I assume you mean the light trolling was the benign thing on an internet forum and not the 12 hour timeouts?
Theyâre all benign and nothing to be creating so much repeated drama over.
1 Like
Except the bolded is actually a lie.
Itâs been freely and repeatedly admitted he sometimes âtrollsâ⌠In the same sense you and many others repeatedly do here. Some* even just call that posting on a forum.
Some = Adults
I donât know, Iâd have to compare. But it was three weeks from preprint publication to Science publication, so it must have been accepted with at most minor revisions.
Somebody correct if I am wrong but IIRC some astute posters here caught something in there that couldnât be correct?!
It is easy to overlook these things. Itâs hard to take X years of conflict and understand it in a mere hour. But itâs harder when the goal posts shifts. There was a user here who decided to bring up a case, a specific one. I outlined all the facts I understand from that case. My conclusion so far is that the case not only doesnât show Church has been very wrong (assuming he posted the preprint as he claims), but the response to him and apparently still your view of what important in this case is quite wrong in my opinion.
I never claimed i can fully quantify churchill as a user and I said repeatedly I believe thereâs a plausible chance he isnât a âqualityâ poster. Seems strange to blame me for not replying to everything especially when discussing something that requires so much research as everyoneâs position on vaccine waning in real time.
1 Like
To paraphrase CN, why do you think thatâs a dunk? That sounds like an excellent discussion. Church brought up a paper that seems to be quite right in its conclusion that vaccines are waning. It had some flaws detected by the people here and apparently by the reviewers at Science. They were fixed. Paper was published.
Where is the part where this discussion is bad? Why is this in AM months later?
1 Like
The goalposts havenât shifted. From the start MakeHaste was concerned about Church posting a screengrab and refusing to say where it came from. If your response is âwho cares about the jpg?â, then thereâs not much to discuss. He thinks itâs an important thing, you donât.
So, a typo?
I cannot believe in 2022 this has to be spelled out, but here we are âŚ
After the pandemic hit, there were innumerable studies regarding Covid such as on effectiveness of treatments/drugs, effectiveness of vaccines, etc., etc., etc. The results of many of these studies were written up and submitted to various places. This includes preprints which as its name suggests have not yet undergone any rigorous peer review. As everyone knows, authors frequently exaggerate their findings and/or the importance of their findings.
A cottage industry of sorts emerged to âcurateâ preprints and other not-yet-published results. Some times the curation was sincere and the results of the study were presented in an accurate and ever-handed manner. Other times the curation exaggerated or misinterpreted the results of the study and made no attempt to be even-handed. After many repetitions, some âcuratorsâ got the reputation for practicing the second type of curation.
Okay, what about traditional media? They have their own team of curators who curate the front-line curators. Typically they are not experts in the field (either) and search for the results that will have the biggest impact on their bottom line (most clicks, if it bleeds it leads, etc.) regardless of any questions about the study or its results.
That leave consumers of media some of whom post on internet forums. It seems that there are people who then curate the curators who curated the front-line curators who curated preprints. You can see that it could resemble the childrenâs game of Telephone, where at each stage the possibility exists for misinterpretation and/or embellishment (not necessarily nefariously, but that is always possible).
Generally speaking this all can be chalked up to âthe way of the worldâ. But in a global pandemic of new origins and possible treatments, I think Iâd rather some controls/caution be exercised.
4 Likes
He thought it was important thing when he assumed the paper wasnât linked. He agreed, as far as I can understand, that had the paper been linked it is not important.
The paper, according to church, had been linked.
Do you follow now? I think me and Haste made a decent progress in the discussion. Now I am willing to go further with you to understand why YOU think the screengrab is important WHEN the preprint is provided.
Why do you think he omits his sources?
You admitted that you havenât followed the Covid thread and therefore arenât familiar with Churchillâs posting history. Now are analyzing one incident in a vacuum and donât understand why some posters reacted the way they did. You see that Dr. Nurse John Brokenclock happened to be not completely wrong this one time and wonder why people are up in arms that Churchill once again regurgitated his content.
Churchill had used up all good will way before that and thatâs why posters stopped treating him kindly.
3 Likes
I didnât blame you; Iâm sure that was an honest oversight. But Church lying his ass off does seem to be relevant to the âis Church a bad poster â discourse that is all the rage nowadays.
Most of his links are from BBC and their website sucks and doesnât have perma links. Screen grabs are easier.
He doesnât seem to have a problem linking to BBC articles. Iâve never seen him do this screengrab bit with a BBC piece.
:) 3% to 13% effectiveness must make the Janssen receipients feel a whole lot better.
Please note this is protection against infection only, protection against death, for known variants, far higher.
CN spent much of yesterday lying his ass off about how his enemies were all trying to get him banned, and then walking that back. Not one of them asked for moderation of his posts.
Itâs always telling when one side holds a bar higher to others. Nobody from Team B is calling for more moderator action. If Team A wants more moderator action including perms, itâs on your team to show the actions are out of the norm.
To date, that case has been laughable.
2 Likes
It is not an oversight. Thatâs a weird phrasing. I saw what church wrote, I saw what you claimed. You didnât prove he was lying in any way. I saw many many opinions change. I saw a post where Wookie makes fun of the idea that a variant can cause the vaccines to be less effective. Iâm sure there are posts where Wookie clearly agrees that the vaccines were less effective vs certain variants.
I never overlooked what you wrote, itâs just that you didnât show any proof (nor did church of course, which in this case the burden is on him). It seems irrelevant he said / he said situation that I donât have the time or resources to look into further.
