Germany locks down unvaccinated people, as leaders plan to make shots compulsory

[Jeffr2]

1 hour ago, BKKBike09 said:

Actually I was wearing a mask, where mandated, in Bangkok, which is where I caught Covid. I did take it off, of course, to eat in restaurants, which is likely where I caught it. 

 

Back to my original post: when I was in the UK subsequently I presented no risk to anyone and hence chose not to continue to wear a mask just to make other people feel 'comfortable'.

 

You and I clearly have very different views on all this, which at least makes for interesting debate.

 

 

You are aware you can be infected and have no symptoms? Thus putting others around you at risk. Just saying.

[jak2002003]

19 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

You are aware you can be infected and have no symptoms? Thus putting others around you at risk. Just saying.

Life is a risk. You are putting others and yourself at risk every day. 

 

if your drive a car or motorbike you could potentially run someone down and kill them.  You could accidently shut a door or gate on someone's hand, or accidently injure yourself with a knife in the kitchen or slip over on a wet floor.

 

If your have a cold or flu you could pass that on to an elderly or sick person and be the death of them.

 

Should you be labeled as shellfish and a potential danger to society and vunerable people for that?

 

I am sick of hearing the argument about unvaccinated putting vaccinated people at risk, because if fully vaccinated, wearing a mask and social distancing etc then you will not be at risk.

 

We are never going to rid the world of the virus now, even if everyone is fully vaccinated....it will still spread and mutate, just at a slower pace.

 

Now you lot are just giving over your freedoms to governments who will now be able to track and trace you and know where you are and what you are doing 24/7.

 

 

[Jeffr2]

8 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Life is a risk. You are putting others and yourself at risk every day. 

 

if your drive a car or motorbike you could potentially run someone down and kill them.  You could accidently shut a door or gate on someone's hand, or accidently injure yourself with a knife in the kitchen or slip over on a wet floor.

 

If your have a cold or flu you could pass that on to an elderly or sick person and be the death of them.

 

Should you be labeled as shellfish and a potential danger to society and vunerable people for that?

 

I am sick of hearing the argument about unvaccinated putting vaccinated people at risk, because if fully vaccinated, wearing a mask and social distancing etc then you will not be at risk.

 

We are never going to rid the world of the virus now, even if everyone is fully vaccinated....it will still spread and mutate, just at a slower pace.

 

Now you lot are just giving over your freedoms to governments who will now be able to track and trace you and know where you are and what you are doing 24/7.

 

 

BS. I'm not putting others around me at risk every day. Never left the house. And comparing covid to the flu is ridiculous.

 

You really need to do better research about Covid.

[jak2002003]

2 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

BS. I'm not putting others around me at risk every day. Never left the house. And comparing covid to the flu is ridiculous.

 

You really need to do better research about Covid.

Well, if you 'never' leave your house you are sure not going to be at risk from covid then....

Edited December 4, 2021 by jak2002003

[Captain Monday]

5 hours ago, BKKBike09 said:

No. Let me make it simple for you. I said: "I greatly enjoyed spending last month in UK, going about my daily life without a mask. Since I was double-vaxxed effective early July, still caught Covid in late September (very mild symptoms), and had a further jab in UK in early Nov ..."

 

Last month was November. I had positive LFTs on 23 and 26 September; I immediately self-isolated at home for 10 days. I then had negative PCR tests on 14 and 29 October. So me being unmasked in UK from 1-30 November presented zero risk to anyone, hence my lack of interest in wearing a mask simply to make other people feel better. Anyone that worried about catching Covid from other people should only wear a medical-grade N95/FFP2 mask, changed at least 2-3 daily, rather than a basic cloth covering or surgical mask pulled up and down numerous times during the day.

000

 

Masking needs to be permanent and near universal, as well as social distancing and self restraint.Japan has done great over the going to near zero from shocking highs of 25000 cases a day in Tokyo.

Nobody can answer for sure Why, but they are doing something right.

