Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> 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

It's so obvious when you get caught out as you start attacking the
messenger on completely unrelated "facts". It makes your foolishness all
the more obvious.

>
>> 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.

Yup. You're a liar.

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

For someone who complains about politics you don't half bring it up a lot.
For no reason.

> As long as you don't try to force others to get a new drug injected into
> them at gunpoint

LOL. Your imagination is running away with you.

On 2022-02-22 10:38 a.m., Rod Speed wrote:
> 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.

That you can't provide a cite to what you claim to be the case?

Yeah.

>
>>>>> 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.

Cite?

>
>> 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.

But cops aren't supposed to shoot unarmed people EVER.

>
>>> 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.

Hunters of large animals don't use AR-15s

sms wrote:
> 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.

ANYONE who actually understands epidemiology, statistics, AND logic,
AND who looks at the actual data and simply tells the truth is declared
by you retards to be "spreading misinformation".

One of them usually posts every day, and this portion of his blog
has been demonetized because those at Google are too stupid to live:

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=245235

On 2/22/2022 11:53 AM, Chris wrote:
> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> As long as you don't try to force others to get a new drug injected into
>> them at gunpoint
>
> LOL. Your imagination is running away with you.

That kind of rhetoric is pretty common among low-information
individuals. They create this myth that someone is forcing them to do
something against their will, and that it's taking away their "freedom,"
though this is the first time I've seen someone bring guns into the
conversation.

No public officials has advocated for forced Covid-19 vaccinations. It
is true that those that voluntarily choose to not get vaccinated often
must face consequences for their refusal, in order to protect public health.

Second, a vaccine is not a drug.

Chris wrote:

> It's so obvious when you get caught out as you start attacking the
> messenger on completely unrelated "facts". It makes your foolishness all
> the more obvious.

Chris,

Adult concept...
a. When you say something intelligent, I commend you for doing so.
b. You know when you say something stupid, I chastise you for doing so.

Don't say ignorant things and I won't say you said ignorant things, Chris.
It's really that easy.

Besides...
1. You are the one who lied about your degree Chris, not me.
2. You are the one who ridiculed common immunology terms, Chris, not me.
3. You're the one who had zero perspective on the viral genome, not me.

I simply showed you were completely ignorant about Covid.
Which isn't even my point.

Yet you don't get it that I don't care that you're ignorant about Covid.
The fact is that most people are completely ignorant about Covid like you.
And that's OK.

What I care about is the SUBJECT of this thread, Chris:
*Ignorant people like Steve gloat with glee when people are _forced_ to*
*be injected with this new drug which they might not want in their body*

And yes, threatening your livelihood is force.
*My Body* *My Choice*

sms wrote:

> They create this myth that someone is forcing them

Adult topic...
The SUBJECT of this thread is about that force you gleefully advocate, Steve.

Threatening them with loss of their livelihood is clearly & obviously force.

Nobody is as stupid as you need them to be when you claim otherwise, Steve.

sms wrote:

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

Adult topic...
Adults will notice Steve can't communicate with educated people on science.

As with Gavin Newsom, Steve has no patience for intellectuals who can think.
<https://deadline.com/2020/09/california-governor-gavin-newsom-no-patience-for-climate-change-deniers-1234572770/>

Since intelligent people don't do what Steve wishes they'd do, the SUBJECT
of this thread is Steve gloating _force_ was being used instead of logic.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> 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.
>
> That you can't provide a cite to what you claim to be the case?
>
> Yeah.

You are even more pathetic. The FBI has plenty of official
stats on this sort of thing. I have seen it cited previously
and Chris is just as capable of finding again as I am.

>>>>>> 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.

> Cite?

Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should have
noticed that when the cops do gun someone down, there
is almost always a formal investigation of that event.

>>> 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.

> But cops aren't supposed to shoot unarmed people EVER.

Thats wrong too, most obviously with those who claim to have
a bomb that they will activate if they don't get what they want
and with those who have a knife or some other weapon.

>>>> 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.

> Hunters of large animals don't use AR-15s

Some do, particularly with the more dangerous large animals.

On 2022-02-22 7:02 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> 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.
>>
>> That you can't provide a cite to what you claim to be the case?
>>
>> Yeah.
>
> You are even more pathetic. The FBI has plenty of official
> stats on this sort of thing. I have seen it cited previously
> and Chris is just as capable of finding again as I am.

So you claim, and implicit (do you know what "implicit" means?) in that
claim is that you've seen them and can therefore produce a source for them.

