Btw im sitting in a parking lot picking up my 5 year old from his 2nd shot of pfizer vax. Hooray science
5 Likes
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA
7 Likes
Maybe we can just get back together every once in a while for some regrettable drunk sex?
2 Likes
We should never move past that phase in any thread. Who cares.
1 Like
My perception is that churchill has been asked multiple times to provide links or citations for some of the things he posts. This leads to a round of arguing about his failure to link or cite. Despite this, he occasionally still makes posts that lead to this complaining.
My judgement is that heās either bad at posting or he wants this arguing to go on.
The validity of Dr. Nurse John or preprints seem relatively unimportant to me. It might also not matter if his tactics resemble those of conspiracy theorists like 9/11 truthers. The forum is for arguing, but churchill posts some stuff that leads to dumb arguments. And that is a churchill problem, not a CN and Wookie problem.
In which case? It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that at least in the case of Barbara A. Cohn study the link was given and deleted by a mod and Churchil was wrongly treated. The fact that the study proved to be significant makes it more embarrassing scientific-wise for the group, but thatās beside the point.
Maybe you are referring to the other case.
I do wonder if Barbara is aware that her research was barked at by the Anti-Vax dog.
My perception is based on my recollection that I have asked churchill for links with unsatisfying results.
I really am curious if any of you idiots eventually realize that youāre addicted to arguing and that the size of Churchillās big toe isnāt actually meaningful to any of your reasonings for being here.
4 Likes
Iām curious to hear how you explain away the second case.
I have no idea what it is. Iāll give it a shot later if iām provided all the details by a reliable source like MakeHaste. Maybe Church is guilty there. It wonāt shock me.
But I do need you to show some learning curve here, otherwise Iām just been given home work that seem futile.
Do you now understand why your approach, in which you consider the mean of communication in which a person heard of a study to be more important than the study itself, is anti-scientific?
Even after many explanations and knowing that the actual study was posted here and is in fact an important paper done by epidemiologists and published in the highest academic journal, you held your position that the place Church heard about it is still a citation required by a forum and deserve a 2 day break if it is not provided. Do you understand how anti science that is now?
If you are just trolling me and arenāt actually curious thatās fine too. We are after all idiots and something about toes.
It was upthread, hereās a link (odd you didnāt notice it!). Looking forward to seeing you rationalize this one!
I will take a look, but again it canāt be a one-way street.
You were extremely mistaken in the case we already discussed. Church was right. It has been proven. You canāt just shrug and on to the next case, thatās not how it works. Iām unaware if and why Church was banned for that Barbara Cohn Science publication, but if he was there need to be some discussion about why the mods were wrong and how to fix it.
Ah, I see the problem here: you are in error.
1 Like
So you are officially writing in bad faith. No wonder the forum canāt heal when you get to troll the forum freely.
I propose an official cite or ban. Life time ban for either me or you if a full link to a preprint article (by a known epidemiologist that was published in Science later) is considered a proper citation or does the link to the youtube where the poster heard about it is required by proper scientific discussion rules.
The loser is perma banned. You canāt lie to the forum. Thatās trolling.
2 Likes
Yuv, you did say you were going to look at this and give me your explanation.
1 Like
No, I said I would do this after you acknowledge your mistake. Why are you trolling?
You said you didnāt make a mistake, I have. I proposed a perma ban bet about it. You ignore me more.
Are you capable of not trolling?
Can you guys take a break for a second from the childish fight and realize that you ridiculed a study that was published in SCIENCE exactly 3 weeks after you, a group of non professional scientist (at least in this field) made fun of it? And literally none of you stops to question how poorly it makes you look.
2 Likes
Iām starting to suspect you donāt have a good explanation for it.
1 Like
Flagged for trolling. Why do you have to do this? Itās a shame you are set on destroying this forum.
Itās really disappointing to learn that someone like trolly canāt engage in a conversation or admit when he was proven wrong. This is the opposite of what this community should be.
We wonāt hold our breath waiting for you to rationalize how everything about the first case was misconstrued, the approach taken by team science was wholly anti-scientific, the trolling was actually performed by team anti-troll, and the temp ban was thus wholly without merit.
You make zero acknowledgement, refuse to consider any lessons learned, and just toss out another exercise in drudging up the past.
Itās almost like you arenāt really here in Good Faithā¢. Itās almost like youāre aā¦ aā¦ aā¦ oh shall I say itā¦ A troll? Ah the horror.
1 Like