好正常
1. 如果條友係假的唔駛講
2. 如果條友係真, 正常人都唔會想比人起底騷擾, 刪除個人網負好正常
所以無乜鬼唔鬼
係秘密鏡頭下，輝端高層承認製造病毒變種。
愛在地球毀滅時
327 回覆
1106 Like
184 Dislike
如果你真係有留意上面人講野, 佢地研究"病毒變種"唔一定係具感染力的病毒
人地打唔打關你撚事呀？定係你自己打足4針驚自己短命d唔抵得人地冇打都照常生活到呀？
利伸 0針
利伸 0針
係google同Pfizer del唔係個人del
條荷蘭友？
btw佢個谷啲人包括佢都幾癲
疫苗嘢嘅討論相對正常
但俄烏戰爭依啲冇乜必要take side嘅事佢地可以忽然親俄
edge lord到一個點
btw佢個谷啲人包括佢都幾癲
疫苗嘢嘅討論相對正常
但俄烏戰爭依啲冇乜必要take side嘅事佢地可以忽然親俄
edge lord到一個點痴撚線 連登仔邊係信果個 係屈果個呀
咁你加多句科興就唔同有咩用？
邏輯薄弱
邏輯薄弱
貼張習近平出黎你咪又係hang 曬機
不要分得那麼細
不要分得那麼細
打完咪變到好似你咁智障囉
post喺r/conspiracy
而家已經唔係conspiracy theory係conspiracy fact
而家已經唔係conspiracy theory係conspiracy fact
左癌：MSM最可信啊！
其他媒體唔可信啊！
其他媒體唔可信啊！生意好啊
Salty
咁就廢啦
改極0針都攪唔正
打嚟把撚咩
改極0針都攪唔正
打嚟把撚咩
你第一日識Cctoy？
美國係聖人唔會做錯架
你識唔識架？
美國係聖人唔會做錯架
你識唔識架？
而家就係屌緊佢做同武漢類似嘅嘢
不過樓主改標題都係仆街嚟
不過樓主改標題都係仆街嚟
通常一堆英文source博你唔睇
咩呀
你貼出黎個3段野
得第一段質疑佢身份
第二段咪話片段係edited ，forbes覺得要有full version unedited先知哂前文後理囉，呢個質疑我咪話左好合理
You know, there are a lot of steps between conceptual discussions and reality. Similarly, without seeing the whole original unedited continuous footage of the Project Veritas video, you can’t really tell whether there was any actual concrete discussion of Pfizer’s plans or whether everything was more of a theoretical discussion.
第三段佢想講 條片edit過，又無其他證據，一黎就話 “a Pfizer executive bragging about how his company conducts Frankenstein science, manipulating COVID viruses for profit, and does it in secret, possibly in violation of federal law”
覺得佢又話人Frankenstein science 又乜乜乜，但係又無足夠証明，篇報道比較嘩眾取寵
Anyway篇文最後都話
So, in the end, this Project Veritas video really hasn’t proven or even provided strong evidence of anything. There’s a lot in the Project Veritas video that needs much further verification before you can make very strong statements about anything.
重點係最尾個句，我覺得都合理，呢個咁strong既statement應該需要足夠強既証明支持
唔知你有冇聽過wirecard做假數件事，人地記者都係提供大量証明支持，透過一條edited video就咁斷定太武斷
打到呢到覺得，可能我認真左
你貼出黎個3段野
得第一段質疑佢身份
第二段咪話片段係edited ，forbes覺得要有full version unedited先知哂前文後理囉，呢個質疑我咪話左好合理
You know, there are a lot of steps between conceptual discussions and reality. Similarly, without seeing the whole original unedited continuous footage of the Project Veritas video, you can’t really tell whether there was any actual concrete discussion of Pfizer’s plans or whether everything was more of a theoretical discussion.
第三段佢想講 條片edit過，又無其他證據，一黎就話 “a Pfizer executive bragging about how his company conducts Frankenstein science, manipulating COVID viruses for profit, and does it in secret, possibly in violation of federal law”
覺得佢又話人Frankenstein science 又乜乜乜，但係又無足夠証明，篇報道比較嘩眾取寵
Anyway篇文最後都話
So, in the end, this Project Veritas video really hasn’t proven or even provided strong evidence of anything. There’s a lot in the Project Veritas video that needs much further verification before you can make very strong statements about anything.
