If that’s the case, i find it very odd the constant push back when the 2nd reply should have been “yeah, you’re right, there wasn’t any offense by churchill”. Funny how everyone kept implying it was to justify a ban that you say never happened. Telling almost.
Anyway i’m genuinely happy to hear that my initial assertion, back in the MakeHaste days of yesterday, that there was nothing wrong here on Church’s end and def nothing mod worthy was proven to be true. So many posts could have been saved. Thanks for digging it up. Have a good night Goofy!
It is not dishonest to talk about why the screenshot in churchill’s post upset Team Science when that is what upset them. It is far more dishonest to focus on the merits of the paper which by and large were not the issue.
Man, for someone who’s got so many opinions about churchill’s posting in the covid thread, you’ve done remarkably little to get the least bit of understanding by reviewing links you’ve been supplied or other publicly available information. No, churchill was not banned for that post. He was banned not too long after that for insulting CN’s work as an ER doctor, though.
This is plainly a dishonest reading of what I said. Flawed conclusions are worthless, but the data that went into them, which can be re-analyzed correctly, are worthwhile.
Neither you nor I know what the Science editor and the chosen reviewers reviewed. It’s possible, even likely, that the public commentary on the preprint improved the paper prior to submission to Science.
Do you deny that the paper was being pushed by anti-vaxxers, and do you have any evidence contrary to these claims?
And again, “amplifying trash” is not a claim strictly limited to this study. Churchill also is choosing to amplfy a youtuber who promotes ivermectin and other bullshit.
It wasn’t! Like, you don’t get to do a math problem, dutifully showing your work, and make a mistake 75% of the way through it, and then claim your answer is 75% correct. It’s a wrong answer. The conclusions are important! This wasn’t a typo in the background information. It was literally the conclusions.
I don’t think anyone else used the fear of someone’s else’s child getting covid as an opportunity troll or been banned 20 times for trolling the same thread.
I’m 100% sure you wouldn’t stand for me talking about your family in such a way. The question is why you’re ok with him doing it about wookie’s and mine.
You seem to not get it – It should have been the issue, that is my point and have been.
Dunking on church when he supplies a paper, which he claims he did 5 mins into the conversation, is not something that should be allowed or tolerated. Once he supplied the link the paper was the only thing that needed any reply from you guys, unless Church brought Dr John’s own conclusions and analysis of the paper.
This part could have been moderated. Attacking him for bringing a completely legitimate paper because you don’t like where he brought it from, even though he never added anything from that source as far as I can understand, should not be allowed.
In biblical Hebrew there’s a saying that is directly translated to “His blood is allowed”. It refers to a situation where a person is no longer protected by any law and anything can be done to him by anyone without repercussions.
This is the status you guys handle Church with. It is evident by Louis explaining that Church is to blame here because Church is to blame. He is church, therefore he is guilty.
Fair enough, so we’re back to square one. You think it should have been moderated and I am here to prove why it shouldn’t. With the distinction that I do think CN should have been moderated in that conversation now that I read it in half (as i can’t read the deleted posts).
It would have been an uncontroversial post except for that issue, and trying to ignore the fact that he’s deliberately and knowingly sneaking in a bullshitter is relevant.
what would sneaking in a bullshitter means here? The paper was provided. The screenshot was so vague it took some detective work to find who supplied it.
I agree a better poster would have provided the preprint only. A better poster would probably not watch Dr. John. But none of this make any sense of the claim that the screenshot followed by the PDF has some negative effect on the forum other than you guys really wanted to shit on church. Thats a bad thing.
I don’t just straight trust your interpretation. If you want to show me the posts I’ll let you know what I think.
I still wouldn’t call for a permaban. I think this happened when I defended you on 2p2. You were posting something about the Duke rape thing and I had the temerity to treat you like a normal person and then FlyWf wrote a fantasy about my daughter getting raped and that would be fine by me or I’d deserve it or something. I told him to fuck off obviously, but I still didn’t call for his ban. I think that was it, but it has been a while. That FlyWf was the fucking worst.
