Coronavirus Outbreak...

[oxmixmudd]

I never really thought of Spain or Italy as Western Europe mainly because they have a different Vibe than Germany or the U.K. do. In many ways, Spain reminded me very much of life in Southern California. The atmosphere and vibes seem similar.

Yeah, SC has a lot of Spanish influence in its architecture and culture.

[Sparko]

So, should I consider the other derogatory replies towards me you've made today as also 'just making a joke'? Exactly what kernel of mutual trust and respect have you built up over the course of our discussions today that will allow me to determine when you are 'joking' vs when you are being cutting or derogatory?

derogatory replies? There you go again. This is why I had stopped talking to you about Trump. I was merely saying you are obsessed with Trump. That is a statement of fact of what I see. I was not saying it to be derogatory. Yet whenever anyone disagrees with you or points out your Trump obsession, they are automatically "attacking" you.

OK, I am back to not discussing Trump with you.

sigh.

[Sparko]

Spain and Italy is counted as part of Southern Europe, not Western Europe, Mr Nitpicker. So when we count what Western Europe actually is

Ouch! Roy has been out nitpicked!

[oxmixmudd]

derogatory replies? There you go again. This is why I had stopped talking to you about Trump. I was merely saying you are obsessed with Trump. That is a statement of fact of what I see. I was not saying it to be derogatory. Yet whenever anyone disagrees with you or points out your Trump obsession, they are automatically "attacking" you.

OK, I am back to not discussing Trump with you.

sigh.

You do what you want Sparko. But if you imply I have mental problems 3 replies in a row, it won't matter a hill of beans what the topic is, I'm still going to ask you to stop.

[Sparko]

You do what you want Sparko. But if you imply I have mental problems 3 replies in a row, it won't matter a hill of beans what the topic is, I'm still going to ask you to stop.

Oh you can imply there is something wrong with us for supporting Trump, but if we imply that you are obsessed for constantly attacking Trump, that is implying you have mental problems?

OK, Jim.

[oxmixmudd]

Oh you can imply there is something wrong with us for supporting Trump, but if we imply that you are obsessed for constantly attacking Trump, that is implying you have mental problems?

OK, Jim.

Why don't you go through this thread and count the number of times I implied there was something wrong with you morally or mentally, then go through and count the number of times you said something was wrong with me morally or mentally, and see how it all adds up Sparko. If it comes out anywhere near even, I'd like to know. If not, perhaps you should do something about it.

[Sparko]

Why don't you go through this thread and count the number of times I implied there was something wrong with you morally or mentally, then go through and count the number of times you said something was wrong with me morally or mentally, and see how it all adds up Sparko. If it comes out anywhere near even, I'd like to know. If not, perhaps you should do something about it.

Well that's pointless. You have been implying I and others are bad Christians for supporting Trump for months now. And whenever we point it out to you, you just accuse us of attacking you even more. I am sure anything I point out here would just be more "attacking" and I am not interested in wasting my time on it. You will believe what you want to believe, about Trump and about me.

[oxmixmudd]

Well that's pointless. You have been implying I and others are bad Christians for supporting Trump for months now. And whenever we point it out to you, you just accuse us of attacking you even more. I am sure anything I point out here would just be more "attacking" and I am not interested in wasting my time on it. You will believe what you want to believe, about Trump and about me.

No, I've said I don't understand how Christians can support certain things Trump is doing or has done. But I haven't even been doing that very much lately. Mostly I'm just pointing out that Trump is doing bad things and that gets taken as some sort of personal attack. Or are you referring to my factual assessments of the anti-science bias in the Evangelical community, which again is not a personal attack unless you make it one, it is simply something that sadly is true.

And so I don't understand why you can't tell the differences between that and saying YOU are a bad Christian. My point it to raise the conflict and hope the fact you ARE a good Christian will activate your conscience and cause you to change, or otherwise that you will make a logical, thoughtful case that will help me to understand how Christians can support certain things Trump is doing or has done.

Now explain to me how that is 'attacking' you or anyone else?