重點係最尾個句，我覺得都合理，呢個咁strong既statement應該需要足夠強既証明支持
唔知你有冇聽過wirecard做假數件事，人地記者都係提供大量証明支持，透過一條edited video就咁斷定太武斷
打到呢到覺得，可能我認真左
對住篇文都可以講大話
第二段：
你可以考慮和談論你將與 Jason Mamoa、Emily Ratajkowski 或 Triston 以及他柔軟的頭髮一起做的所有事情，但通過 Tinder 與他們中的任何一個見面的機會可能非常低。
第三段：
你能肯定地說這個 Project Veritas 視頻是假的或上演的，“Jordon Trishton Walker”實際上是一個危機演員，而 Triston 的頭髮並不是世界上最柔軟的嗎？
第二段：
你可以考慮和談論你將與 Jason Mamoa、Emily Ratajkowski 或 Triston 以及他柔軟的頭髮一起做的所有事情，但通過 Tinder 與他們中的任何一個見面的機會可能非常低。
第三段：
你能肯定地說這個 Project Veritas 視頻是假的或上演的，“Jordon Trishton Walker”實際上是一個危機演員，而 Triston 的頭髮並不是世界上最柔軟的嗎？
其實你同整圖條友知唔知陰謀論點解
成件事好撚癲..成渣左翼媒體集體收聲Google/YouTube 即頭ban project veritas 條片。輝端淨係靜靜雞出個聲明就算數
首先唔好再拎住個google translate，你個翻譯錯晒，睇原文先有討論價值
第二段
Secondly, thinking and talking about a possibility is not the same as saying that something is actually being done. You can think about and talk everything that you are going to do with Jason Mamoa, Emily Ratajkowski, or Triston and his soft, soft hair but the chances of meeting any of them through Tinder may be pretty darn low. They have to actually be on Tinder. They have to swipe right and so do you. You have to chit chat a little bit. You have to say things like, “Aside from being sexy, what do you do for a living” and “Do you like raisins? How do you feel about a date?”
因為條片個員工只係話公司有諗過培育變種病毒，預先生產疫苗，但係個員工無話過公司已經做左，只係會議中提過呢個想法
所以forbes就用比喻話你可以ff同好多明星做好多野，但都只係ff，無真係做，基本唔係講緊條友身份真定假
同埋第二段main point係要有條unedited既片先有討論空間，因為要有前文後理
第三段 你個翻譯錯到離晒譜
你能肯定地說這個 Project Veritas 視頻是假的或上演的，“Jordon Trishton Walker”實際上是一個危機演員，而 Triston 的頭髮並不是世界上最柔軟的嗎？
Can you say for sure that this Project Veritas video is fake or staged and that “Jordon Trishton Walker” is actually a crisis actor and that Triston doesn’t really has the softest hair in the world? No, not 100% at this moment.
人地係話
Can you say for sure條片係fake 個員工係演員 ?no not 100% at this moment
Google翻譯就話你能肯定地說這個 Project Veritas 視頻是假的或上演的
第二段
Secondly, thinking and talking about a possibility is not the same as saying that something is actually being done. You can think about and talk everything that you are going to do with Jason Mamoa, Emily Ratajkowski, or Triston and his soft, soft hair but the chances of meeting any of them through Tinder may be pretty darn low. They have to actually be on Tinder. They have to swipe right and so do you. You have to chit chat a little bit. You have to say things like, “Aside from being sexy, what do you do for a living” and “Do you like raisins? How do you feel about a date?”
因為條片個員工只係話公司有諗過培育變種病毒，預先生產疫苗，但係個員工無話過公司已經做左，只係會議中提過呢個想法
所以forbes就用比喻話你可以ff同好多明星做好多野，但都只係ff，無真係做，基本唔係講緊條友身份真定假
同埋第二段main point係要有條unedited既片先有討論空間，因為要有前文後理
第三段 你個翻譯錯到離晒譜
你能肯定地說這個 Project Veritas 視頻是假的或上演的，“Jordon Trishton Walker”實際上是一個危機演員，而 Triston 的頭髮並不是世界上最柔軟的嗎？
Can you say for sure that this Project Veritas video is fake or staged and that “Jordon Trishton Walker” is actually a crisis actor and that Triston doesn’t really has the softest hair in the world? No, not 100% at this moment.
人地係話
Can you say for sure條片係fake 個員工係演員 ?no not 100% at this moment
Google翻譯就話你能肯定地說這個 Project Veritas 視頻是假的或上演的
人地唔識英文唔好話人啦 