So do it.

>
>>>>>>> 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.
>
>> Cite?
>
> Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should have
> noticed that when the cops do gun someone down, there
> is almost always a formal investigation of that event.

A "formal investigation" does not necessarily track every bullet that's
fired to its end.

>
>>>> 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.
>
>> But cops aren't supposed to shoot unarmed people EVER.
>
> Thats wrong too, most obviously with those who claim to have
> a bomb that they will activate if they don't get what they want
> and with those who have a knife or some other weapon.

Really?

Cops should should someone who has a knife or "some other weapon"...

....when they have tasers?

>
>>>>> 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.
>
>> Hunters of large animals don't use AR-15s
>
> Some do, particularly with the more dangerous large animals.

Show a source.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That you can't provide a cite to what you claim to be the case?

>>> Yeah.

>> You are even more pathetic. The FBI has plenty of official
>> stats on this sort of thing. I have seen it cited previously
>> and Chris is just as capable of finding again as I am.

> So you claim, and implicit (do you know what "implicit" means?) in that
> claim is that you've seen them

Yes.

> and can therefore produce a source for them.

Wrong, as always when I have seen them cited and didn't bother to keep the
cite.

I told you who had produced those official stats
and you are free to go and find them for yourself.

They were cited in usenet but it isn't that easy to find
something like that again given that the group.google
search is so comprehensively fucked and I'm not
certain that the keyword FBI was actually used. It may
have just been obvious when the link was followed.

> So do it.

Go and fuck yourself, again.

>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>> Cite?

>> Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should have
>> noticed that when the cops do gun someone down, there
>> is almost always a formal investigation of that event.
>
> A "formal investigation" does not necessarily track every bullet that's
> fired to its end.

True, but they do usually count the ones that ended up in an individual
and usually do mention how many shots the cops fired.

>>>>> 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.
>>
>>> But cops aren't supposed to shoot unarmed people EVER.

>> Thats wrong too, most obviously with those who claim to have
>> a bomb that they will activate if they don't get what they want
>> and with those who have a knife or some other weapon.

> Really?

Yep. Most of ours are shot by cops with only a knife
or some other weapon like that in their hand.

Same in europe. Lots have been shot by cops with only a knife in their
hand.

> Cops should should someone who has a knife or "some other weapon"...

> ...when they have tasers?

They aren't always effective and are much
worse when the first use doesnt work and
so they get can get shot instead.

And plenty who do get shot by cops do have a gun.
Only a fool would use a taser in that situation.

>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>> Hunters of large animals don't use AR-15s

>> Some do, particularly with the more dangerous large animals.

> Show a source.

Go and fuck yourself, again.

And we are discussing Chris' stupid claim that

>>>>>>>>>>> No citizen ever needs an AR-15.

If you are protecting yourself against an armed criminal
it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use something that
is designed to shoot humans than something like a glock.

Sure, a shotgun has some advantages, but has some real
disadvantages too, particularly the mess it makes of your
house when used inside it. If you are a decent shot, an
AR-15 can leave your house far less damaged.

And if you are in a state which allows you to shoot a criminal
you see leaving your neighbours place, an AR-15 works a lot
better than a glock or shotgun.

On 2022-02-22 8:11 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> That you can't provide a cite to what you claim to be the case?
>
>>>> Yeah.
>
>>>  You are even more pathetic. The FBI has plenty of official
>>> stats on this sort of thing. I have seen it cited previously
>>> and Chris is just as capable of finding again as I am.
>
>> So you claim, and implicit (do you know what "implicit" means?) in
>> that claim is that you've seen them
>
> Yes.
>
>> and can therefore produce a source for them.
>
> Wrong, as always when I have seen them cited and didn't bother to keep
> the cite.
>
> I told you who had produced those official stats
> and you are free to go and find them for yourself.

Riiiight.

Like it's my job to find what you claim is out there.

>
> They were cited in usenet but it isn't that easy to find
> something like that again given that the group.google
> search is so comprehensively fucked and I'm not
> certain that the keyword FBI was actually used. It may
> have just been obvious when the link was followed.
>
>> So do it.
>
> Go and fuck yourself, again.

You've got nothing and you know it.

Got it.

>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> Cite?
>
>>>  Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should have
>>> noticed that when the cops do gun someone down, there
>>> is almost always a formal investigation of that event.
>>
>> A "formal investigation" does not necessarily track every bullet
>> that's fired to its end.
>
> True, but they do usually count the ones that ended up in an individual
> and usually do mention how many shots the cops fired.