 

We can NEVER go back to a world where people don't to behave properly

No talking in elevators. No talking loud at all. No more dancing or canoodling in bars. There is nothing wrong with going maskless whilst hill-walking solo, but dog walkers in towns need to cover their faces when encountering passersby. 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Captain Monday

[Virt]

5 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

 

Now you lot are just giving over your freedoms to governments who will now be able to track and trace you and know where you are and what you are doing 24/7.

 

 

Are you some super important person since you think the authorities have any interest in tracking your everyday life?

 

I think they have better things to do.

[jak2002003]

8 hours ago, Virt said:

Are you some super important person since you think the authorities have any interest in tracking your everyday life?

 

I think they have better things to do.

The information is very valuable.  It can be sold or stolen etc.  It will all be used to analyse your beliefs, political views, likes and dislikes, what you purchase and from where, who you socialise with and where you go, your health and your assets,  view all your photos, videos and internet browsing history, plus many other things.

 

All that can be used to profile you and target you for different things.  It's all very manipulative and insidious and they won't be able to resist using all this info in the future to add even more control to people's lives and to get more control, wealth and power for themselves.

 

No one will be sitting down and looking at the average persons info, but the computer will be doing that. 

 

 

 

 

[BKKBike09]

16 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

You are aware you can be infected and have no symptoms? Thus putting others around you at risk. Just saying.

I'm perfectly aware that you can be infected and asymptomatic. But I was talking about going maskless after 2 negative PCR tests and probably 5 negative LFTs in the 6 weeks after catching covid, having previously been fully vaxxed two months or so before catching it. And while in the UK I also did a weekly LFT (and got a further jab in early November). 

 

Surely we can agree that, in such circumstances, the chances of me catching covid again and giving it to anyone else during my month in the UK in November were as close to zero as they could be. In such circumstances I chose to go maskless whenever and wherever I could: you likely would not, which is completely up to you and would be sensible if you are over 50 and / or have any existing co-morbidities. That's what I would do if I was in a high-risk category for Covid. But I would not expect everyone else to wear a mask. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

The information is very valuable.  It can be sold or stolen etc.  It will all be used to analyse your beliefs, political views, likes and dislikes, what you purchase and from where, who you socialise with and where you go, your health and your assets,  view all your photos, videos and internet browsing history, plus many other things.

 

All that can be used to profile you and target you for different things.  It's all very manipulative and insidious and they won't be able to resist using all this info in the future to add even more control to people's lives and to get more control, wealth and power for themselves.

 

No one will be sitting down and looking at the average persons info, but the computer will be doing that. 

 

 

 

 

Google, Facebook and numerous data colati g companies already have all that.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

27 minutes ago, BKKBike09 said:

I'm perfectly aware that you can be infected and asymptomatic. But I was talking about going maskless after 2 negative PCR tests and probably 5 negative LFTs in the 6 weeks after catching covid, having previously been fully vaxxed two months or so before catching it. And while in the UK I also did a weekly LFT (and got a further jab in early November). 

 

Surely we can agree that, in such circumstances, the chances of me catching covid again and giving it to anyone else during my month in the UK in November were as close to zero as they could be. In such circumstances I chose to go maskless whenever and wherever I could: you likely would not, which is completely up to you and would be sensible if you are over 50 and / or have any existing co-morbidities. That's what I would do if I was in a high-risk category for Covid. But I would not expect everyone else to wear a mask. 

“Surely we can agree that, in such circumstances, the chances of me catching covid again and giving it to anyone else during my month in the UK in November were as close to zero as they could be.”

 

I’m not sure how you come to the conclusion’ ‘as close to zero as they could be’.

 

Regardless, the probability is not zero.

 

Now multiply that ‘not zero probability by a few hundreds of millions of person to person interactions per day and the probability of transmissions is definitely not ‘as near to zero as they could be’.

 

Wearing a mask is no burden.

[Virt]

2 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

The information is very valuable.  It can be sold or stolen etc.  It will all be used to analyse your beliefs, political views, likes and dislikes, what you purchase and from where, who you socialise with and where you go, your health and your assets,  view all your photos, videos and internet browsing history, plus many other things.

 

All that can be used to profile you and target you for different things.  It's all very manipulative and insidious and they won't be able to resist using all this info in the future to add even more control to people's lives and to get more control, wealth and power for themselves.

