COVID-19 Records

Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.1044 [SLACK_001258] · slack_pm:msg:10919

Page text: p.1044 · original PDF

Date
2022-01-11 12:46
Type
chat message · slack
recipient
Kristian G. Andersen, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker
Robert F. Garry
Topics
Congressional oversight

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

this is what happened when you get named checked by Rand Paul [shared file(s): image.png]

Extracted statements

Rule-extracted, not adjudicated. The grade says what may be done with each one; read the document above before relying on any of them.

StatementGradeAttributionStance
this is what happened when you get named checked by Rand Paul [shared file(s): image.png] own voice, substantive speaker_own asserts

In context

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

  1. 2022-01-11 12:37 Kristian G. Andersen open
    This is all so fucking stupid. Add crazies like Rand Paul and then all this "Project Veritas" bs that's making the rounds today. It's as if the collective brain fell out.
  2. 2022-01-11 12:39 Edward C. Holmes open
    The same old shit every fucking day. Our Fauci teleconference must be the only conspiracy in history that involves multiple intelligence agencies.
  3. 2022-01-11 12:39 Robert F. Garry open
    Small silver lining - total justification of redacting just about everything in a FOIA request.
  4. 2022-01-11 12:41 Edward C. Holmes open
    Yes, my Uni are just flat-out rejecting all of them.
  5. 2022-01-11 12:46 Robert F. Garry
    this is what happened when you get named checked by Rand Paul [shared file(s): image.png]
  6. 2022-01-11 13:00 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Hah. Well, at least you didn't say it was "inconsistent with evolutionary theory" Bob :wink:. I don't actually remember this email - I guess you just later realized you were wrong.
  7. 2022-01-11 13:05 Robert F. Garry open
    yeah - i vaguely remember writing something like that - but wrong - really quite wrong .
  8. 2022-01-11 13:06 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Yup - definitely wrong. BUT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BE WRONG BOB!!! Because, if you are, it's just proof you're lying.
  9. 2022-01-11 13:09 Robert F. Garry open
    Yeah - it's tough being a scientist - considering all those possibilities, following the facts and the data.

Full conversation →