And that backs up your claim, how?

Got any stats collected from those investigations?

No?

Got it.

>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> But cops aren't supposed to shoot unarmed people EVER.
>
>>>  Thats wrong too, most obviously with those who claim to have
>>> a bomb that they will activate if they don't get what they want
>>> and with those who have a knife or some other weapon.
>
>> Really?
>
> Yep. Most of ours are shot by cops with only a knife
> or some other weapon like that in their hand.

Bullshit.

Produce your source.

>
> Same in europe. Lots have been shot by cops with only a knife in their
> hand.
>

Bullshit.

Produce your source.

>> Cops should should someone who has a knife or "some other weapon"...
>
>> ...when they have tasers?
>
> They aren't always effective and are much
> worse when the first use doesnt work and
> so they get can get shot instead.
>
> And plenty who do get shot by cops do have a gun.
> Only a fool would use a taser in that situation.

But we were specifically discussing unarmed individuals.

I can see why you want to run from that subject.

>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> Hunters of large animals don't use AR-15s
>
>>>  Some do, particularly with the more dangerous large animals.
>
>> Show a source.
>
> Go and fuck yourself, again.
>
> And we are discussing Chris' stupid claim that
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No citizen ever needs an AR-15.
>
> If you are protecting yourself against an armed criminal
> it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use something that
> is designed to shoot humans than something like a glock.

Every gun is "designed to shoot humans" in that every firearm is
designed to shoot that which you aim at.

>
> Sure, a shotgun has some advantages, but has some real
> disadvantages too, particularly the mess it makes of your
> house when used inside it. If you are a decent shot, an
> AR-15 can leave your house far less damaged.

You are so incredibly full of shit.

>
> And if you are in a state which allows you to shoot a criminal
> you see leaving your neighbours place, an AR-15 works a lot
> better than a glock or shotgun.

What state would that be?

On 2022-02-22 1:03 p.m., Kill Vaxholes wrote:
> sms wrote:
>> 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.
>
> ANYONE who actually understands epidemiology, statistics, AND logic,
> AND who looks at the actual data and simply tells the truth is declared
> by you retards to be "spreading misinformation".

So go right ahead and explain it...

>
> One of them usually posts every day, and this portion of his blog
> has been demonetized because those at Google are too stupid to live:
>
> https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=245235

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you can't provide a cite to what you claim to be the case?
>>
>>>>> Yeah.
>>
>>>> You are even more pathetic. The FBI has plenty of official
>>>> stats on this sort of thing. I have seen it cited previously
>>>> and Chris is just as capable of finding again as I am.
>>
>>> So you claim, and implicit (do you know what "implicit" means?) in
>>> that claim is that you've seen them

>> Yes.

>>> and can therefore produce a source for them.

>> Wrong, as always when I have seen them cited and didn't bother to keep
>> the cite.

>> I told you who had produced those official stats
>> and you are free to go and find them for yourself.

> Riiiight.

> Like it's my job to find what you claim is out there.

Corse it is if you dispute that.

Tain't my job to rub your nose in FBI official gun stats.

>> They were cited in usenet but it isn't that easy to find
>> something like that again given that the group.google
>> search is so comprehensively fucked and I'm not
>> certain that the keyword FBI was actually used. It may
>> have just been obvious when the link was followed.

>>> So do it.

>> Go and fuck yourself, again.

> You've got nothing and you know it.

You are wrong, as always.

> Got it.

Nope, you never do.

>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> Cite?
>>
>>>> Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should have
>>>> noticed that when the cops do gun someone down, there
>>>> is almost always a formal investigation of that event.
>>>
>>> A "formal investigation" does not necessarily track every bullet
>>> that's fired to its end.

>> True, but they do usually count the ones that ended up in an individual
>> and usually do mention how many shots the cops fired.

> And that backs up your claim, how?

Clearly that is keeping track of shots fired by the cops, fuckwit.

> Got any stats collected from those investigations?

Never said there were any of those, fuckwit.

> No?

> Got it.

Nope, you never 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.
>>>>
>>>>> But cops aren't supposed to shoot unarmed people EVER.
>>
>>>> Thats wrong too, most obviously with those who claim to have
>>>> a bomb that they will activate if they don't get what they want
>>>> and with those who have a knife or some other weapon.

>>> Really?

>> Yep. Most of ours are shot by cops with only a knife
>> or some other weapon like that in their hand.

