4 ms·

I did follow the link, and so far there seems to be a small cluster of stories all reprinting each other and the exact same pictures with reference to a single

by evgen 6y ago

I did follow the link, and so far there seems to be a small cluster of stories all reprinting each other and the exact same pictures with reference to a single shipment to a single crematorium in late March. One. Single. Event. Where are the other shipments in to other cities? Where is the supply chain evidence that this was an across-the-board jump in urn orders and not a single entrepreneur aiming to pre-order big and then have inventory he could resell at a markup if things went bad? Where is the rest of the evidence?

nickff 6y ago
You wanted a citation, I gave it to you, and now you’re shifting the goalposts. If you want more extensive evidence, I would invite you to investigate, and post your findings here. Lazy rhetoric is ruining HN, and your posts here are part of the problem.
- evgen 6y ago
  You provided one very weak piece of supporting evidence and expect us to consider that a validation of your otherwise completely unfounded claim regarding China having a high death rate and hiding it? You are projecting when it comes to claims of shifting goalposts and lazy rhetoric. Let's go back to your original claim, shall we? "China was trucking in loads of urns every day that were more than ten times larger then their reported death rates; doesn't that count as visible evidence?" No, China was not trucking in loads of urns every day. There was one _single_ report of a large shipment and from the picture provided it would have trouble filling a single truck, certainly not 'loads.' Then there is that 'every day' lie. It was one single day. So yes, for a single day in March it was 'every day' and then for each day thereafter it was not. The number of urns delivered was double the reported death rate and not ten times. It would appear that every single clause of your short claim was wrong. I have a hard time seeing how that counts as supporting evidence.

by evgen 6y ago

nickff 6y ago

You wanted a citation, I gave it to you, and now you’re shifting the goalposts. If you want more extensive evidence, I would invite you to investigate, and post your findings here. Lazy rhetoric is ruining HN, and your posts here are part of the problem.

evgen 6y ago
You provided one very weak piece of supporting evidence and expect us to consider that a validation of your otherwise completely unfounded claim regarding China having a high death rate and hiding it? You are projecting when it comes to claims of shifting goalposts and lazy rhetoric. Let's go back to your original claim, shall we? "China was trucking in loads of urns every day that were more than ten times larger then their reported death rates; doesn't that count as visible evidence?" No, China was not trucking in loads of urns every day. There was one _single_ report of a large shipment and from the picture provided it would have trouble filling a single truck, certainly not 'loads.' Then there is that 'every day' lie. It was one single day. So yes, for a single day in March it was 'every day' and then for each day thereafter it was not. The number of urns delivered was double the reported death rate and not ten times. It would appear that every single clause of your short claim was wrong. I have a hard time seeing how that counts as supporting evidence.