Jump to content

peterms

Full Member
  • Posts

    11,162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Posts posted by peterms

  1. 4 hours ago, bickster said:

    If it happened in the Lab as you suggest, then it's been covered up. Thats the conspiracy theory, you do see that? it is after all the logical conclusion of your argument.

    With previous incidents, I gather it took a while to establish what had happened and how.  Your claim rests on people already knowing what happened, and choosing to cover it up.

    In other words, you posit a conspiracy, in order to suggest that other people believe there is a conspiracy.

    Apart from the logical fallacy, circular reasoning and straw man, I wonder why you feel the need to do this?

  2. 2 hours ago, bickster said:

    Lets see... which of these do you think is the most likely

    Some super secret virus lab which will no doubt be sealed off to the public with little chance of a virus escaping (because the Chinese aren't THAT stupid and clumsy) or

    The virus transferred from bat to human via the wet markets in a region with a population of 60 million, these markets are a disaster waiting to happen and its happened before

    I know where my money's going but I suspect the tin foil runes fall a different way

    The general view is that the markets are the most likely.  However, you'd be foolish to discount possible leaks from the facilities where these things are developed.  Perhaps you know that SARS is reported to have escaped from labs on six occasions, four of them in China.  And foot and mouth is reported to have escaped some years back from a Pirbright lab, which would help explain why they are very quick to refute any suggestions of a connection between this and their current work.

    Mistakes happen, even at places dealing with the deadliest things, where the need for the highest levels of security is well understood.  Like the two people who caught smallpox in Birmingham Medical School, where the virus was being grown for research.

    What I find difficult to understand is why some people see a comment about possible mistakes and accidents, and squeal "Conspiracy theory!  Tin foil!".  A conspiracy is the very opposite of an accident.  You do see that, don't you?

  3. 1 minute ago, KentVillan said:

    The patent linked to in your original post is held by the Pirbright Institute.

    I discounted the idea that the patent you linked to was evidence of anything sinister.

    Perhaps you have misread what I wrote, and conflated it with something you have read elsewhere.

    As I said, the Pirbright patent was an example of people developing coronaviruses, in that case of a type different to the one in the news.  The point was simply to illustrate that people are developing viruses in various places for various reasons, in support of the notion that the one in question may have been developed and have somehow escaped.

    To present this as being a suggestion that the Pirbright one is the same, or the cause of the current epidemic, is a distortion of what I wrote, and to then frame it as a "conspiracy theory" is frankly weird.

    Do you have a view on the possibility that there may be a connection between research on viruses carried by bats in an advanced virology clinic in Wuhan, and the emergence of a virus linked to bats, also in Wuhan, or do you think it's a simple coincidence?

  4. 5 hours ago, KentVillan said:

    With all due respect, the suggestion in your post is a pretty blatant conspiracy theory, and a quick read of the patent link (and a fairly basic understanding of how vaccines work) would have pointed you in that direction. Took me 2 mins to find the link above debunking it.

    There is a conspiracy theory doing the rounds, ie that it was developed as biowarfare.  That is very different from what I said.  Presumably the PIrbright thing refers to that.

    The Wuhan research centre does research on viruses which can cross from bats to other animals, I gather, among other things.  It is the most biosecure facility in China, and therefore works on the more dangerous things, including things that can cross to humans.   It's not a great leap of the imagination, nor a conspiracy theory, to think that some failure in security procedures may have allowed something to escape.  In fact, ruling out such a possibility would seem very odd.  Why would you discount such a thing, out of hand?

  5. 10 hours ago, flashingqwerty said:

    When someone mis-times a tackle does that mean its not a foul?

    No, it doesn't 

    I agree.  But also, when someone mistimes a tackle it doesn't mean it is a foul.  It may be, it may not.  If he was never likely to get the ball, or went in flailing wildly, I'd agree it would be a foul, but he had every chance of getting it, was clearly aiming at the ball, and didn't show undue aggression or use disproportionate force, in my view.  It also didn't affect that particular play - Engels got the header and missed, and the contact didn't affect either of those two things.

    10 hours ago, flashingqwerty said:

    But, whilst i agree a penatly would be harsh, to the letter of the law, and in the context of your comparison, it should be a penalty.

    So careless play rather than dangerous or reckless play?  That's a stronger argument than the red card view. 