Look, let’s put a pause on the details of this particular case. Do you think someone who repeatedly posts misinformation in the covid thread (or other threads, if you will) should be moderated? Should the strictness of the moderation increase with repeating offense? And finally, does saying one good thing, like “my family and I are all vaxxed” give you a license to assert one or more bad things, like “covid was in Europe in early 2019” without consequence? I am yes, yes, and no, for the sake of openness.
So here’s the thing that bothers the shit out of me. Earlier you said ‘churchill did nothing wrong’, then ended up with saying he’s trolling. Now you start off with ‘he almost got permabanned’ like that’s a bad thing, but you seemingly never looked into it? How do you have all these opinions on things when you haven’t looked into it at all?
Those are a lot of different things and accusations to digest.
If “covid was in europe in early 2019” requires consequence I demand NBZ will be perma banned immediately for his poker hands and analysis. Why the fuck would that be moderated? Just laugh it out. Can you imagine anyone else in the forum being moderated for a stupid comment? Have you seen some of the food posted on the food thread? It sounds almost laughable that you seriously say that is a moderated needed offense.
So then we are left with giving a proper definition to what “misinformation” means. Does not revealing Dr John as the source he heard about the paper “misinformation”? In that case I would say absolutely no. Does posting BBC articles that you think are wrong misinformation? Does being genuinely wrong in his opinions misinformation?
Or did he bring over endless amount of Anti Vaxxers youtubes like any aunt on facebook?
Every time i see a church case brought up, which is still a small sample when considering the 20ish bans, I see more of a “bad BBC”, “not giving the source to his jpeg” and “he said a stupid”. None of those are moderation offenses to me and I will demand they are applied to NBZ if they become such.
Now I have seen multiple times the damning quote where you discuss TEH VARIANCE in a way that whether by bad luck or bad play has proven to be extremely wrong. Is that misinformation? Who judges that? Just ignore him when he makes a UK joke. It will really be helpful to the community and will cost no one anything. I guarantee no one will become anti vaxxer.
The standard here is pretty ridiculous. I semi-follow that thread. I see a lot of Churchill’s posts. I have a pretty good idea of it, but not perfect. The thing where I said he did nothing? Ok, I’ve also said lots of times he does some trolling. If you are trying to actually be reasonable, you won’t mention that again. I don’t have to be 100% perfect to participate. Yeah, he trolls some. Not as much as a lot of posters, but some. I really think what initially started it all is that Americans can talk all the shit they want about America, but it got under their skin when a British guy did it.
But whatever, I think I’ve paid enough attention to have an opinion, but if you’re asking about a specific incident, I wanna look at it more carefully. Seems fair to me.
No, it was neither bad luck nor extremely wrong. I stand by the post. The context in question is mocking the notion that people could spread a virus without even being infected by it due to some mutation that upends everything we know about contagious disease. If you believe people who post “germ theory” as a joke without ever explaining what I got wrong about germ theory, you’re a mark.
Things I’ve have always maintained are true:
Vaccinations that are proven to be effective against preventing infection are indeed effective against preventing infection, even if that means that some vaccinated people will still get infected.
Vaccination will prevent transmission to the extent that it prevents infection.
Vaccinated people who get infected can transmit the virus to other people.
I retract my extremely wrong. It’s not my place to judge that.
My point is that the level needed to use “misinformation” as a reason for active moderation should be extremely extremely undeniable. It can’t be Wookie and Ikes think so. It has to be here are multiple fact checkers from more qualified sources than you two (neither of you are qualified researchers in this field) and it has to be extremely obvious that it is malicious.
Otherwise we are in really dangerous territory of the opinion I disagree with is “spreading misinformation”.
This goes deeper than Church. I feel it’s a very bad precedent. It one that has caused you, a fairly good poster in my view, to go on an unhinged attack on Keed as anti-vaxxer because he wasn’t sure about getting a booster. I think it’s something you’ll regret heavily when looking back at this time. And I do think that the handling of church has led you on that path.
And it’s not only you of course. You see it with Trolly. You see it with so many people. I catch myself doing so as well although I try to post less (yeah, it’s an ironic joke on myself).
Look, literally in the exchange you wanted to chime in on in particular, we were not only citing our own authority. There was citation of commentary from other relevant experts.