Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.667 [SLACK_000881] · slack_pm:msg:06991

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

Yes, totally agree. Clearly, a lot of the people who are currently mouthing off are failing to understand these basic points.

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2021-03-31 15:25 Kristian G. Andersen open

Haha, love the poster :zany_face:
2021-03-31 15:58 Edward C. Holmes open

Thank god for the South China Morning Post: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3127858/let-science-decide-origins-covid-19
2021-03-31 16:18 Kristian G. Andersen open

Good for them - WSJ should read this... "The theory needs to be laid to rest lest it distracts from scientific tracking ofthe virus" :clap:
2021-03-31 16:21 Kristian G. Andersen open

It's :point_down: all over again, which I said in reply to Amy. _I think a lot of people don't (or don't want to) really understand how the WHO works or its mandate. There is somuch focus on "WE MUST GO IN TO FULLY INVESTIGATE WIV!", while the more important study is acollaborative endeavor, focusing on the more likely scenarios._I don't think the likes of Jesse understand this. Any of it.
2021-03-31 16:26 Edward C. Holmes

Yes, totally agree. Clearly, a lot of the people who are currently mouthing off are failing to understand these basic points.
2021-03-31 16:37 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yeah, especially the kind of attitude from Rasmus. Not a peep for weeks and then this is all you post about the report? Fuck off. It's fine that you disagree on the conclusions and we can argue the science / data, but an attitudelike this is just terrible behavior. [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-03-30 at 10.56.58 AM.png]
2021-03-31 16:55 Edward C. Holmes open

He's totally out of his depth on this.