[Sparko]

No, I've been saying I don't understand how Christians can support certain things Trump is doing or has done. I also don't understand why you can't tell the difference between that and saying YOU are a bad Christian. My point it to raise the conflict and hope the fact you ARE a good Christian will activate your conscience and cause you to change, or otherwise that you will make a logical, thoughtful case that will help me to understand how Christians can support certain things Trump is doing or has done.

Now explain to me how that is 'attacking' you or anyone else?

because you aren't seeing as a lack of understanding on your part, but implying that we are the ones in the wrong and any good Christian would automagically agree with your point of view. You see yourself as the aribiter of truth, the shining light of reason that everyone should just agree with or they are not good Christians. You aren't. We disagree. Live with it. I don't question your faith or honesty because you don't believe as I do regarding politics, yet you do me.

[oxmixmudd]

because you aren't seeing as a lack of understanding on your part, but implying that we are the ones in the wrong and any good Christian would automagically agree with your point of view. You see yourself as the aribiter of truth, the shining light of reason that everyone should just agree with or they are not good Christians. You aren't. We disagree. Live with it. I don't question your faith or honesty because you don't believe as I do regarding politics, yet you do me.

No - I don't Sparko. But you are - once again - turning my point back on me as a direct attack on me and who I am. The point I made was not any sort of attack on you or evaluation of who you are, it was a description of how I approach these issues and the difference between attacking the person and making a point about something else not the person. I didn't say anything at all about who you are or what you are.

And I have never, not one time, questioned the validity of your faith. Again, do you not understand the difference between pointing out that something is wrong and questioning whether or not your faith is valid?

ETA: Have you ever tried to explain in logical, moral terms why you do not see whatever it is I'm posting about the same way as I do instead of just attacking who I am. Do you know how I would react if you did that? I think you would be pleasantly surprised. Give it a go.

[Mountain Man]

Remember when Gov. Cuomo was insisting he needed 40,000 ventilators? And remember Trump being sharply criticized for saying, "I don't think you need that many"?

Well, guess what...

Recent Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) models showed that New York would need less than 6,000 ventilators even at the peak of the coronavirus infection. The net change in intubations in New York is now falling at a steady rate.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...y-ventilators/

And remember, too, that IHME's forecasts have been substantially higher than what we've actually seen, so it's possible they may not even hit 6000.

[firstfloor]

Remember when Gov. Cuomo was insisting he needed 40,000 ventilators? And remember Trump being sharply criticized for saying, "I don't think you need that many"?

Well, guess what...

Recent Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) models showed that New York would need less than 6,000 ventilators even at the peak of the coronavirus infection. The net change in intubations in New York is now falling at a steady rate.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...y-ventilators/

And remember, too, that IHME's forecasts have been substantially higher than what we've actually seen, so it's possible they may not even hit 6000.

It means that Cuomo has done a good job up to this point. Coming off shut-down is going to be very tricky because of the lag.

[Mountain Man]

It means that Cuomo has done a good job up to this point.

I suppose that's one way to spin it.

Another way is that Trump was right.

Still another is that the models and experts have been wrong this whole time, and this thing was never going to get as bad as originally predicted

[oxmixmudd]

It means that Cuomo has done a good job up to this point. Coming off shut-down is going to be very tricky because of the lag.

MM's comment reminds me of claims that Y2K was a hoax because nothing bad happened. Of course the millions of man hours fixing the code had nothing to do with it.

[Mountain Man]

MM's comment reminds me of claims that Y2K was a hoax because nothing bad happened. Of course the millions of man hours fixing the code had nothing to do with it.

I called this one a week ago.

I suppose the argument would be that the deaths are down because of the quarantines, but there are obviously flaws in that sort of reasoning. It's like arguing that the magic rock I carry in my pocket keeps tigers away. How do I know it's working? Because I don't see any tigers around.

As for Y2K (since you mentioned it), the hoax was that it would lead to worldwide disaster when the fact is, the vast majority of computer systems at the time would have continued functioning normally, they just would have had the wrong date, so the danger (much like the present situation) was vastly overblown by the "experts".

Countries such as Italy, Russia, and South Korea had done little to prepare for Y2K. They had no more technological problems than those countries, like the U.S., that spent millions of dollars to combat the problem.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/e...pedia/Y2K-bug/