> Bullshit.

Fact, essentially because very few of our crims
are stupid enough to try using a gun against cops.

> Produce your source.

Go and fuck yourself, again.

>> Same in europe. Lots have been shot by cops with only a knife in their
>> hand.

> Bullshit.

Fact actually.

> Produce your source.

News reports of those the cops have gunned down, particularly in france.

>>> Cops should should someone who has a knife or "some other weapon"...

>>> ...when they have tasers?

>> They aren't always effective and are much
>> worse when the first use doesnt work and
>> so they get can get shot instead.

>> And plenty who do get shot by cops do have a gun.

>> Only a fool would use a taser in that situation.

> But we were specifically discussing unarmed individuals.

You are wrong, as always.

> I can see why you want to run from that subject.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed drunken fantasys.

>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> Hunters of large animals don't use AR-15s
>>
>>>> Some do, particularly with the more dangerous large animals.
>>
>>> Show a source.

>> Go and fuck yourself, again.

>> And we are discussing Chris' stupid claim that

>>>>>>>>>>>>> No citizen ever needs an AR-15.

>> If you are protecting yourself against an armed criminal
>> it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use something that
>> is designed to shoot humans than something like a glock.

> Every gun is "designed to shoot humans"

Wrong, as always. Plenty of them are designed for
target shooting and plenty more for hunting animals.

> in that every firearm is designed to shoot that which you aim at.

Which isnt necessarily a human, fuckwit.

On 2022-02-22 9:04 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you can't provide a cite to what you claim to be the case?
>>>
>>>>>> Yeah.
>>>
>>>>>  You are even more pathetic. The FBI has plenty of official
>>>>> stats on this sort of thing. I have seen it cited previously
>>>>> and Chris is just as capable of finding again as I am.
>>>
>>>> So you claim, and implicit (do you know what "implicit" means?) in
>>>> that claim is that you've seen them
>
>>>  Yes.
>
>>>> and can therefore produce a source for them.
>
>>>  Wrong, as always when I have seen them cited and didn't bother to
>>> keep the cite.
>
>>>  I told you who had produced those official stats
>>> and you are free to go and find them for yourself.
>
>> Riiiight.
>
>> Like it's my job to find what you claim is out there.
>
> Corse it is if you dispute that.

Nope. It's your job to support your own claims.

>
> Tain't my job to rub your nose in FBI official gun stats.
>

Yes, actually. If you have them, it is.

>>>  They were cited in usenet but it isn't that easy to find
>>> something like that again given that the group.google
>>> search is so comprehensively fucked and I'm not
>>> certain that the keyword FBI was actually used. It may
>>> have just been obvious when the link was followed.
>
>>>> So do it.
>
>>>  Go and fuck yourself, again.
>
>> You've got nothing and you know it.
>
> You are wrong, as always.

And yet, more nothing from you!

>
>> Got it.
>
> Nope, you never do.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>>>>  Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should have
>>>>> noticed that when the cops do gun someone down, there
>>>>> is almost always a formal investigation of that event.
>>>>
>>>> A "formal investigation" does not necessarily track every bullet
>>>> that's fired to its end.
>
>>>  True, but they do usually count the ones that ended up in an individual
>>> and usually do mention how many shots the cops fired.
>
>> And that backs up your claim, how?
>
> Clearly that is keeping track of shots fired by the cops, fuckwit.

Nope. It's keeping track of SOME shots... ...maybe.

>
>> Got any stats collected from those investigations?
>
> Never said there were any of those, fuckwit.

Then you have no support for your claim about how many shots miss.

>
>> No?
>
>> Got it.
>
> Nope, you never 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But cops aren't supposed to shoot unarmed people EVER.
>>>
>>>>>  Thats wrong too, most obviously with those who claim to have
>>>>> a bomb that they will activate if they don't get what they want
>>>>> and with those who have a knife or some other weapon.
>
>>>> Really?
>
>>>  Yep. Most of ours are shot by cops with only a knife
>>> or some other weapon like that in their hand.
>
>> Bullshit.
>
> Fact, essentially because very few of our crims
> are stupid enough to try using a gun against cops.

And yet they go up against a cop armed with a firearm with a knife or less?

That makes so much sense.

>
>> Produce your source.
>
> Go and fuck yourself, again.

You've got nothing.

>
>>>  Same in europe. Lots have been shot by cops with only a knife in
>>> their hand.
>
>> Bullshit.
>
> Fact actually.

Then back it up.

