Church, it would help move the convo forward if you could give us a straight answer as to whether or not you cropped out the link from your post. I’m willing to consider the possibility that it’s a formatting snafu.
I made the post (and the screenshot) about 3 days before the comment was made. I believe. Either way, I wouldn’t levave myself open to such obvious opposition, if I had seen the comment (probably won’t have posted it until I substantiated the comment)
Of course, what you wanna believe will be up to you.
Did you deliberately crop out the link? Why?
The first case of now published report didn’t stick (teflon don) so now they’re drudging the posts, determined to find something that killed off the masses by believing the church - 'Churchill’s posts lead to the deaths of fuphmty subs they say… witchcraft.
You guys could just say “It’s a weird formatting error.” I can’t prove it wasn’t.
- @churchill posted a preprint arguing that COVID was present in Barcelona in March 2019, which raised immediate skepticism.
- There was a comment on the preprint that he linked to. @mosdef suggested that he read the comments to that particular preprint [because the comment contained a very relevant link to a report that likely disproved the posted claim.]
- @churchill responded that he did read the comment, and posted a screenshot of that comment.
- The comment that @churchill posted a screenshot of actually contained a link to a report. But @churchill’s screenshot did not include this link.
- @j8i3h289dn3x7 helpfully posted the link to the report.
- @churchill claims that he still can’t locate the report, despite having posted a screenshot of the original comment that provided the report link.
- I said this is crazy, because he literally screenshot the source of the report.
- @churchill again says he can’t possibly find the report.
I could but I’d be lying… and I don’t do that. I don’t remember.
Looks like I’m not trying to hide stuff, maybe acknowledging…
An extremely cynical person might think he deliberately cropped the link out to maintain the fiction that he couldn’t find the link.
All the chef’s kisses
RFC: Someone (maybe, probably didn’t) cropped an image and then was refered to a comment and then posted the screenshot of the comment - Permaban #3
I didn’t see said comment - which is why I posted screenshot of said comment, after I was directed to it, to like correct the record.
can I get an undertitle - something like: ‘Churchill - Warning, might be a PREPRINT’
What I will say here doesn’t rise to the level of mathematical certainty that is sometimes demanded of me, but those posts crab found seem awfully sus imo.
I think it’s throwing back into your face your propensity to say stuff like “please stop,” “can we not do this,” etc when someone posts something you don’t like.
I think the main point here which seems to be getting lost is… who cares? Suzzer is posting the wildest unverified mega sus tweets all hours of the day in the Ukraine thread. Ikes just making up claims about 50 people starting RFCs to ban him. How about we just don’t ban people for any of this stuff? It’s the internet, Reader Beware!!
I and presumably others care about keeping the Covid thread free from misleading posts (not to mention misinformation). I and presumably others have in the past made and likely will in the future make family decisions based to some degree on the posts in that thread. (The same cannot be said, I don’t think, with respect to the Ukraine thread.)
You, it came from you. You used that phrase repeatedly when engaging people and it’s a terrible rhetoric device which nearly always coexist with lack of actual content. It’s a light hearted needle but it also an attempt to show you how unproductive it is.
I dont think their posting styles are similar at all. Suzzer engages with the topic and will accept pushback and doesn’t think they are an authority on the subject.
Huh. Thought it was a funny inside joke or something.
So, remind me again, why was Sabo banned? (lighthearted attempt at shifting the thread direction)