@MAV I'm relaxed about this, nobody can debate fake news and fake claims with real facts, just as the absence of evidence is never evidence of absence you can't win those debates, because counter-arguments will just be invented.
Much of the spurious content we find it necessary to debug exists only in a fantasy. As such I only feel obliged to offer a valid response to a heretical claim once, after that any continual repetition or replay of the same old same old claims is merely building evidence of lunacy. Like someone who listens to hours and hours of music on a iPod, with three songs on shuffle! :o
Much of the spurious content we find it necessary to debug exists only in a fantasy. As such I only feel obliged to offer a valid response to a heretical claim once, after that any continual repetition or replay of the same old same old claims is merely building evidence of lunacy. Like someone who listens to hours and hours of music on a iPod, with three songs on shuffle! :o
(11-12-2021, 02:22 AM)Mav date Wrote:Should he follow your lead in offering up nuanced interpretations of data which admit the possibility that vaccines work and Ivermectin doesn't?"Nuanced" seems pretty generous, ............. "bastardised" seems a better fit!
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"