>
>> Produce your source.
>
> News reports of those the cops have gunned down, particularly in france.

Read up on "anecdotal evidence".

>
>>>> Cops should should someone who has a knife or "some other weapon"...
>
>>>> ...when they have tasers?
>
>>> They aren't always effective and are much
>>> worse when the first use doesnt work and
>>> so they get can get shot instead.
>
>>>  And plenty who do get shot by cops do have a gun.
>
>>> Only a fool would use a taser in that situation.
>
>> But we were specifically discussing unarmed individuals.
>
> You are wrong, as always.

No, actually.

>
>> I can see why you want to run from that subject.
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed drunken fantasys.
>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hunters of large animals don't use AR-15s
>>>
>>>>>  Some do, particularly with the more dangerous large animals.
>>>
>>>> Show a source.
>
>>>  Go and fuck yourself, again.
>
>>>  And we are discussing Chris' stupid claim that
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No citizen ever needs an AR-15.
>
>>>  If you are protecting yourself against an armed criminal
>>> it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use something that
>>> is designed to shoot humans than something like a glock.
>
>> Every gun is "designed to shoot humans"
>
> Wrong, as always. Plenty of them are designed for
> target shooting and plenty more for hunting animals.
>
>> in that every firearm is designed to shoot that which you aim at.
>
> Which isnt necessarily a human, fuckwit.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you can't provide a cite to what you claim to be the case?
>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah.
>>>>
>>>>>> You are even more pathetic. The FBI has plenty of official
>>>>>> stats on this sort of thing. I have seen it cited previously
>>>>>> and Chris is just as capable of finding again as I am.
>>>>
>>>>> So you claim, and implicit (do you know what "implicit" means?) in
>>>>> that claim is that you've seen them
>>
>>>> Yes.
>>
>>>>> and can therefore produce a source for them.
>>
>>>> Wrong, as always when I have seen them cited and didn't bother to
>>>> keep the cite.
>>
>>>> I told you who had produced those official stats
>>>> and you are free to go and find them for yourself.
>>
>>> Riiiight.
>>
>>> Like it's my job to find what you claim is out there.

>> Corse it is if you dispute that.

> Nope. It's your job to support your own claims.

Not when it is so easy to see the FBI official stats for yourself.

>> Tain't my job to rub your nose in FBI official gun stats.

> Yes, actually.

No, actually.

> If you have them,

I don't, just who produced them.

> it is.

You are wrong, as always.

>>>> They were cited in usenet but it isn't that easy to find
>>>> something like that again given that the group.google
>>>> search is so comprehensively fucked and I'm not
>>>> certain that the keyword FBI was actually used. It may
>>>> have just been obvious when the link was followed.
>>
>>>>> So do it.
>>
>>>> Go and fuck yourself, again.
>>
>>> You've got nothing and you know it.

>> You are wrong, as always.

> And yet, more nothing from you!

For the reason I rubbed your stupid troll nose in.

>>> Got it.

>> Nope, you never do.

>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>
>>>>>> Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should have
>>>>>> noticed that when the cops do gun someone down, there
>>>>>> is almost always a formal investigation of that event.
>>>>>
>>>>> A "formal investigation" does not necessarily track every bullet
>>>>> that's fired to its end.
>>
>>>> True, but they do usually count the ones that ended up in an
>>>> individual
>>>> and usually do mention how many shots the cops fired.
>>
>>> And that backs up your claim, how?

>> Clearly that is keeping track of shots fired by the cops, fuckwit.

> Nope.

Yep.

> It's keeping track of SOME shots... ...

Keeping track of the total shots fire and which ended up in those that got
shot.

> maybe.

No maybe about it.

>>> Got any stats collected from those investigations?

>> Never said there were any of those, fuckwit.

> Then you have no support for your claim about how many shots miss.

You are wrong, as always. Look at the individual investigations, fuckwit.

>>> No?

>>> Got it.

>> Nope, you never 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But cops aren't supposed to shoot unarmed people EVER.
>>>>
>>>>>> Thats wrong too, most obviously with those who claim to have
>>>>>> a bomb that they will activate if they don't get what they want
>>>>>> and with those who have a knife or some other weapon.
>>
>>>>> Really?
>>
>>>> Yep. Most of ours are shot by cops with only a knife
>>>> or some other weapon like that in their hand.
>>
>>> Bullshit.

>> Fact, essentially because very few of our crims
>> are stupid enough to try using a gun against cops.

