Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.847 [SLACK_001061] · slack_pm:msg:08803

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

I thought our only clear conclusion was that it was not engineered?

In context

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

2021-05-20 15:33 Kristian G. Andersen open

I'd LOVE to hear their argument for why they think engineering is so unlikely. You can't really have one and not the other.
2021-05-20 15:33 Robert F. Garry open

USAToday covering up for the Bloomshit was well. That's not reporting. Interview had to have been recorded and Idoubt she misquoted him originally. In the real world the correction would have said something like - the scientist changed his mind or something to that effect.
2021-05-20 15:39 Robert F. Garry open

Soooo are the Bloomshitters now saying that engineering is off the table? Lab Leak is just the accident part? Seriously - this really is Bullshit. Butt Lession is a known commodity. But whipping up this hysteria about an accidental lab leak that Relman says the might not have even known??? Wars literally have been started over lower level bullshit. If you think Trump/Pompeo were not gunning for it or art least discussing it - well - you would bemistaken.
2021-05-20 15:48 Edward C. Holmes open

Aren't they then just agreeing with what we said in the PO paper???
2021-05-20 15:48 Edward C. Holmes

I thought our only clear conclusion was that it was not engineered?
2021-05-20 15:50 Robert F. Garry open

EXACTLY