. Then I wouldn't get those red squiggly
> lines indicating misspelled words.

It's not misspelled here ;)