https://archive.is/CQzbl
On 3/16/2025 10:26 AM, john larkin wrote:
<https://archive.is/CQzbl>
"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? �It
sort of just appeared,� Fauci said during a preliminary interview for
the subcommittee hearing, adding that he �was not aware of any studies�
that supported it."
Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did
the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal >distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 10:42:53 -0400, bitrex <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/16/2025 10:26 AM, john larkin wrote:
<https://archive.is/CQzbl>
"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? “It
sort of just appeared,” Fauci said during a preliminary interview for
the subcommittee hearing, adding that he “was not aware of any studies” >> that supported it."
Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did
the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal
distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?
Is this in today's Sunday NYT?
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 10:42:53 -0400, bitrex <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/16/2025 10:26 AM, john larkin wrote:
<https://archive.is/CQzbl>
"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? “It
sort of just appeared,” Fauci said during a preliminary interview for
the subcommittee hearing, adding that he “was not aware of any studies” >> that supported it."
Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did
the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal
distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?
Is this in today's Sunday NYT?
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 11:04:29 -0400, Joe Gwinn <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 10:42:53 -0400, bitrex <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/16/2025 10:26 AM, john larkin wrote:
<https://archive.is/CQzbl>
"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? �It >>>sort of just appeared,� Fauci said during a preliminary interview for
the subcommittee hearing, adding that he �was not aware of any studies� >>>that supported it."
Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did >>>the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal >>>distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?
Is this in today's Sunday NYT?
No. It doesn't mention "Trump" so wouldn't be allowed.
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 10:42:53 -0400, bitrex <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/16/2025 10:26 AM, john larkin wrote:
<https://archive.is/CQzbl>
"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? �It >>sort of just appeared,� Fauci said during a preliminary interview for
the subcommittee hearing, adding that he �was not aware of any studies� >>that supported it."
Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did
the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal >>distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?
Is this in today's Sunday NYT?
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 09:42:12 -0700, john larkin <jlArbor.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 11:04:29 -0400, Joe Gwinn <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 10:42:53 -0400, bitrex <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/16/2025 10:26 AM, john larkin wrote:
<https://archive.is/CQzbl>
"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? “It >>>> sort of just appeared,” Fauci said during a preliminary interview for >>>> the subcommittee hearing, adding that he “was not aware of any studies”
that supported it."
Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did >>>> the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal >>>> distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?
Is this in today's Sunday NYT?
No. It doesn't mention "Trump" so wouldn't be allowed.
Good point, but the dateline is "March 16, 2025, 6:00 a.m. ET", and
yet no Donald. Maybe that's the solution - do not speak the name, for
it might summon him.
This is well after the deadline for the Sunday paper. Maybe it'll be
in the Monday NYT.
Joe
On 3/16/2025 1:09 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 09:42:12 -0700, john larkin <jlArbor.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 11:04:29 -0400, Joe Gwinn <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 10:42:53 -0400, bitrex <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/16/2025 10:26 AM, john larkin wrote:
<https://archive.is/CQzbl>
"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? �It >>>>> sort of just appeared,� Fauci said during a preliminary interview for >>>>> the subcommittee hearing, adding that he �was not aware of any studies� >>>>> that supported it."
Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did >>>>> the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal >>>>> distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?
Is this in today's Sunday NYT?
No. It doesn't mention "Trump" so wouldn't be allowed.
Good point, but the dateline is "March 16, 2025, 6:00 a.m. ET", and
yet no Donald. Maybe that's the solution - do not speak the name, for
it might summon him.
This is well after the deadline for the Sunday paper. Maybe it'll be
in the Monday NYT.
Joe
Oops, got my date from this related one by her on the same topic:
<https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/08/opinion/covid-fauci-hearings-health.html>
https://archive.is/CQzbl
On 3/16/2025 10:26 AM, john larkin wrote:
https://archive.is/CQzbl
It's a click-bait title, she mostly just talks about what she wants to
talk about (seems to be catching the "I am being silenced"-bug as many
people with an audience of millions tend to) and uses weasel words like
"Some public health officials..." without actually naming names or
calling anyone specific out.
On 3/16/2025 10:26 AM, john larkin wrote:
https://archive.is/CQzbl
It's a click-bait title, she mostly just talks about what she wants to
talk about (seems to be catching the "I am being silenced"-bug as many
people with an audience of millions tend to) and uses weasel words like
"Some public health officials..." without actually naming names or
calling anyone specific out.
Likely because the evidence "we were badly misled" doesn't amount to
much and so if she puts what she wants to say too late in the op ed
nobody's going to read that far.
Soooo she's still an Ivy League academic. NYT is still the NYT
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:13:54 -0400, bitrex <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/16/2025 10:26 AM, john larkin wrote:
https://archive.is/CQzbl
It's a click-bait title, she mostly just talks about what she wants to
talk about (seems to be catching the "I am being silenced"-bug as many
people with an audience of millions tend to) and uses weasel words like
"Some public health officials..." without actually naming names or
calling anyone specific out.
Likely because the evidence "we were badly misled" doesn't amount to
much and so if she puts what she wants to say too late in the op ed
nobody's going to read that far.
Soooo she's still an Ivy League academic. NYT is still the NYT
"Trust the science" actually means "Trust the scientists" which is not
at all the same thing.
On 3/17/2025 3:10 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:13:54 -0400, bitrex <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/16/2025 10:26 AM, john larkin wrote:
https://archive.is/CQzbl
It's a click-bait title, she mostly just talks about what she wants to
talk about (seems to be catching the "I am being silenced"-bug as many
people with an audience of millions tend to) and uses weasel words like
"Some public health officials..." without actually naming names or
calling anyone specific out.