> And yet they go up against a cop armed with a firearm with a knife or
> less?

Yep, because most of them are completely out of their fucking trees,
drug crazed and some of them are doing a suicide by cop.

> That makes so much sense.

Those completely out of their fucking trees or drug crazed dont make
sense, fuckwit.

Just as true of those stupid enough to try shooting at cops with a firearm.

Fuck all of them ever manage to survive being that stupid.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> It's so obvious when you get caught out as you start attacking the
>> messenger on completely unrelated "facts". It makes your foolishness all
>> the more obvious.
>
> Chris,
>
> Adult concept...
> a. When you say something intelligent, I commend you for doing so.
> b. You know when you say something stupid, I chastise you for doing so.

Don't be such a prick. You're not the arbiter of the truth. You're wrong,
you lied and you know it.

> Don't say ignorant things and I won't say you said ignorant things, Chris.
> It's really that easy.
>
> Besides...
> 1. You are the one who lied about your degree Chris, not me.

Ha! Book aren't degrees. Show a redacted degree certificate and i'll do the
same.

> 2. You are the one who ridiculed common immunology terms, Chris, not me.

You used them incorrectly. I simply "chastised" you.

> 3. You're the one who had zero perspective on the viral genome, not me.

Reality is at alien concept to you, isn't it? Even when it's written there
in black and white for all to see.

> I simply showed I was completely ignorant about Covid.

FTFY.

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

Yep. I'd call your response that too.

>>>>> 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.

Cite?

>> Given that US police forces don't track shots fired.
>
> But the investigation of situations where the cops have gunned down
> someone do.

Cite? Or else it's bullshit.

>> 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.

According to the Washington Post stats - the only reliable source of data -
it's about 15% of all deaths. That's not "fuck all".

>>> 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.

The military don't use AR-15s.

> And why hunters of large animals do too.

Lol. No self-respecting hunter would use an *assault* rifle to hunt. Maybe
idiotic, clueless "trophy" hunters might.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> 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.
>
> Yep. I'd call your response that too.

You have always been a terminal a fuckwit.

Look at the FBI stats, fuckwit.

You don't get to call a damned thing, ever.

>>>>>> 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.

> Cite?

The particular incident, fuckwit.

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

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

> Cite?

Particular incidents, fuckwit.

> Or else it's bullshit.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> 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.

> According to the Washington Post stats - the only reliable source of
> data -

More of your mindless bullshit.

> it's about 15% of all deaths. That's not "fuck all".

Corse it is.

>>>> 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.

> The military don't use AR-15s.

Corse they did, fuckwit.

>> And why hunters of large animals do too.

> Lol. No self-respecting hunter would use an *assault* rifle to hunt.

More of your mindless pig ignorant shit with the most dangerous animals.

> Maybe idiotic, clueless "trophy" hunters might.

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

Pity about what can be useful if some stupid gang banger is invading your
house.

Your original is mindless pig ignorant bullshit.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-02-22 7:02 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That you can't provide a cite to what you claim to be the case?
>>>
>>> Yeah.
>>
>> You are even more pathetic. The FBI has plenty of official
>> stats on this sort of thing. I have seen it cited previously
>> and Chris is just as capable of finding again as I am.
>
> So you claim, and implicit (do you know what "implicit" means?) in that
> claim is that you've seen them and can therefore produce a source for them.

He can't because they don't exist. Not from the FBI anyway. He's confusing
criminal deaths with police shootings. Two very different things.

> So do it.
>
>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>> Cite?
>>
>> Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should have
>> noticed that when the cops do gun someone down, there
>> is almost always a formal investigation of that event.
>
> A "formal investigation" does not necessarily track every bullet that's
> fired to its end.

They are rarely made public as well.

>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>> But cops aren't supposed to shoot unarmed people EVER.
>>
>> Thats wrong too, most obviously with those who claim to have
>> a bomb that they will activate if they don't get what they want
>> and with those who have a knife or some other weapon.
>
> Really?
>
> Cops should should someone who has a knife or "some other weapon"...
>
> ...when they have tasers?

Exactly. Good policing is about de-escalation and arrest where possible.
Not be judge and executioner.

I realise that in the US good policing is an oxymoron.

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> it's about 15% of all deaths. That's not "fuck all".
>
> Corse it is.

I'll ring your employer and tell them to cut your pay by 15% then. It'll
make fuck all difference.

>>>>> 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.
>
>> The military don't use AR-15s.
>
> Corse they did, fuckwit.

