Nancy Snyderman = Ebola Fail

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
47 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Nancy Snyderman = Ebola Fail

Noah John
This post was updated on .
So assface uses a WHO estimate and I used a CDC estimate.  Who's estimate is more accurate?  I dunno and either does assface.  But I do know that neither estimate gets any where near "tens of thousands".  

Post something else.  It's like playing whack-a-mole.

PS:

Until you figure out how to use the quote function, you may not want to be calling others "stupid".  Just sayin'.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Nancy Snyderman = Ebola Fail

Snowballs
Banned User
This post was updated on .
Noah John wrote
 Who's estimate is more accurate?  
Of course it was !  hahaha.

Joking aside, you wouldn't know WHO's was more accurate  cause you're a dumb dumb. Need more proof ? SURE !

You asked me what's the basis for my statement that the 5,481 number was off by thousands THEN you immediately quote the WHO more current figure of 8,914...... and you still couldn't figure out why the first figure was errant OR what was the basis for my statement that 5,481 was off by thousands.

HOO BOY ! That was wicked stupid of you ! Off the charts ! Hehehehe !

You one fumbduck and you seldom if ever, miss a chance to show it.

OH ! You proved me right yet again.... Punks like you are always easy to defeat.

Noah swishes and then swallows yet again !
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Nancy Snyderman = Ebola Fail

Noah John
This post was updated on .
So your "proof" that the CDC's figure is off by thousands is to simply produce a WHO figure that differs with it? That certainly demonstrates that there is some uncertainty with the figures (no real surprise there) but it's not dispositive of the issue. (BTW, assface, the CDC figures are from October 25.)

More importantly, neither the CDC or the WHO support your statement that "tens of thousands of people have become infected by being in close proximity to infected people".  Quit quibbling about details, assface, and address the substance.  First, no reputable health organization has published figures of actual documented infections anywhere near "tens of thousands" and secondly no reputable health organization has stated that you can become infected merely by being in close proximity to an infected person.  Post again you stupid fuckin' monkey.  And then tell me about the horrors of skiing powder and how you need a nautical chart to safely pilot a "boat" that you could float in a mud puddle.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Nancy Snyderman = Ebola Fail

Snowballs
Banned User
In reply to this post by Snowballs
Snowballs wrote
 HOO BOY ! That was wicked stupid of you ! Off the charts ! Hehehehe !

Noah swishes and then swallows yet again !
How's that for using the quote feature dumb dumb ?

It's noteworthy because......

Snowballs wrote
 That was wicked stupid of you ! Off the charts ! Hehehehe !
and because stupidity of your caliber is exceptional and you seem to enjoy it's taste as you swallow.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Nancy Snyderman = Ebola Fail

ScottyJack
hahahahahah!!  awesome stuff.  I am learning all kinds of stuff and its an enjoyable experience.  I wish my grade school experience was like this, I'd be way smarter!  

Thx for the laughs fellas!  
I ride with Crazy Horse!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Nancy Snyderman = Ebola Fail

Snowballs
Banned User
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Nancy Snyderman = Ebola Fail

Harvey
Administrator
In reply to this post by Harvey
Was in Peasant Grill tonight. Things are back to normal. The community refused to be cowered and business is back to normal. The owner told me they have seen some new faces, curious about all the fuss.
"You just need to go at that shit wide open, hang on, and own it." —Camp
123