Then why did he post the screenshot?
1 Like
Then whyâd I have the bowl Bart?
1 Like
Probably he thinks itâs good enough for a discussion perhaps? A teaser? A click bait? Heâs a mediocre poster? The response should be it isnât valuable at this point, we canât tell much from it (regardless of the source, it could be published by Bill Gates, itâs meaningless). The fact that you had a dog barking at a paper that is quite a few levels above your pay grade (iâm being generous to all team science) and continued to ridicule Church after the paper was linked is on you guys.
At no point in any conversation should the goal be to prove Churchill is a top notch poster. It only should be if moderation is needed in this case (and I understand moderation was enforced). It was clearly a mistake on your end and should be something the forum need to reconsider. It appears you were so blood thirsty that an ER doctor has called a paper that was published in Science with the same conclusions he read as âUselessâ. Again, this should spark a pretty big discussion among yourselves how it happened.
Is there a term for how fans of both teams can watch the same replay and both be one million percent certain that the call should go their way?
3 Likes
Only one team is determined to have the game decided by the officials.
1 Like
I already proposed to call NY for an official permaben review to trolly. Iâm also willing to reach out to Barbara Cohn to judge.
Yea, this is the most interesting thing to me about this thread, seeing how people can be looking at the exact same posts and perceive them in such wildly different ways
1 Like
Maybe Churchill is wrong sometimes, maybe he trolls sometimes. Heâs not a dangerous anti-vaxxer. No one believes he is. This isnât about whether heâs a good or bad poster. He almost got perma-banned. Certainly not all bad posters or trolling posters are getting permaban votes.
Which reminds me about Sabo who was permabanned. Why was he permabanned? Do you really feel like you had a right to permaban him? He did something so beyond the pale that you thought you should throw him out?
2 Likes
A curious guess, because you know he specifically dodged discussing the screenshot.
You and I both know that the easiest and most honest way to âteaseâ or âbaitâ something from a preprint is to directly quote that preprint. Digging up a screenshot of a youtube video that is wholly separate from the preprint is extra effort, and you have not offered up any explanation for why he would do so and also refuse to say why.
Not a single person youâre accusing of misreading that paper has said a single false thing about that paper. The only one who may have misjudged it is churchill.
The conclusions he read WERE USELESS. Conclusions based on obviously flawed methods are useless. Maybe things upstream of those conclusions are still worthwhile, but the conclusions themselves are literally useless.
i think itâs an odd question. he did it cause he got the info from Dr John and wanted to discuss it or wanted to gloat, i have no idea what the motives are, as i keep repeating, but i find this questioning dishonest at this point after I explained multiple times.
Was it moderation worthy once the preprint was provided is the only question that should be answered. You, I think, have deemed it as such, which really requires some explaining at this point. If iâm mistaken and no one has moderated Church in this case I apologize.
Regarding your paper analysis, I really find it to be a tall order to say with a straight face that you think a Science editor has approved a âuselessâ study to go to review. It is borderline dishonest to claim that a âuselessâ study has gone through the review process and published within weeks in Science while keeping the exact conclusions and it was âasinineâ when you read it. Not lacking, not extremely interesting and a great addition to the discussion while needing some fixes, but useless.
If Barbara Cohn or the Science editor were in a discussion with you or ikes, do you think they would agree with you in regards to this description:
The paper does not make a compelling case whatsoever that this is related to fading vaccine response, and they found a relationship to the month of the year, not to time after the vaccine.
The paper also failed to do basic things like âmake sure your control group doesnât disproportionately have covidâ, which makes it useless. Hope that helps you.
Will they agree with the Anti Vax dog barking at their published work?
At some point will you take a step back and realize how poorly this shows on you guys?
Edit â
paper literally makes the case itâs not vaccine waning in the abstract churchill. You should read the things you cite.
This was a big red flag for me, as we know the vaccine is effective against delta at least in the beginning, and we should expect to see a dose/time relationship. That means this paper is a big outlier.
btw, is this paper a big outlier? (i wonât make any assumption as to the first sentence, but it sounds sus in regards to trollyâs claims earlier today).
More pushing the point that this paper is anti-vax related, which should look fairly bad now given what we know, the authors and the publication it received:
Oh and churchill, this paper is all over the antivaxx twitterverse now so Iâm really wondering how you just happened to stumble upon it.
Itâs the amount you posted from a nonsense antivaxxer who read a very poor paper that is controversial.`
Those percentages are also from obviously flawed preprints that you parrot without an ounce of critical appraisal. Woof woof
Amplifying trash is not helpful to this forum regardless of you personal vax behavior.
That pre-print also wonât ever be published in itâs current form in a reputable journal for the reasons Iâve posted.
Now i will give you credit that the criticism on the preprint you took from Avi is correct, i havenât read the paper thoroughly like the science editors. Can you imagine the response if ikes said those things in a real conversation with an expert researcher? Can you imagine how much an ER doctor would be ridiculed for the language i just quoted?
1 Like
If thatâs the case, i find it very odd the constant push back when the 2nd reply should have been âyeah, youâre right, there wasnât any offense by churchillâ. Funny how everyone kept implying it was to justify a ban that you say never happened. Telling almost.
Anyway iâm genuinely happy to hear that my initial assertion, back in the MakeHaste days of yesterday, that there was nothing wrong here on Churchâs 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 churchillâs 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 whoâs got so many opinions about churchillâs posting in the covid thread, youâve done remarkably little to get the least bit of understanding by reviewing links youâve 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 CNâs 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. Itâs 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, âamplifying trashâ is not a claim strictly limited to this study. Churchill also is choosing to amplfy a youtuber who promotes ivermectin and other bullshit.
It wasnât! Like, you donât 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. Itâs a wrong answer. The conclusions are important! This wasnât a typo in the background information. It was literally the conclusions.
I donât think anyone else used the fear of someoneâs elseâs child getting covid as an opportunity troll or been banned 20 times for trolling the same thread.
Iâm 100% sure you wouldnât stand for me talking about your family in such a way. The question is why youâre ok with him doing it about wookieâs and mine.
Itâs not some logical inconsistency to highlight posting that we think should have been moderated but wasnât in a case for why he should be gone.
You seem to not get it â
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 Johnâs own conclusions and analysis of the paper.
This part could have been moderated. Attacking him for bringing a completely legitimate paper because you donât 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 thereâs a saying that is directly translated to âHis blood is allowedâ. 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.
A community cannot act that way.
Fair enough, so weâre back to square one. You think it should have been moderated and I am here to prove why it shouldnât. With the distinction that I do think CN should have been moderated in that conversation now that I read it in half (as i canât read the deleted posts).
It would have been an uncontroversial post except for that issue, and trying to ignore the fact that heâs 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 do appreciate you using the 50% this time. I canât force you to leave the funnies for BJ, but less intrusive is better. Thanks goofy.
1 Like
I donât just straight trust your interpretation. If you want to show me the posts Iâll let you know what I think.
I still wouldnât 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 Iâd deserve it or something. I told him to fuck off obviously, but I still didnât call for his ban. I think that was it, but it has been a while. That FlyWf was the fucking worst.
2 Likes