Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 16 Apr '18 03:40
    From the link below:

    "The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said. The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states."

    https://www.rt.com/news/424149-skripal-poisoning-bz-lavrov/

    Truth or Russian lies?
  2. 16 Apr '18 06:38
    Why would you expect to find "truth" from a Kremlin-run website concerning matters related to Russia?
  3. 16 Apr '18 13:23
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    Why would you expect to find "truth" from a Kremlin-run website concerning matters related to Russia?
    I don't necessarily. That is why I created this thread. The Russians claim it was the Swiss that concluded that. Are they lying?

    I thought I was posting on the debates forum, not the science forum. I goofed.
  4. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    16 Apr '18 15:44
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    I don't necessarily. That is why I created this thread. The Russians claim it was the Swiss that concluded that. Are they lying?

    I thought I was posting on the debates forum, not the science forum. I goofed.
    This is what the Swiss Lab is saying:

    https://twitter.com/SpiezLab/status/985243574123057152
  5. 16 Apr '18 16:31
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    I don't necessarily. That is why I created this thread. The Russians claim it was the Swiss that concluded that. Are they lying?

    I thought I was posting on the debates forum, not the science forum. I goofed.
    In this case, yes, they are lying, but why would you even waste time seriously considering statements coming from obviously untrustworthy sources?
  6. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    16 Apr '18 19:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    I don't necessarily. That is why I created this thread. The Russians claim it was the Swiss that concluded that. Are they lying?

    I thought I was posting on the debates forum, not the science forum. I goofed.
    I get it, you are seeking chaos, by putting something up here you have to know is BS, you just want to create more BS. You really think Russia and the Swiss are equal in the lies department? You can't do a bit of logic analysis and see who would benefit more from lying?
  7. 16 Apr '18 21:32
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    This is what the Swiss Lab is saying:

    https://twitter.com/SpiezLab/status/985243574123057152
    Spietz lab is just referring to Porton Down. Porton Down is a British Lab.
    Did Spietz lab do any testing at all?
  8. 16 Apr '18 21:36
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    I get it, you are seeking chaos, by putting something up here you have to know is BS, you just want to create more BS. You really think Russia and the Swiss are equal in the lies department? You can't do a bit of logic analysis and see who would benefit more from lying?
    You must have confused me with someone who already made up his mind. I asked a question. Questions are not statements.

    I get it. If you accuse me of forming a conclusion when I have not enough times some morons will actually believe your false implications. Are you still sore that climate models are unreliable? Don't kill the messenger. I just report that facts.
  9. 18 Apr '18 15:24
    Originally posted by @metal-brain
    You must have confused me with someone who already made up his mind. I asked a question. Questions are not statements.

    I get it. If you accuse me of forming a conclusion when I have not enough times some morons will actually believe your false implications. Are you still sore that climate models are unreliable? Don't kill the messenger. I just report that facts.
    Do you remember your high school teacher(s), perhaps in an attempt to encourage students to ask questions, repeating the oft-quoted mantra that there is no such thing as a stupid question?

    They were wrong.
  10. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    18 Apr '18 17:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    I get it, you are seeking chaos, by putting something up here you have to know is BS, you just want to create more BS. You really think Russia and the Swiss are equal in the lies department? You can't do a bit of logic analysis and see who would benefit more from lying?
    Again, why would you think the Swiss would be lying? It seems to me a no brainer that Russia is in fact behind the poisoning. I don't know if you follow world news but another critic of Putin just was found dead 'accidentally' falling off the balcony of a building.
    Are you in line with Trumpf about all this, like when the US ambassador to the US told the world there would be more sanctions against Russia, only for Trump to say there were to be no sanctions the very next day, as if they were setting up the ambassador for failure.
    I assume you are buddy with Trump. If I am wrong about you supporting trumpf I apologize in advance.
  11. 18 Apr '18 18:44
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Again, why would you think the Swiss would be lying? It seems to me a no brainer that Russia is in fact behind the poisoning. I don't know if you follow world news but another critic of Putin just was found dead 'accidentally' falling off the balcony of a building.
    Are you in line with Trumpf about all this, like when the US ambassador to the US told the ...[text shortened]... sume you are buddy with Trump. If I am wrong about you supporting trumpf I apologize in advance.
    Where in the world would you get the impression that I claimed the Swiss were lying? I never stated that. Once again you are making a false claim. It really does bother you that climate models are unreliable and you are so frustrated that you are willing to falsely claim I said things I did not. Why are you resorting to such dishonesty?
  12. 18 Apr '18 19:42
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra to MetalBrain
    Why would you expect to find "truth" from a Kremlin-run website concerning matters related to Russia?
    Why would 'Russia Today' not report the facts if they are perceived as in the Russian government's interest?