 

No one will be sitting down and looking at the average persons info, but the computer will be doing that. 

 

 

 

 

Yeah it's valuable, but I'm not worried about the data collection itself.

It's happening all over and has for many years.

 

I'm more worried about data safety.

The value of data has been discussed several years ago.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.economist.com/leaders/2017/05/06/the-worlds-most-valuable-resource-is-no-longer-oil-but-data

 

This data collection might sound off topic, but it's also related to the vaccines and the strict rules in Germany. 

 

They have to collect data of each person to know if they are vaccinated or not.

If that data were leaked it could cause some problems for the individual.

 

As for the stricter rules in Germany.

I think the world are looking at Germany and Austria and awaiting their next steps in the next couple of months.

 

If it turns out both countries make vaccines mandatory and the virus more or less disappear after that, i think we will see more countries consider mandatory vaccines.

 

But those countries might as well prepare for some violent protests, because the most extreme anti vaxers are not giving up without a fight.

 

2022 is going to be interesting in so many ways.

[GrandPapillon]

23 hours ago, placeholder said:

Well, I guess your post one way of waving the white flag. You've got nothing.

not really, I am just not interested in engaging a pointless debate for your "validation" needs ????

Edited December 5, 2021 by GrandPapillon

[jak2002003]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Google, Facebook and numerous data colati g companies already have all that.

 

Yes, but it's your choice if you use those things or not. They are not mandatory and you won't face prosecution, fines, get fired from your job, violence or go to prison if you choose not to sign up to them.

 

Also, at least with Google, you can manage your personal info as to what you tell me or agree to, or you simply use a VPN. 

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

52 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Yes, but it's your choice if you use those things or not. They are not mandatory and you won't face prosecution, fines, get fired from your job, violence or go to prison if you choose not to sign up to them.

 

Also, at least with Google, you can manage your personal info as to what you tell me or agree to, or you simply use a VPN. 

 

 

 

 

That’s a very odd thing to say on an Internet forum.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

not really, I am just not interested in engaging a pointless debate for your "validation" needs ????

All you've done is make up factoids such as

"even the hard core virus "specialist" are starting to say they don't know "anything" about that thing."

which you won't back up...

 

manage to dismiss scientific research 

"Guess what, studies are "opinionated" like everything else. Period."

 

repeatedly engage in personal trolling comments like this

"I don't think you are worthy to engage in any debate, too blind and too narrow minded. Just look at the history of your posts"

 

 and apparently possess a crystal ball..

"There will be plenty of future studies that will "validate" or "deny" the current ones, so in short, it will be another 10 years or more before we know anything "solid"

 

You've got nothing.

 

 

 

[blackprince]

8 hours ago, BKKBike09 said:

I'm perfectly aware that you can be infected and asymptomatic. But I was talking about going maskless after 2 negative PCR tests and probably 5 negative LFTs in the 6 weeks after catching covid, having previously been fully vaxxed two months or so before catching it. And while in the UK I also did a weekly LFT (and got a further jab in early November). 

 

Surely we can agree that, in such circumstances, the chances of me catching covid again and giving it to anyone else during my month in the UK in November were as close to zero as they could be. In such circumstances I chose to go maskless whenever and wherever I could: you likely would not, which is completely up to you and would be sensible if you are over 50 and / or have any existing co-morbidities. That's what I would do if I was in a high-risk category for Covid. But I would not expect everyone else to wear a mask. 

In the UK at that time you were free to wear a mask or not, agreed. And the choice is yours.

 

But It's this bit that I don't get "Surely we can agree that, in such circumstances, the chances of me catching covid again and giving it to anyone else during my month in the UK in November were as close to zero as they could be".

 

Vaccines don't necessarily reduce the chance of getting covid, they reduce the chance of getting seriously ill from a bad dose of covid, or transmitting a bad dose of covid. They work not by eliminating the virus but by reducing the viral load.

 

For what it's worth I'm double vaxxed and I wear a mask whenever I'm in a room with people other than family (actually 2 masks lol). My philosophy is that the masks and distancing are effective in reducing the risk of the virus coming in to my system, and that the vaccine will reduce any incoming viral load for any infection that gets past the mask.