Nope. A non-automatic machine gun is not much use in a battle. Numbnuts.

>>> And why hunters of large animals do too.
>
>> Lol. No self-respecting hunter would use an *assault* rifle to hunt.
>
> More of your mindless pig ignorant shit with the most dangerous animals.
>
>> Maybe idiotic, clueless "trophy" hunters might.
>
> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>
> Pity about what can be useful if some stupid gang banger is invading your
> house.

Doesn't happen. They're too busy shooting each other in the streets.

On 2/23/2022 5:37 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> I realise that in the US good policing is an oxymoron.

Good policing does exist, especially in smaller cities.

An adjoining city has a system in place that greatly improves the
quality of policing: "Sunnyvale's Department of Public Safety has a
unique model that combines, fire, police, and EMS. Sworn officers train
and serve in all three roles, in doing so it strengthens the departments
culture of serving and protecting the public with the utmost respect and
sanctity of life.their public safety department requires that each
person be trained as a police officer, fire-fighter, and paramedic."
This system results in higher-paid personnel but it probably saves money
overall.

Chris wrote:

> Don't be such a prick.

I mirror you.
a. When you say something intelligent, I commend you
(for example when you actually _read_ the cite I provied!)
(that's quite unusual for an Apple newsgroup)
b. When you say something ignorant I chastise you
(for example when you childishly giggle over technical terms)
(that's quite common for an Apple newsgroup)

> you lied and you know it.

And yet you can't name even a single lie that you fabricated existing.

(It's very common on the Apple newsgroups that iKooks claim all facts they
are simply ignorant of are lies.)

>> Don't say ignorant things and I won't say you said ignorant things, Chris.
>> It's really that easy.
>>
>> Besides...
>> 1. You are the one who lied about your degree Chris, not me.
>
> Ha! Book aren't degrees. Show a redacted degree certificate and i'll do the
> same.

Your own statements prove you don't have a degree in _any_ science, Chris.
a. No scientist would be ignorant of the RNA genome as you are
b. No scientist would ridicule basic scientific words like you id
c. It wouldn't take a scientist a dozen posts to find a cite fact
etc.

That's what un-educated people od, Chris.
You're undedicated

And that's OK.
I don't care that you're completely ignorant about science & Covid, Chris.
Most people are.

What I care about is ignorant people like you and Steve trying to _force_ a
potent new drug into people's bodies when those people might not want it.

That is the SUBJECT of this thread, after all, Chris
a. _Force_
b. _Force_ injections of potent new drugs
c. _Forced_ into people's bodies whether or not they want it

Even to the point that kids are forced to have a potent novel drug injected
into their developing bodies even as they have a 99.9998% chance of not
dying from the now-common disease which only ignorant people are scared of.

>> 2. You are the one who ridiculed common immunology terms, Chris, not me.
>
> You used them incorrectly. I simply "chastised" you.

I used technical terms as they are used in my immunology books Chris.
You ridiculed every technical term like a giggly kindergarten kid Chris.

You don't even know _why_ you did that, Chris.
But I do.

Your brain is no more complex than that of a kindergarten child, Chris.

>> 3. You're the one who had zero perspective on the viral genome, not me.
>
> Reality is at alien concept to you, isn't it? Even when it's written there
> in black and white for all to see.

And yet I _knew_ the viral genome is _huge_ in terms of RNA mutations.
You did not.

>> I simply showed I was completely ignorant about Covid.
>
> FTFY.

You iKooks can never respond as an adult to facts you're ignorant of.
But that's not my point in this thread as _all_ the iKooks lack education.

My point is that this thread is about FORCE.
Worse, it's about ignorant people wanting to FORCE others to get a drug.
A drug that maybe those other people might not want.

Whatever happened to Steve's oft-quote Democrat slogan of...
*My Body* *My Choice*

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2022-02-22 7:02 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> That you can't provide a cite to what you claim to be the case?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah.
>>>
>>> You are even more pathetic. The FBI has plenty of official
>>> stats on this sort of thing. I have seen it cited previously
>>> and Chris is just as capable of finding again as I am.
>>
>> So you claim, and implicit (do you know what "implicit" means?) in that
>> claim is that you've seen them and can therefore produce a source for
>> them.

> He can't because they don't exist. Not from the FBI anyway.

Bullshit.

> He's confusing criminal deaths with police shootings.

Nope, that original comment was clearly about those shooting intruders.

> Two very different things.

I LATER also commented on those.

