I can’t make this bet. Are you poor-shaming me now?
1 Like
Please stop
3 Likes
I’m reluctant to moderate accusations of bad faith in this thread, but I think it would be far better to address people’s arguments substantively than accuse them of trolling/posting in bad faith.
I also think it’s pretty clear Yuv is being completely honest here and has no history I’m aware of that he doesn’t post in good faith.
3 Likes
You’re wildly and deliberately misconstruing the facts even after we’ve patiently explained them to you.
I made the same reading mistake!
2 Likes
Cite (even without the ban, although we can up the stakes if you like).
The patiently part seems judgmental as well. I think I patiently shown how poor your argument was.
I think I understood the fact perfectly but I’m willing to have someone correct me.
a) Church posted a jpeg that shows a (real) study.
b) Church received aggressive comments that @anon46587892 dug up
c) Church replied aggressively without revealing the source
d) Church (may have) linked the preprint in a post that was deleted (no evidence on that yet, but seems important)
e) The study, with edits and changes like any paper, was published in Science
If d is correct then not only is this a non-issue, it is a glaring example of how Church is being mistreated.
If d is incorrect then Church post is def bad and should be widely ignored until the preprint or more detailed source is provided.
Which of this is wrong @Trolly?
Nope, no judgement on you, and if folks find it fun to meta analyze one of the many blow-outs there, that’s cool with me. Seemed like some were indicating that they didn’t follow that thread, but that the meta analysis of that one situation was instructive toward their judgement as to whether someone was being unjustly persecuted.
I think the issue was that church hill didn’t link to Dr. Campbell’s you tube video from which the jpg taken from but linked to the preprint itself. The jpg itself was based on the preprint, I think? Like a chart that Dr. Campbell made from the preprint information? I don’t understand why this is significant either. But apparently it’s Very Important?
The Dr. John part is only mildly important if no preprint link was ever provided. In that case i’d just ignore the post all together and return to it when the paper was published or a link to the preprint was provided.
If the link to the preprint was provided, the source now has 0 importance.
If anyone doesn’t understand that they shouldn’t post about scientific issues or they are posting in bad faith.
1 Like
No, you are not. Churchill has shown a pattern of behavior of posting questionable information from dubious sources. Because he is aware of how dubious his sources are he omits them and never reacts to requests for citations. This is all on purpose.
Nothing changes because this one time a study he got from a tinfoil head moron was merely flawed not completely debunked. He knew this guy is usually full of shit and he posted it anyway. I leave it as an exercise to the reader why he has been doing this.
2 Likes
Fair, that seems possible. So I am a bit surprised this was the case brought here.
@Yuv the provenance of the jpg and refusal to source was part of MakeHaste’s original concern:
Somehow you’ve completely forgotten about this, decided the screenshot was irrelevant to the matter of Church posting dubious unsourced screenshots:
who cares what the source of the jpeg was? the only thing that matters is the study.
I will take you at your word that this was a good-faith slip-up, but I will demand an apology.
I mean… I thought it was obvious this was a joke? Sorry because apparently it wasnt
I don’t understand what you are saying, I truly apologize.
MakeHaste has already agreed that if the preprint was provided there is absolutely no issue here. Are you claiming otherwise?
(if this back and forth is becoming annoying to read we can move to a PM cause I truly do not understand your point to a degree where either I’m crazy or you’re crazy so it’s better to solve the issue)
Nah I wasn’t mad at you, at all. I was just making fun of Victor for declaring that my team was complaining about my ban while you were saying it was fine
1 Like
It was published in the most prestigious scientific journal in the world!!!
1 Like
Happy for you to post the proof I posted the study when requested. I think it was a mod deletion but honestly wouldn’t bet on it. I remember getting angst and thinking 'fuck ‘em’ a few times times and deleting some prior posts. Not sure if this was one of those occasions.
A couple dozen times a benign unremarkable thing happened on an internet forum.
The horror.
Every time the terrible things that are alleged are analyzed and found to be not really that bad, it never changes the opinion of those holding the pitchforks, it’s the sentiment that matters more than any real facts of each event. That’s the whole fucking problem here.
2 Likes
So nothing changed from pre-print to publishing?
PS, you’ve somehow glossed over Church telling baldfaced lies about what the forum was saying about vaccine waning:
I understand it’s easy to overlook these things.