 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, blackprince said:

Vaccines don't necessarily reduce the chance of getting covid, they reduce the chance of getting seriously ill from a bad dose of covid, or transmitting a bad dose of covid. They work not by eliminating the virus but by reducing the viral load.

 

This is a deliberate lie which keeps getting repeated over and over again.

[blackprince]

Just now, ozimoron said:

This is a deliberate lie which keeps getting repeated over and over again.

Sorry Oz, can you explain what you think is the lie.

[ozimoron]

Just now, blackprince said:

Sorry Oz, can you explain what you think is the lie.

Your assertion that vaccines don't reduce the chances of contracting covid. In fact, breakthrough infections are actually rare. Much evidence has been posted on this forum to establish that fact beyond possible doubt.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, blackprince said:

Sorry Oz, can you explain what you think is the lie.

‘Chance’ is probability, the vaccines reduce the probability of becoming infected. 

 

The statement ‘’Don’t necessarily reduce the chance of getting COVD’ is both illogical and a misrepresentation of factual probability. The failure of a vaccine to provide a protection is already expressed within the probability of it providing protection.

 

The vaccines do (dramatically) reduce the chance (probability) of serious illness.

 

I don’t believe there is such a thing as a ‘bad dose’ of COVID, though there are bad outcomes arising from infection. More often visited upon the unvaccinated.

 

Vaccines do not eliminate the  virus nor do the reduce the viral load, but they do provide the immune  system with a head start to do so.

 

So I agree, not an outright lie, but mixed truth with fudged facts and an illogical statement. 

[blackprince]

Just now, ozimoron said:

Your assertion that vaccines don't reduce the chances of contracting covid. In fact, breakthrough infections are actually rare. Much evidence has been posted on this forum to establish that fact beyond possible doubt.

Ok now I undestand what you're saying. Here's the reality:

 

1. Vaccines cannot stop a covid dose coming into your nose, mouth or through your skin, obviously.

 

2. Once the covid dose is inside your system your immune system starts working against it.

 

3. If you have been vaxxed (and if the vaxx is still active in your system) your immune system will act more effectively against the covid that you've just received. But it won't remove the covid - that's not how covid or the vaccines work.

 

4. If you're lucky you will feel no symptoms; if you are slightly less lucky you will feel symptoms but won't be hospitaised; if you are even less lucky you will be hospitalised; if you are even less lucky you will be in ICU; if you are even less lucky you will die. You may also get "long covid" which can be debilitating.

 

Having the vaxx active in your system will increase your luck; it will not change the basic equation. It is well documented that the covid vaccine reduces the risk of serious illness and death, but it DOES NOT ELIMINATE IT.

 

If it did then we would not be seeing the surge in adult cases in the UK, where "nine in 10 of those aged 12 or over having had a single jab and eight in 10 having had a second" (BBC 20 hours ago).

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833

 

The vaccines DO NOT eliminate covid, they work by reduction of viral load. There is no doubt about this whatsoever.

 

Now that I've explained the situation in greater depth, I hope we can agree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, blackprince said:

Ok now I undestand what you're saying. Here's the reality:

 

1. Vaccines cannot stop a covid dose coming into your nose, mouth or through your skin, obviously.

Agreed

1 minute ago, blackprince said:

 

2. Once the covid dose is inside your system your immune system starts working against it.

Agreed

1 minute ago, blackprince said:

 

3. If you have been vaxxed (and if the vaxx is still active in your system) your immune system will act more effectively against the covid that you've just received. But it won't remove the covid - that's not how covid or the vaccines work.

Incorrect. Your immune system will atatck the virus wherever it is found in your sysetm. It has been establiished that viral load in the nasal cavities is lower for the vaccinated and the decline is more rapid.

1 minute ago, blackprince said:

 

4. If you're lucky you will feel no symptoms; if you are slightly less lucky you will feel symptoms but won't be hospitaised; if you are even less lucky you will be hospitalised; if you are even less lucky you will be in ICU; if you are even less lucky you will die. You may also get "long covid" which can be debilitating.