>> So do it.

>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should have
>>> noticed that when the cops do gun someone down, there
>>> is almost always a formal investigation of that event.
>>
>> A "formal investigation" does not necessarily track every bullet that's
>> fired to its end.

> They are rarely made public as well.

That's bullshit too with the most newsworthy events and lots
of them get covered in reality TV series like First 48 etc too.

>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> But cops aren't supposed to shoot unarmed people EVER.
>>>
>>> Thats wrong too, most obviously with those who claim to have
>>> a bomb that they will activate if they don't get what they want
>>> and with those who have a knife or some other weapon.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> Cops should should someone who has a knife or "some other weapon"...
>>
>> ...when they have tasers?
>
> Exactly. Good policing is about de-escalation and arrest where possible.

But isn't possible when some nut case or drug crazed
fool is coming at you with a knife or other weapon.

> Not be judge and executioner.

There is no viable alternative if some nut case or drug
crazed fool is coming at you with a knife or other weapon.

> I realise that in the US good policing is an oxymoron.

More of your mindless bullshit.

On 23/02/2022 16:38, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> you lied and you know it.
>
> And yet you can't name even a single lie that you fabricated existing.

That's another lie.

You stated that your CDC "fact" could be found with CTRL+F. It couldn't
because it wasn't there. Even your corrected - by me - factoid still
cannot be found with CTRL+F. That's one example of many.

>> Ha! Book aren't degrees. Show a redacted degree certificate and i'll
>> do the
>> same.
>
> Your own statements prove

I take it you're refusing to prove your qualification(s). That's OK many
people don't have any either.

>>> 2. You are the one who ridiculed common immunology terms, Chris, not me.
>>
>> You used them incorrectly. I simply "chastised" you.
>
> I used technical terms as they are used in my immunology books Chris.

That explains it. You're using 40 yo terms which are inappropriate nowadays.

> And yet I _knew_ the viral genome is _huge_ in terms of RNA mutations.
> You did not.

That's a meaningless statement. Mutations or variants don't have a scale.

The COVID genome is not huge in any context.

Chris wrote:

>> And yet you can't name even a single lie that you fabricated existing.
>
> That's another lie.
>
> You stated that your CDC "fact" could be found with CTRL+F. It couldn't
> because it wasn't there. Even your corrected - by me - factoid still
> cannot be found with CTRL+F. That's one example of many.

Chris,
You said you had a PhD in the sciences, did you not?
Nobody who has a PhD in ANYTHING (let alone the sciences) would MISS what
you missed for days on end, Chris.

They're just not that stupid.
It's not a lie that you couldn't even _find_ a statistic that I told you
about and that I gave you the document and I gave you the EXACT page.

Even then, you couldn't find it Chris.
To call that a lie is just you making excuseses for a fact that instantly
blows your case out of the water about the danger to kids of dying from
Covid.

*Kids have a 99.9998% chance of not dying* (not 99.998 in my typo).

>> I used technical terms as they are used in my immunology books Chris.
>
> That explains it. You're using 40 yo terms which are inappropriate nowadays.

Those papers were recent Chris.
As are the terms which have been in use since the dawn of immunology.

Why don't you stop showing you are _desperate_ to find something (anything!)
you can claim doesn't prove you are completely ignorant about science Chris.

>> And yet I _knew_ the viral genome is _huge_ in terms of RNA mutations.
>> You did not.
>
> That's a meaningless statement. Mutations or variants don't have a scale.
>
> The COVID genome is not huge in any context.

Why don't you stop showing you are _desperate_ to find something (anything!)
you can claim doesn't prove you are completely ignorant about science Chris.

I know you're ignorant.
I know you lied about your PhD Chris.
You need everyone to be stupid to believe ANY of your claims, Chris.

I don't care that you're ignorant, Chris.
That has never been my main point.

1. My main point is that ignorant people like you are the most scared.
2. Hence, ignorant people like you are the most emotionally desperate.
3. As ignorant people like you want to _force_ others to inject new drugs.

I think I proved my point long ago that the most ignorant people like you
and Steve clearly are, are the ones who are scared - not the intelligent
people.

Your arguments are only based on ignorance, fear, and politics, which, as
Gavin Newsom said, frustrates Democrats because they can't convince
"intellectuals" of their purely fear based arguments which defy science.

Since you can't get reasonable people to believe you, you want to _force_
them (at the risk of losing their livelihood) to make ignorant choices.
--
THAT is my point (which has been proven in spades).