Fwd: Re: [FoRK] avian flu/home grown/PastFutureTense/retraction

Tracie K Meyer con10gent_sentience
Thu Oct 13 19:59:45 PDT 2005


MY SINCEREST APOLOGIES GO TO STEPHEN. THIS IS INTENDED AS JUST A JOKE
POST AND WAS NOT TO BE SENT TO FORK LIST.

Tracie K Meyer

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:53:47 -0700, "Tracie K Meyer"
<con10gent_sentience at inoutbox.com> said:
> 
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:34:04 -0400, "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw at lig.net>
> said:
> > "People born after 1918 have little or no immunity."  How would they 
> > know that?
> 
> [...]"born after"[...]
> AFTER
> Adverb:
> 1.Happening at a time subsequent to a reference time
>    "two hours after that"
> 2.Behind or in the rear
>    "and Jill came tumbling after"
> 
> "How would they know that?"
> they weren't dead; they were just born after the pandemic killed forty
> million. immunity is not 'inherited', you bloody idiot.
> 
> 
> "Does that make sense?"
> 
> no; but i just did just like new scientist did and the rest of the
> articles i send in did.
> 
> > Wouldn't it be most likely that people (and their children) with least 
> > immunity would have been the ones mostly likely to be among the 40M
> > victims?
> 
> "with least"
> ...with THE least...[expository style, please]
> 
> "Wouldn't it be most likely that people (and their children) with least 
> immunity would have been the ones mostly likely to be among the 40M
> victims?"
> 
> irrelvant to illogical expository style. however, forget the 'most
> likely(s'). those with the "least immunity" (ahem) millions and millions
> and millions ........................................died, that was not
> the issue. the issue was READ THE ARTICLE. 
> 
> > 
> > If a disease kills most of those susceptable, the children from that 
> > point on have to be more likely to survive, right?
> 
> "susceptable" spelling
> susceptible
> Adjective
> 1.(often followed by 'of' or 'to') yielding readily to or capable of
>   "susceptible to colds"; "susceptible of proof"
> 2.Easily impressed emotionally
> 
> 
> "If a disease kills most of those susceptable, the children from that 
> point on have to be more likely to survive, right?"
> 
> only if they had survived H5N1 somehow, and only for that one lifetime,
> and only if they never contracted it again, and only if they did
> contract it again it it were via the same vector(s) route, and only if
> the surface proteins had not rearranged, and only if the gene sequencing
> had not rearranged, and only if THEY SURVIVED THAT. oh ja, you qualified
> with [...]"more likely to survive" well fuck it; i answered it.
> 
> next time, best pick on someone your own IQ
> 
> > 
> > sdw
> > 
> > Tracie K Meyer wrote:
> > 
> > >Experts fear escape of 1918 flu from lab
> > >
> > >New Scientist | October 21 2004
> > >
> > >...
> > >
> > >The latest work was done by Yoshihiro Kawaoka at the University of
> > >Wisconsin at Madison. His team showed that adding the 1918 gene for the
> > >surface protein haemagglutinin to modern viruses made them far deadlier
> > >to mice. The researchers also found that people born after 1918 have
> > >little or no immunity.
> > >
> > >...
> > > 
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > 
> 
> -- 
> http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
>                           unladen european swallow
> 

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.



More information about the FoRK mailing list