Likely because the evidence "we were badly misled" doesn't amount to
much and so if she puts what she wants to say too late in the op ed
nobody's going to read that far.
Soooo she's still an Ivy League academic. NYT is still the NYT
"Trust the science" actually means "Trust the scientists" which is not
at all the same thing.
Kristian G. Andersen probably regrets that one text he sent where he
vaguely supported the lab leak hypothesis, I guess it doesn't matter how
many thousands of times he later says variants of "I thought that for a
bit but realized I was being stupid" after that, conspiracy theorists
will treat that one time he said something that they like as God's truth
and evidence of a cover-up, not evidence of an academic being stupid
which does happen sometimes but isn't nearly as interesting.
Thinking multiple things at the same time or changing one's mind does
happen but "experts" seem to almost always be punished for that kind of >flip-flopping, unlike being a politician where saying things like "I was
a Communist, that is until I realized I hated Communism" or "I was for
the war, before I was against it" seems to be some kind of rite of
passage to the big time.
Perhaps it's just the optics of it looking like the flip was done
covertly rather than the kind of clearly self-serving flip-flopping >politicians tend to do out in the open, the latter's a more honest kind
of lying I guess.
Perhaps it's just the optics of it looking like the flip was done
covertly rather than the kind of clearly self-serving flip-flopping
politicians tend to do out in the open, the latter's a more honest kind
of lying I guess.
In electronic design, it's useful to stay confused and change your
mind a lot, in the early design stages. Stagger around the infinite
solution space. But then you have to switch to the brutally
disciplined, make no mistakes implementation mode. Not many people are comfortable doing both.
In electronic design, as in hard sciences like math and physics, you eventually find out if you were right. In the soft and fuzzy studies,
you may never know.
In the case of covid, it was politically forbidden to insult the
Chinese by suggesting the lab leak idea, even though it was about
1000:1 the probable origin of the virus. Politics swamped "science."
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:13:54 -0400, bitrex <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/16/2025 10:26 AM, john larkin wrote:
https://archive.is/CQzbl
It's a click-bait title, she mostly just talks about what she wants to
talk about (seems to be catching the "I am being silenced"-bug as many
people with an audience of millions tend to) and uses weasel words like
"Some public health officials..." without actually naming names or
calling anyone specific out.
Likely because the evidence "we were badly misled" doesn't amount to
much and so if she puts what she wants to say too late in the op ed
nobody's going to read that far.
Soooo she's still an Ivy League academic. NYT is still the NYT
"Trust the science" actually means "Trust the scientists" which is not
at all the same thing.
On 3/17/2025 7:06 PM, john larkin wrote:
Perhaps it's just the optics of it looking like the flip was done
covertly rather than the kind of clearly self-serving flip-flopping
politicians tend to do out in the open, the latter's a more honest kind
of lying I guess.
In electronic design, it's useful to stay confused and change your
mind a lot, in the early design stages. Stagger around the infinite
solution space. But then you have to switch to the brutally
disciplined, make no mistakes implementation mode. Not many people are
comfortable doing both.
In electronic design, as in hard sciences like math and physics, you
eventually find out if you were right. In the soft and fuzzy studies,
you may never know.
In the case of covid, it was politically forbidden to insult the
Chinese by suggesting the lab leak idea, even though it was about
1000:1 the probable origin of the virus. Politics swamped "science."
The bulk of the evidence seems to be from early 2020,
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:41:00 -0400, bitrex <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/17/2025 7:06 PM, john larkin wrote:
Perhaps it's just the optics of it looking like the flip was done
covertly rather than the kind of clearly self-serving flip-flopping
politicians tend to do out in the open, the latter's a more honest kind >>>> of lying I guess.
In electronic design, it's useful to stay confused and change your
mind a lot, in the early design stages. Stagger around the infinite
solution space. But then you have to switch to the brutally
disciplined, make no mistakes implementation mode. Not many people are
comfortable doing both.
In electronic design, as in hard sciences like math and physics, you
eventually find out if you were right. In the soft and fuzzy studies,
you may never know.
In the case of covid, it was politically forbidden to insult the
Chinese by suggesting the lab leak idea, even though it was about
1000:1 the probable origin of the virus. Politics swamped "science."
The bulk of the evidence seems to be from early 2020,
The bulk of the evidence has been concealed or destroyed by the guilty parties.
"Trust the science" actually means "Trust the scientists" which is not
at all the same thing.
It doesn't. Scientists disagree quite a lot, and people trained in
science are trained to read the literature and make up their own minds
about the relative merits of what has been published.
John Larkin is notorious for trusting what the climate change denial propaganda machine has to say about the science involved.
The "scientists" who can be bribed to say what suits the climate change denial propaganda machine, aren't even vaguely trustworthy, and Anthony
Watts - who John Larkin quotes a lot - hasn't even had any kind of
scientific training.
The people who like to push that lab leakage theory about the origin of Covid-19 don't know much about science, but do have a political agenda.
On 3/16/2025 10:26 AM, john larkin wrote:
https://archive.is/CQzbl
"Remember the rule that we should all stay at least six feet apart? “It sort of just appeared,” Fauci said during a preliminary interview for
the subcommittee hearing, adding that he “was not aware of any studies” that supported it."
Was anyone really walking around thinking "Well, thank God someone did
the research the last time we had a global pandemic to find the optimal distance was 6 feet and not 7.8"?
https://archive.is/CQzbl
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 714 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 136:05:25 |
| Calls: | 12,087 |
| Files: | 14,997 |
| Messages: | 6,517,374 |