    This is not a comment on this case. But is 'Russia Today' more biased than Fox News Channel?
    Many Americans still regard Fox News Channel as a trustworthy, if not preferred, source of news.
  13. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    19 Apr '18 00:14
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Why would 'Russia Today' not report the facts if they are perceived as in the Russian government's interest?

    This is not a comment on this case. But is 'Russia Today' more biased than Fox News Channel?
    Many Americans still regard Fox News Channel as a trustworthy, if not preferred, source of news.
    There are some people who consider faux news as reliable but anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature knows they are Trumps support group. For instance, the latest finding was Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, one of his three(!) clients was Sean Hannity, Fox news talking head, chief Trump mouthpiece:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/business/media/sean-hannity-michael-cohen-client.html

    Fox news is nothing but a propaganda machine for the republican party and especially, Trump.

    I go to CNN, NPR, BBC, Radio Netherlands, and the like for my news. Maybe not the best and if you have better sources, I would like a link.

    The only time I go to fox news is to find out what they are saying, what they are lying about.
  14. 19 Apr '18 01:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    There are some people who consider faux news as reliable but anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature knows they are Trumps support group. For instance, the latest finding was Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, one of his three(!) clients was Sean Hannity, Fox news talking head, chief Trump mouthpiece:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/business/media ...[text shortened]...
    The only time I go to fox news is to find out what they are saying, what they are lying about.
    Fox News Channel would argue that if extremely few people trusted it, then its ratings would
    fall, its advertisers would flee, and it would go out of business. So it implies that capitalism validates it.

    During the Second World War, mass graves of murdered Polish POWs were discovered around Katyn.
    German Propaganda Minister Goebbels accused the USSR and Stalin of the crimes.
    The USSR blamed Germany, adding that everyone knew that Goebbels was a shameless liar.
    The UK and the USA went along with the USSR. In this case, however, Goebbels was NOT lying.
    The USSR did massacre the Polish POWs, as most Poles had suspected from the beginning.
    The USSR lied to cover up its crimes, and the UK and USA went along though they knew better.
    Even after the war, the USSR attempted to frame some innocent Germans for these crimes.

    My point is that it's foolish to believe that 'Russia Today' must be telling the truth, the whole
    truth, and nothing but the truth about Russia. But it's also wrong to believe that something
    must be false just because it came from 'Russia Today'.
  15. 19 Apr '18 02:11
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    There are some people who consider faux news as reliable but anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature knows they are Trumps support group. For instance, the latest finding was Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, one of his three(!) clients was Sean Hannity, Fox news talking head, chief Trump mouthpiece:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/business/media ...[text shortened]...
    The only time I go to fox news is to find out what they are saying, what they are lying about.
    "For instance, the latest finding was Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, one of his three(!) clients was Sean Hannity, Fox news talking head, chief Trump mouthpiece:"

    Sean Hannity was not his client. It is ironic that your attempt to show Fox News lies results in you repeating a lie from another source. It doesn't take a high IQ to know asking a lawyer questions about law does not make Hannity a client.