@wildgrass saidWhich issues are you talking about? This is the second time I have asked. Answer the question.
Coutard et al. in Antiviral Research. You have posted it at least three times on this thread, which means you must think it's important. I was wondering if you read it and why you think it's important or relevant to the origins of SARS?
@metal-brain saidThe issues are related to your motivation for posting the article, which are still unknown. Do you know why you posted that article three times on this thread?
Which issues are you talking about? This is the second time I have asked. Answer the question.
@wildgrass saidNow you are lying. You are trying to avoid answering the question by claiming it was about my motivation. If it was about my motivation you would have said so. So now you have no issues you want to discuss honestly.
The issues are related to your motivation for posting the article, which are still unknown. Do you know why you posted that article three times on this thread?
If you think the article says something you think is meaningful what is it? What do you think you found out that you think it is worth dwelling on? Isn't this the 3rd time you brought it up?
Why so obsessed?
@metal-brain saidI don't think the article reveals anything meaningful about a conspiracy but I must be missing something. Right? Why did you post it over and over?
Now you are lying. You are trying to avoid answering the question by claiming it was about my motivation. If it was about my motivation you would have said so. So now you have no issues you want to discuss honestly.
If you think the article says something you think is meaningful what is it? What do you think you found out that you think it is worth dwelling on? Isn't this the 3rd time you brought it up?
Why so obsessed?
@wildgrass saidWhy did you bring it up over and over and over.
I don't think the article reveals anything meaningful about a conspiracy but I must be missing something. Right? Why did you post it over and over?
Why so obsessed?