Agreed

1 minute ago, blackprince said:

 

Having the vaxx active in your system will increase your luck; it will not change the basic equation. It is well documented that the covid vaccine reduces the risk of serious illness and death, but it DOES NOT ELIMINATE IT.

Agreed

1 minute ago, blackprince said:

 

If it did then we would not be seeing the surge in adult cases in the UK, where "nine in 10 of those aged 12 or over having had a single jab and eight in 10 having had a second" (BBC 20 hours ago).

True

1 minute ago, blackprince said:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833

 

The vaccines DO NOT eliminate covid, they work by reduction of viral load. There is no doubt about this whatsoever.

True

1 minute ago, blackprince said:

 

Now that I've explained the situation in greater depth, I hope we can agree.

You have skipped the single point of contention, effectively moving the goal posts. You unequivocally stated that vaccines do not work against infection.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, blackprince said:

Ok now I undestand what you're saying. Here's the reality:

 

1. Vaccines cannot stop a covid dose coming into your nose, mouth or through your skin, obviously.

 

2. Once the covid dose is inside your system your immune system starts working against it.

 

3. If you have been vaxxed (and if the vaxx is still active in your system) your immune system will act more effectively against the covid that you've just received. But it won't remove the covid - that's not how covid or the vaccines work.

 

4. If you're lucky you will feel no symptoms; if you are slightly less lucky you will feel symptoms but won't be hospitaised; if you are even less lucky you will be hospitalised; if you are even less lucky you will be in ICU; if you are even less lucky you will die. You may also get "long covid" which can be debilitating.

 

Having the vaxx active in your system will increase your luck; it will not change the basic equation. It is well documented that the covid vaccine reduces the risk of serious illness and death, but it DOES NOT ELIMINATE IT.

 

If it did then we would not be seeing the surge in adult cases in the UK, where "nine in 10 of those aged 12 or over having had a single jab and eight in 10 having had a second" (BBC 20 hours ago).

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833

 

The vaccines DO NOT eliminate covid, they work by reduction of viral load. There is no doubt about this whatsoever.

 

Now that I've explained the situation in greater depth, I hope we can agree.

The people at the International Vaccine Center, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and WHO seem to think differently. At least they've compiled a compendious list of studies that show vaccines are effective in stopping transmission

https://view-hub.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/COVID19 VE Studies_Forest Plots.pdf

The point you were making is a very trivial one. Basically, you're claiming that the vaccines don't give sterilizing immunity. But as the tools used by virologists grow ever more powerful and sensitive, it seems more and more dubious that any vaccine gives sterilizing immunity. 

You can read more about that if you click on this link:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/sterilizing-immunity-myth-covid-19-vaccines/620023/

[blackprince]

 

 

Just now, ozimoron said:

 You unequivocally stated that vaccines do not work against infection.

This is exactly what I said oz:

 

"Vaccines don't necessarily reduce the chance of getting covid, they reduce the chance of getting seriously ill from a bad dose of covid, or transmitting a bad dose of covid. They work not by eliminating the virus but by reducing the viral load."

 

I am at a loss how you could interpret that as me saying "unequivocally that vaccines do not work against infection." I very clearly did not say that

 

I have  never said that vaccines do not work against infection, not in this post, not anywhere online or offline.

 

And my longer explanation simply clarifies the detail.

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, blackprince said:

 

 

This is exactly what I said oz:

 

"Vaccines don't necessarily reduce the chance of getting covid, they reduce the chance of getting seriously ill from a bad dose of covid, or transmitting a bad dose of covid. They work not by eliminating the virus but by reducing the viral load."

 

I am at a loss how you could interpret that as me saying "unequivocally that vaccines do not work against infection." I very clearly did not say that

 

I have  never said that vaccines do not work against infection, not in this post, not anywhere online or offline.

 

And my longer explanation simply clarifies the detail.

 

"Vaccines don't necessarily reduce the chance of getting covid," is misleading and false. The truth is that vaccines reduce the chance of getting covid by as much as 1:5000 compared to the unvaxxed. That figure is so pronounced that if you don't EXPLICITLY point that out with perhaps a qualifier that it is still possible then it really is a lie. Context is everything and your unqualified statement can be construed as an intention to deceive given that contradictory evidence has been provided here many times in the recent past.

