Slarti

Arbroath is more of a seafood place, so no cookies, but there may be cockles.

Nobody? OK! You know he's not a defender, don't you? Happy to help.

Bulldoze it with them in it. Problem solved.

Wisnae mine.

Are the grades not done on a curve, hence the %age of A's, B's, etc being roughly the same every year?

You're already dead to me anyway. [emoji38]

And yet you post all the, ahem, "facts" you have. [emoji38] Fucking priceless.

How is asking questions being argumentative? You said that I had said it in that post, show me where or admit you were wrong. Show me where I said it previously. You've already admitted that you don't know all the vectors for its spread, so you cannot categorically conclude with any certainty that that is how it was spread in this instance. I haven't said anything about what is or isn't likely about anything. To be able to say it is likely you would have to have more information than you do. How do I know you haven't got the information? Because if you did, you would present it. You still haven't explained what you dice roll example is supposed to demonstrate. No, it wasn't addressed. No it isn't because you have not provided any evidence whereas the christian has, even if it is not good/sufficient evidence. So you don't have a clue what you were trying to prove with your dice example, then? If you really want to have a "discussion" about probability/statistics then I'm game, otherwise drop it as you are just showing your lack of understanding of the subject.

Shit, what have I released?

My point was that you can be agnostic and catholic, they are not mutually exclusive.

Then why did you ask? [emoji38]

We are all agnostic - at least all sane honest people are. Gnosticism/agnosticism relates to knowledge, theism/atheism relates to belief. The difference between saying that you KNOW a god exists or that you BELIEVE a god exists. If you believe but don't know for certain that a god exists then you would be an agnostic theist, if you don't believe and don't know for certain then you would be an agnostic atheist. Anyway, I think you missed the point he was making.

Aye, but someone will claim to have found a bible/qur'an that hasn't been destroyed in the explosion and claim that god saved it. f**k the people who died, just save the book of fairytales.

So just his usual then.

FFS, that's obviously a 1967 Austin 1100 Countryman Estate. Do you know nothing?

Hey, don't dis petrol for dinner. [emoji38]

The speed the guy with the camera moved it appeared that he had a rocket up his arse, though.

I have no opinion one way or other on whether lockdown (or masks/face coverings) has been, overall, a good thing. I'm willing to accept that the scientists that are advising the government are doing so honestly. Whether they are right is another matter, I have no idea as I, along with everyone else on here, don't have access to as much information as they do. What I won't do, at least at this point, is claim that I do know if the decisions governments have taken have been correct, as even they don't 100% know. I do know the correct usage of the word "pedantic" though, and how to correctly use statistics. Dice!!! [emoji38]

Nuclear??? Oh my god!!!! Where's ma crash helmet?

I just found 12p down the back of mine, I'll pass it on, it's a start.

I stated that neither of you had enough evidence to make a valid claim either way. I DID NOT single you out, and have repeatedly stated this. As Antrin said, it's not all about you, no matter what you think. Show me where I said that in that post. How do you know that these people caught it from the infected people they were in contact with and not from somewhere else? I'm not using any unlikely series of events to do anything to you. I'm asking you for the evidence, are you going to provide it? I know you aren't, because there isn't enough evidence either way at this point to conclude anything. As I said earlier, it's all just "best guess" at the moment. I told you why you were wrong to claim that these things are fact. What I never said, as far as I know, is that any of it was wrong, just that you can't know that it's right. You, as usual, have taken something that I have said and twisted it so that it is "anti-Baz", just because you won't (or, actually, can't) provide sufficient evidence to back up what is essentially just your opinion on the situation (or you parroting someone else's opinion). Or maybe it's just because your ego isn't controlling your id enough for you to realise that it isn't all about you. As far as I can see, neither Oaky or Antrin has said what you were claiming was wrong, just that you can't know it's right. Just because someone asks you for the proof to back up what you are claiming does not mean that they are saying that what you are saying is wrong, just that they want evidence that what you are saying is right. A christian saying that the bible is evidence for god has provided more evidence to back up their position than you have ever done on here to back up yours - now, that's got to hurt. Edit: And what exactly is your dice example supposed to show? That you don't have a clue about statistics?

I haven't jumped in on Andy's claim. Show me where I did that? What I think is irrelevant as I am not taking a stance one way or other on here, you are just assuming that I am. It is not accurate to state that less contact means less transmission. It would be accurate to say that less contact POSSIBLY means less transmission. The only possibility of contact transmission is when an infected person is in contact with an uninfected person, if you have the numbers to show how often this would happen, then show them. And, before you say it, "common sense" is not the answer to something like this. How do you know that none of these people would have been infected? As you have been told before, accuracy is often mistaken as pedantry by the less intelligent. Show me the undisputed evidence that anyone, anywhere that has died with cv19 would still be alive. You can't. I'm not here to agree with you (or Andy). I have pointed out where you were wrong, and why, and asked you to provide evidence for your claims - which you have failed to do, all you have done is play the "they're all picking on me" card. Dice? Really? You're bringing up statistics with ME? Really? :D. If you want to play that game, let's do it. :D

Stop talking pish. My very first post in this stated categorically that neither of you knew. The only pre-held opinion on here is you thinking that anyone that asks for evidence of your claims holds the opposing view. I haven't stated, or implied, my view on any if it (and my view is irrelevant), all I have done is tell you that what you are claiming has no basis in fact and is only your opinion. Now, as you are claiming that I am backing up Andy, show me where I did so. And, at risk of denting your ego, you aren't important enough to have a vendetta against, you self important child.

What the f**k are you rabbiting about? Where have I agreed with Andy?