You have no clue what you’re talking about.
I mean imagine complaining about being excluded from a conversation in one breath and then confidently proclaiming to know what the conversation is about in the next.
I’ve had all kinds of different people PM on like 10 different forums over like the last 20 years to talk about other people, at least in part anyway. I can’t imagine any other heavy forum user finds this unusual or surprising.
What if we start a private PM thread to say good things about people?
I said talk about other people - who said it was always bad things? I’ve even said good things specifically about you. Recently!
No, he’s not an anti-vaxxer. He’s a troll who for his last ban had the audacity to tell a person he knows to be a doctor on the front lines treating covid patients that he was wrong about what covid symptoms are. He lies about the articles he posts, and he lies about why people were dismissive of the claims in the articles he posts. It’s not about being wrong. It’s about bad faith.
I can vouch for that, you did.
You were the only one, though.
Has it occurred to you there may be reason to cut him more slack?
Which is?
1 Like
Why don’t you ask him instead of making assumptions?
Well then maybe I’ll start a secret PM thread where I say nice things about you!
1 Like
Churchill has been doing this for well over a year. you can’t post really bad sources for over a year, be moderated or called out for it every single time and still feign ignorance. This is a “fool me once” situation but we’re on the 27th time. It’s not cute anymore.
If he put out one bad study, got corrected then apologized literally nobody would be upset at them. The fact they double down every time, seem to be finding the most ludicrous not peer reviewed studies to just troll and this happens nearly every week isn’t funny anymore.
1 Like
Gotcha. I’ll trust that I’ve missed some things. Another reason I haven’t done any real modding in that thread.
I had forgotten about the combative part of it to be honest, I stopped reading the covid-19 thread for a few months after recovering from it.
The random BBC articles are whatever, I don’t think many people if anyone gets upset at those. I think the studies are what has gotten the harshest replies and he either has to communicate better on why he is sharing quite random unproven stuff repeatedly, or offer up more in a discussion.
Like a few of them would be like if CN came into the football thread and posted an article “why celtic should be sold to a US hedge fund” and just left.
Does he deserve worse treatment?
Usually the studies are fine, he just makes absurd claims that aren’t supported by the studies. Today was a weird one where he posted a preprint that he knew had already been debunked ITT and then baselessly accused people of being prejudiced against Italians when they criticized it.
Do you have a problem with the Socratic method?
- Yes
- No
- Sometimes
- I don’t know
0 voters
3 Likes
Why are you complaining about something you’ve long tuned out of? Obviously there might be things that have happened in the literal months that you claim to have not been paying attention.
Churchill is way past the point of deserving to receive the benefit of the doubt in the Covid thread. Whether you call it “bad faith” or “trolling” or whatever, many of his posts in that thread are manifestly terrible. I am not sure what the reason is and frankly don’t really care. If there is one thread on UP that should have higher posting standards it is the Covid thread.
Right, but you have no idea one way or the other, so – no offense – who cares what you think?