    I haven't seen any discussion of it other than on here.  I'd be interested in hearing a couple of refs outline their thinking on cases like this.  You want to minimise injuries, while allowing physical challenges and going for disputed balls.  Incidents like this are useful in showing what should and shouldn't be judged a foul.

    • Like 1
  6. 16 minutes ago, screwdriver said:

    100% stone wall pen

    If Englels goes up for a header and impedes the goaly and we score 100% it will be a free kick against.

    Why should only goalkeepers get "offered protection" in the box?

    What does a keeper need to do to get sent off? a Tony Schumacher?

    Keepers do get sent off.

    They get more protection because of the history of injuries down the years.  Some think they now get too much protection.

    In the same way that a clash of heads isn't automatically a foul, a clash of any other part of the body also isn't automatically so.

    It looked to me like an accident and an honest attempt to go for the ball.  Do you think it was intentional?

  7. Must say I don't see the Engels incident as a penalty.

    They both go for it, and Engels gets hit.  It doesn't seem intentional, but calling it "punched him in the face" makes it sound so.  If it was a clash of heads, as it would be if it was two outfield players, you wouldn't say one player nutted the other in the face, unless you thought that was the intent.

    I think the keeper went for the ball, mistimed it, and hit him without meaning to.  It happens.

    • Like 1
  8. There are suggestions that the virus was developed deliberately, perhaps as a treatment for something, and that something went wrong.

    For example, here is a patent taken out a year ago for presumably a different coronavirus, developed to treat bronchial disease in poultry.

    Quote

    Coronavirus
     

    Abstract

    The present invention provides a live, attenuated coronavirus comprising a variant replicase gene encoding polyproteins comprising a mutation in one or more of non-structural protein(s) (nsp)-10, nsp-14, nsp-15 or nsp-16. The coronavirus may be used as a vaccine for treating and/or preventing a disease, such as infectious bronchitis, in a subject.

     

    • Like 1
  9. That tool Levy, again.

    Quote

    Mauricio Pochettino was left fuming after Daniel Levy agreed a £10million Tottenham deal with Amazon to record a fly-on-the-wall documentary for this season, Football Insider understands...

    ...The Argentine felt the cameras were intrusive and “blew his top” when it emerged that some were to be fixed in his office on a full-time basis.

    Pochettino felt like he was being “spied” upon by the documentary makers and that Levy had gone too far in granting access to areas that should be sacrosanct...

    Incomprehensible that any management figure, in any occupation, would behave in this way to his/her staff.  Ever.  If you ever work for such a person, leave, asap.

  10. On 21/01/2020 at 22:23, kidlewis said:

    I don’t even know where to start with that. It ended up making me bloody livid. 
     

    the gloves

    the “dabbing of the meat” 😂

    the pasta not submerged in the water. 

    the trying to grate buffalo mozzarella 
     

    handled a dog and didn’t wash the hands

     

    the way she says lasagne 🤢 

    And the hair all over everything, and wanting pre-shredded mozzarella, and the way she says "posta".

    She speaks like she's sedated.  I guess she'd be even more smug otherwise.

    But on the bright side, it gives me an idea for a video about cooking with someone from an Edinburgh housing estate: Cooking With Harris Pilton.

  11. 20 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

    Just when I switched to a plant-based diet too (it's been going great btw).

    I would have been gutted if this was before as I used to have their Beyond Sausage farmer's wraps (for Halal reasons) and they were exquisite.

    It's only Canada as far as I know.  I'm interested that the reality of customer preference, at least there, doesn't fit the impression we are given that these things are much in demand.

    Avoiding these products and having a plant-based diet are in no sense incompatible or contradictory, but the corporations would have us think that eating plant-based means buying their (very profitable) sludge.

  12. More on pretend burgers:

    Tim Hortons removes Beyond Meat offerings from remaining locations

    Quote

    Tim Hortons has stopped selling Beyond Meat products in Ontario and B.C. — the last two provinces serving them after the company scaled back the plant-based offering in September.

    A spokeswoman for the coffee chain's parent company, Restaurant Brands International, says there was not enough demand to keep selling Beyond Meat breakfast sandwiches in the two provinces...

    I've never tried them, and never will, but it's interesting that the customer demand which has been much talked up recently doesn't seem to be present in these locations.

    It would be good if people who want to avoid meat would eat plants, and stay away from extruded sludge churned out in factories, like a tribute act to the very worst (wurst?) sausages.

