It’s a good thing though. I literally had no idea what Church has done so far but assumed it’s extremely awful.
This being the case they highlighted really shows poorly on the church must be permabanned to save the forum crowd. It’s always better to actually discuss these things. I’m sure i’m not the only one who gets a fresh glance into the issue.
who cares what the source of the jpeg was? the only thing that matters is the study.
FYI, I doubt anyone believes you’re getting a fresh glance at the issue. Just I like I doubt anyone really believes you have no opinion on Church the poster.
i don’t understand the correction, excuse my obtuseness.
The only thing that matters here is the link to the preprint. Anyone discussing the jpeg is 100% in the wrong and probably deserves moderation involvement if they do not drop the subject when the actual preprint link was provided.
This feels like the start of a racist remark, can’t wait. Are you gonna go with a foreigner, a jew or a uk bro?
I propose a lie detector test and a bet of a million dollars. Accept or ban?
It’s beyond clear that you’re not approaching this in good faith.
Unbelievable. I flagged this post. Show me where I wrote a single word in bad faith.
@Mods this is disgusting. I literally explained every single point I made and had yet to be challenged on any. Calling this bad faith is insulting the time I wasted trying to understand this issue while having a polite conversation with @MakeHaste.
This is trolly MO which he does over and over again.
Sounds like the time for discussion has passed. Sad!
Also pretending like this one situation is the genesis of people’s opinion on that poster is insane. This was one of like, I dunno, a couple dozen times this type of thing happened?
But this was the issue MakeHaste decided to bring for discussion.
Am I being trolled?
I can’t make this bet. Are you poor-shaming me now?
Please stop
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.
You’re wildly and deliberately misconstruing the facts even after we’ve patiently explained them to you.
I made the same reading mistake!
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.
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.