Topic: Let 2020 be the friendly year
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 years ago #95,231
A friendly year for a friendly people
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 43 minutes later[^] [v] #1,075,475
It'll never happen.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,075,476
Is this referencing that Boris speech?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 20 seconds later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,075,477
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,075,480
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 7 months later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,751
The Joran decade is off to a great start!Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,759
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 11 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,765
2020 is a lost year. Let's try for 2021.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 48 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,771
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I dont think you're going to be in a good mood at the end of November.
I dont think you're going to be in a good mood at the end of November.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,773
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 23 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,776
@1,150,771 (G)
I'm not in a good mood now. The main reason I will be in a bad mood at the end of November is 100,000 additional Americans will be dead from a pandemic virus. Are you saying that you will be in a good mood if that happens?
I'm not in a good mood now. The main reason I will be in a bad mood at the end of November is 100,000 additional Americans will be dead from a pandemic virus. Are you saying that you will be in a good mood if that happens?
Anonymous G replied with this 5 years ago, 13 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,780
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
You just need to realize that the CV death toll is only like 1 person out of every 1,000,000 people within 100 miles of you...and a big percentage of those who tested positive at one time then died for an reason unrelated to corona.
You just need to realize that the CV death toll is only like 1 person out of every 1,000,000 people within 100 miles of you...and a big percentage of those who tested positive at one time then died for an reason unrelated to corona.
Anonymous G double-posted this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,781
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,783
@1,150,780 (G)
We are approaching 500 deaths per million. What percentage of deaths are people who would have died without contracting the virus?
We are approaching 500 deaths per million. What percentage of deaths are people who would have died without contracting the virus?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,785
Anonymous G replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,788
@1,150,783 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Well...the % would be pretty high with such testing data like has been reported on in Florida as I referenced to, hmmmmm?
Well...the % would be pretty high with such testing data like has been reported on in Florida as I referenced to, hmmmmm?
Anonymous G double-posted this 5 years ago, 10 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,790
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,791
@1,150,788 (G)
@previous (G)
So in other words, you had only read the headline of the article, and once you read it you learned that the facts were a number of smaller labs were having their data erroneously reported as either 100% positive OR 100% negative, that while there was some dispute about what exactly was going wrong, the state and the labs were both aware of the issue, and that it is unclear exactly what the overall impact, if any, that had on the total positive test count.
@previous (G)
So in other words, you had only read the headline of the article, and once you read it you learned that the facts were a number of smaller labs were having their data erroneously reported as either 100% positive OR 100% negative, that while there was some dispute about what exactly was going wrong, the state and the labs were both aware of the issue, and that it is unclear exactly what the overall impact, if any, that had on the total positive test count.
blom (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,792
Anonymous G replied with this 5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,794
@1,150,791 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Busted then forced to try and explain the corruption away...is more likely the case.
Busted then forced to try and explain the corruption away...is more likely the case.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,796
@previous (G)
Your opinion on what happened was based entirely on the headline of the article, and not at all on what the article actually contained. Do you see why that might be a bad way to form opinions on things?
Your opinion on what happened was based entirely on the headline of the article, and not at all on what the article actually contained. Do you see why that might be a bad way to form opinions on things?
Anonymous G replied with this 5 years ago, 9 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,797
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,798
Anonymous G replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,800
Anonymous G double-posted this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,801
But I still want my stim check!
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,803
@1,150,800 (G)
That is a non-peer reviewed 6 page essay by an accounting professor, the last 2 pages of which are his sources and biography. Those sources include Facebook posts, Candace Owens, and Gateway Pundit. He cites a bunch of individual cases of states getting deaths wrong, and then just kind of assumes it's happening all the time everywhere. He doesn't even give a specific estimate of how often he thinks it's happening. He then goes on to cite a random websites definition of fraud, and just kind assert that the federal government is engaging in fraudulent reporting of deaths. If I consistently turned in work of this quality, I would have failed out of college as a freshman.
That is a non-peer reviewed 6 page essay by an accounting professor, the last 2 pages of which are his sources and biography. Those sources include Facebook posts, Candace Owens, and Gateway Pundit. He cites a bunch of individual cases of states getting deaths wrong, and then just kind of assumes it's happening all the time everywhere. He doesn't even give a specific estimate of how often he thinks it's happening. He then goes on to cite a random websites definition of fraud, and just kind assert that the federal government is engaging in fraudulent reporting of deaths. If I consistently turned in work of this quality, I would have failed out of college as a freshman.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,806
I will say he does seem to be the author of books that are "so bad it's good". I'd rent this from the library and read it for sure. An accounting professor writes a book where the main character is a mild mannered accounting professor who needs to save the entire country by himself? Yeah that's gonna be a good one.(Edited 19 seconds later.)
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 22 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,815
@1,150,797 (G)@1,150,800 (G)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Anonymous G replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,817
@1,150,803 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
So...when any type of information you don't like is presented, you want SCOTUS type verification of it being admissible as credible.
So...when any type of information you don't like is presented, you want SCOTUS type verification of it being admissible as credible.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,819
@previous (G)
I want something more robust than the unreviewed ramblings of a random accounting professor citing twitter replies to Candace Owens.
I want something more robust than the unreviewed ramblings of a random accounting professor citing twitter replies to Candace Owens.
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,820
@1,150,803 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)Oh man, this is desperately sad. His "references" are Twitter posts, Wikipedia, and Facebook. If that wasn't bad enough, his Facebook citation is: "https://www.facebook.com/candace.reed.16?
dw9EseGWB7akB_a0XvfUDNc1&hc_ref=ARQkUb5Hzf3LTcNxgxzbdqxDVia5hrEowt0mPl7IZRED7KYN3Ldjvg-CoXIt1CqXUz0&fref=nf" (you don't need the parameters; that link could be https://www.facebook.com/candace.reed.16 but he appears to be retarded).
For shame, "Fayetteville State University".
tteh !MemesToDNA double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,821
@1,150,817 (G)
"This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed."™
"This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed."™
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,150,824
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
If the peers in question don't throw that rubbish into a bin, I'll be very disappointed in them.
I think I've read about fake, politically-motivated "peer review" bodies that exist to try and push lies into academia. It's very saddening to me.
If the peers in question don't throw that rubbish into a bin, I'll be very disappointed in them.
I think I've read about fake, politically-motivated "peer review" bodies that exist to try and push lies into academia. It's very saddening to me.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)