It was upthread, here’s a link (odd you didn’t notice it!). Looking forward to seeing you rationalize this one!
I will take a look, but again it can’t be a one-way street.
You were extremely mistaken in the case we already discussed. Church was right. It has been proven. You can’t just shrug and on to the next case, that’s not how it works. I’m 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 can’t 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 can’t lie to the forum. That’s 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 didn’t 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
I’m starting to suspect you don’t have a good explanation for it.
1 Like
Flagged for trolling. Why do you have to do this? It’s a shame you are set on destroying this forum.
It’s really disappointing to learn that someone like trolly can’t engage in a conversation or admit when he was proven wrong. This is the opposite of what this community should be.
We won’t 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.
It’s almost like you aren’t really here in Good Faith™. It’s almost like you’re a… a… a… oh shall I say it… A troll? Ah the horror.
1 Like
The fact that the paper was published, after fixing the exact flaw that was spotted, is not some vindication against so-called Team Science. It is good that it is published after being fixed, and I support that. It would have been better to catch this error prior to publishing a preprint, but catching things prior to formal publication is how the process is supposed to work. What isn’t scientific is piggybacking on a dodgy youtoober to trumpet a flawed result without either evaluating it or qualifying about the preliminary nature of the work.
2 Likes
Wtf is wrong with you guys? I run a Finnish punk forum with ~3000 users who are mostly fucked up, used and abused people and still we don’t have this kind of bickering and personal attacks. We get along just fine. Please someone give me the discord invite, maybe the talk there is less hateful?
1 Like
There is one significant demographic difference in the two forums lol, well one that immediately springs to mind
I see many. Yes I know most of us are well-off white guys in our forties and I like you guys. I know I don’t post much but I’ve learned a lot from you in 20 years I’ve been a part of 22 and this. Would be sad to see this end but that’s the way it goes.
1 Like
Is it that surprising? Some of us have been chatting for 20 years now. Each side thinks the other fucked up something great and we’re/they’re pissed.
I appreciate the reply. As you probably know, in order to even have your paper reviewed in Science your study have to impress the editor enough as a body of work that has a chance to be published. Then to pass two reviewers who decides the study is worth publishing after certain questiond are answered and corrections are made (you usually don’t argue to much with a reviewer in Science). Usually conclusions are not the part that gets massively edited in something that gets accepted so quickly.
Now i wouldnt be shocked if the entry barrier for massive covid studies during the pandemic wasnt as high as say a astrophysics paper sent to the same journal, but it is still relatively high when compared to almost any other paper published in the field during the time. Tbf, looking briefly at the published data it seems fairly close to the original very flawed article but i’m no epidemiologist. Barbara is.
The only important point is that the editor of Science immediately recognized this is a worthy and important work while UP was demanding sources for the whereabouts church even came across it. This should be a major red flag for how biased the thread had become.
2 Likes
Less talk more finnish punk band yootoobz links
This works?
1 Like
I’ve written this post ten times but all I can say is no, I’m not surprised.
1 Like
Not when the information is presented with the author. He got it from Barabara Cohn from Berkeley University and Oakland public health department.
I said in my very first post that a mere screenshot isn’t worth any discussion to begin with.
Hahahahahahahaha