03 Oct 21
@eladar saidIf you want to discuss the defintion of "pandemic" and the consequences of the different definitions, you could start here:
If a novel virus shows up and gets people sick but nobody dies, would they call it a pandemic?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81814-3
03 Oct 21
@ponderable saidI was looking for opinion, which is why I asked what he believes.
If you want to discuss the defintion of "pandemic" and the consequences of the different definitions, you could start here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81814-3
04 Oct 21
1 edit
@metal-brain saidYour the idiotic liar who constantly denies reality at the behest of his master in the Kremlin.
So you have none.
Stop lying!
You do realise that it’s only elader and his ilk that don’t think your a complete buffoon? Do you seriously think your bs lies get any traction on these forums?
04 Oct 21
@kevcvs57 saidHe is posting what he believes is true. He does not care if anyone agrees with him. He is not a suck up like most people around here.
Your the idiotic liar who constantly denies reality at the behest of his master in the Kremlin.
You do realise that it’s only elader and his ilk that don’t think your a complete buffoon? Do you seriously think your bs lies get any traction on these forums?
04 Oct 21
@kevcvs57 saidNothing is more idiotic than a person who cannot prove I am wrong.
Your the idiotic liar who constantly denies reality at the behest of his master in the Kremlin.
You do realise that it’s only elader and his ilk that don’t think your a complete buffoon? Do you seriously think your bs lies get any traction on these forums?
Calling something a lie does not make it a lie. You are just in denial.
04 Oct 21
@metal-brain saidGauss is quoted with:
Nothing is more idiotic than a person who cannot prove I am wrong.
Calling something a lie does not make it a lie. You are just in denial.
Any fool can put up a (mathematical) lemma, that isn't provable or disprovable.
If you actually would put up theses which are falsifiable (a necessary condition for a scinetific hypothesis) it could be proven. But as liong as you say. "This and that has not been shown" and your source is some journalist who opposes the current state of the art in science there is no disprove. It would mean that I hunt down that clown and bring him to publish that he was wrong all along.
...and even then you would find some other clown who read the first clown's opinion somewhere and canvasses this as "truth".
The Irish say: Don't argue with a fool, people might not notice the differnce.
So if you want a good debate, post theses which can be falsified. And accept current scientific standards. Thenw e can go on.
There is still a lot to debate anyway. But not if people "know the truth" all along. Then there is no room for debate.
04 Oct 21
@ponderable saidSo you are still unable to prove anything.
Gauss is quoted with:
Any fool can put up a (mathematical) lemma, that isn't provable or disprovable.
If you actually would put up theses which are falsifiable (a necessary condition for a scinetific hypothesis) it could be proven. But as liong as you say. "This and that has not been shown" and your source is some journalist who opposes the current state of the art ...[text shortened]... ot to debate anyway. But not if people "know the truth" all along. Then there is no room for debate.
😆
04 Oct 21
@Metal-Brain
No, what is going on here is you being unable to understand what he said.
When you post rightwing BS sites like the one Trump said wind towers cause cancer, your posts are up there with that kind of crap.
You ONLY put up rightwing BS so what do you expect us to think?