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Agreed

Agreed

Incorrect. Your immune system will atatck the virus wherever it is found in your sysetm. It has been establiished that viral load in the nasal cavities is lower for the vaccinated and the decline is more rapid.

Agreed

Agreed

True

True

You have skipped the single point of contention, effectively moving the goal posts. You unequivocally stated that vaccines do not work against infection.

Well, whether Blackprince said that or not, the odds are that no vaccine actually trains a vaccinated person's immune system to absolutely prevent infection. The idea that this was the case is based on an old concept of sterilizing immunity.  Basically, it means that the immune system detects any and all viruses before they can infect any cells in an organism. So asserting that some infection takes place is a trivial point. If a vaccine is good enough to prevent any detectable trace of infection it is providing virtual blockage of transmission.

[blackprince]

I'm also very aware of Johns Hopkins stats, I've been linking them for 15 months at least, and as a trained statistician at Bachelor & Master's levels I'm very capable of interpreting them and even identifying their occasional weak spots, but rather than trying to blind people with science as so many do here, I'll simply reiterate something that everyone can understand:

 

In the UK "nine in 10 of those aged 12 or over having had a single jab and eight in 10 having had a second" yet transmission and hospitalisations and deaths continue within those groups, albeit at a reduced rate. (BBC 20 hours ago)

 

In other words 90% of Brits over 12  have been single vaxxed and 80% of Brits over 12 have been double vaxxed, yet covid is still spreading within those groups.

 

I've stated repeatedly that vaccines reduce transmission and death. It's equally clear that vaccines DO NOT ELIMINATE COVID.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833

 

It's just as dangerous to assert that vaccines eliminate covid risk as it is to assert that vaccines don't work.

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by blackprince

[ozimoron]

11 minutes ago, blackprince said:

I've stated repeatedly that vaccines reduce transmission

 

Where? Show me. I dispute that you have and will apologise unreservedly if you can prove that you have stated this in as many words. Certainly, your posts above do not reflect that opinion.

Edited December 5, 2021 by ozimoron

[placeholder]

24 minutes ago, blackprince said:

I'm also very aware of Johns Hopkins stats, I've been linking them for 15 months at least, and as a trained statistician at Bachelor & Master's levels I'm very capable of interpreting them and even identifying their occasional weak spots, but rather than trying to blind people with science as so many do here, I'll simply reiterate something that everyone can understand:

 

In the UK "nine in 10 of those aged 12 or over having had a single jab and eight in 10 having had a second" yet transmission and hospitalisations and deaths continue within those groups, albeit at a reduced rate. (BBC 20 hours ago)

 

In other words 90% of Brits have been single vaxxed and 80% of Brits have been double vaxxed, yet covid is still spreading within those groups.

 

I've stated repeatedly that vaccines reduce transmission and death. It's equally clear that vaccines DO NOT ELIMINATE COVID.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833

 

It's just as dangerous to assert that vaccines eliminate covid risk as it is to assert that vaccines don't work.

 

Please. I don't care what your qualifications may be. That is a huge list of studies. Not just one or two. You're seriously going to maintain that statistically speaking the alignment of of so many studies that show vaccinations slow transmission of the virus is insignificant? That's just nonsense.

And you have acquired the very bad habit of setting up straw men. I don't know of any parties posting here who "assert that vaccines eliminate covid risk'. I certainly haven't.  I haven't seen such a comment from Ozimoron.

And why do you keep on citing those percentages for only those UK residents who are aged 12 and over? The actual figure for total vaccination in the UK is about 69%. You seem to be allergic to that figure. What's more, those numbers don't take account of what percentage of the population iin need of boosters has actually been given them. 

69% of the population is vaccinated in a country where social distancing and masking are largely a thing of the past. And far too many are unboosted. Not surprising that the disease is still spreading.

Edited December 5, 2021 by placeholder

[blackprince]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Where? Show me. I dispute that you have and will apologise unreservedly if you can prove that you have stated this in as many words. Certainly, your posts above do not reflect that opinion.

It's easy enough oz. Go on to my profile and click the relevant posts.