  13. 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

    Isn't this what David Duckenfield did, or have I misremembered that?

    That vaguely rings a bell, but I'm not at all sure.

    Any such request should be turned down.  Especially in light of the further emails reported today, which are more damning and suggest that several people were very well aware of the dangers.

  14. 20 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

    Is it really that bad?

    It's apparently a position in charge of the "hot beverage team" at all four Tate sites. Requires sourcing, negotiating contracts, managing a team etc

    It's a head of department.

    £40k for a role like that doesn't seem too bad to me. Especially in London.

     

    The story is realy how low the curators get paid.

    I wasn't commenting on the pay, and I agree the issue is the difference with the curators' pay - must be demoralising for the people doing the core work without which no-one would be dropping by for a coffee.  It's the up-itself way of expressing it that I was looking at.  Like a more hipster version of the worst corporate drivel.

    • Like 2
  15. 4 hours ago, Seat68 said:

    Going to try a plant based burger this weekend. Any suggestions for the meatiest from a major supermarket?

    Don't do it.

    They're full of artificial factory shite.

    If you want a non-meat burger, just make one.  Mushrooms, onions, garlic, green or brown lentils, spices, egg to bind.  The factory shite won't be better than you can make, but it will contain more bad stuff.

  16. Truly, it is the end of days.

    Quote

    Tate Britain has defended advertising for a head of coffee with a salary of nearly £40,000 – more than the average wage of a London-based curator – after critics said the role highlights how low museum professionals’ wages are...

    ...Tate Britain houses the Roastery at Tate, described on its website as “a diverse and innovative specialty coffee space” that is home to the company’s Gender Equality Coffee Project and Slot Roasting Collective, “a vibrant community-led non-profit business that helps fund Tate Gallery and champion coffee producers and professionals of all genders throughout the coffee value chain”.

    I can't quite tell if it's real, or an amusing parody of themselves as a form of sending up post-structuralist, gender-non-conforming, woke narcissism.

    But I fear it's real.

    • Like 4
  17. This utter moron is his lawyer, apparently.

    Quote

    One of Trump’s lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, made the controversial argument that the president’s request for Ukraine to investigate Democrats was in the public interest because Trump considered his reelection to be in the public interest. Many commentators responded by pointing out that such logic could justify nearly any action carried out by a sitting president.

    I've heard stronger and more intellectually rigorous arguments from three-year-olds, admittedly not on the same issue.

  18. 44 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

    They knew the insulated sandwich was combustible, it was never sold as anything else.

    Their mistake, was in presuming it would be so crap it would fall off the building quickly once it was on fire. They got the fire bit right, they miscalculated the capacity of the metal fixings.

    I imagine the HSE will want to establish whether any presumptions and miscalculations were bad enough to constitute criminal negligence.

    This must override any consideration of getting them to speak to the inquiry.

  19. 51 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

    E-mails yesterday showing they all knew for years the panels were flammable and potentially lethal.

    Today they want immunity from prosecution.

    What lovely people they are.

    It's not obvious from the very brief excerpts I've seen that they knew the panels were lethal in the event of fire.  They may claim they knew the panels would fail, but that failure would take the form of falling away harmlessly, not creating a giant torch.

    Detailed investigation should inquire what was known in the professions about this, and what people employed in these professions should reasonably be expected to have known if they were exercising an acceptable level of care, diligence and professional expertise, and the case for criminal prosecution should be determined on that basis.

    If anyone agrees to give them legal indemnity in exchange for offering up what such an investigation should anyway establish, then presumably the same principle should extend to any and all criminal acts committed by anyone.  Which should save a lot on the criminal justice system, as we would no longer need one.

  20. The people involved in selecting and installing the cladding are now reported as demanding protection against prosecution if they are to give evidence to the inquiry.

    Looks like the inquiry needs to ignore them, and the HSE and police should instead proceed energetically to establish whether criminal offences have occurred.

    • Like 2
  21. 4 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

    I was tempted to add an extra MotM option - my Mrs.

    She ensured my lucky keks and socks were washed and ready for tonight, and without them VT would be a very different place tonight.

    You're most welcome.

    I understood that lucky keks and socks were not to be washed, and that this is part of the reason football grounds smell as they do.

    • Haha 2
×
×
  • Create New...
Â