Bonnie
Super Member
Unintelligible.
Ámbar dies day after deadly clot shot The 3-year-old sudden cardiac arrest.
- Thread starter Authentic Nouveau
- Start date
True enough. Let me try again, anything that blows up your argument always seems to have nothing to do with the thread. That's fascinating to me.
Weasley as in saying "People who love the truth and hate false news will despise GP" Or is that ok?
Bonnie
Super Member
That is much clearer, thank you.
But what you wrote did not "blow up" my argument because it was not about what I wrote.However, to answer your questions...no, those things were not honest. I agree.
But they still have nothing to do with the nasty fake news reported by Epoch Times and Gateway Pundit that I wrote about.
Last edited:
Oh course they do. The last thing anyone needs is you or anyone else deciding what's a lie and what isn't. On top of that the last thing I will take seriously is a liar telling me I'm a liar. I am amazed about how blind people are to the dangers if the kind of censorship we see these days. It scares the daylights our if me for what lies ahead for us as a society.That is much clearer, thank you.
But they still have nothing to do with the nasty fake news reported by Epoch Times and Gateway Pundit.
You are simply moving the goal posts here, and creating a false, emotionally laden conundrum. . Trusting God is an entirely different matter. Falsely, it pious sounding because it is supposedly faith-based and has no "pollution from science. WHO created the science behind Covid 19. It is God because special creation ceased before Eden. No person who knows and loves God can make the claim that Covid-19 follows different rules of creation than does everything else that God created in 6 days.
Your question is foreign to the scientific and statistical analytical patterns which God has placed EVERYTHING He created. I am attempting to present that in a simple, straight forward manner. Ultimately, it is God who creates those facts which we humans can quantify and analyze. Caqn you not see that?
Therefore, it can be argued that those who rely on anecdotal evidence, claiming that it is superior to facts are irrationally discarding and denying what God created in order to rely on superstition and "old wives' tales" from wing nut web sites. There are surely some posters here who believe that for some reason, God "changed the rules of His creation" when He permitted Covid-19 and its variants to be created in China.
Ultimately God is in control of everything, which included Covid-19, or else He is in charge of nothing. Yet it is precisely those who insist that we "just trust God" and not listen to the trained medical experts who are unlocking the mysteries of this God-created virus.
The dichotomy that you and others wish to establish is simply false, and really is dishonoring to God if you think about it for more than 30 seconds.
It is up to you disbelievers to present peer-reviewed evidence (NOT anecdotes) that can refute the peer reviewed facts we know know about Covid 19 and the vaccines.
Why do I insist on being peer-reviewed, and not from a wing nut web site? Something that is peer-reviewed conforms to a level of expert analysis recognized worldwide as a gold standard. Those scholars may be believers or not. But due to the high rigorous standards of academic analysis, they are actually doing God's work because they are unlocking the structures God created in Covid 19, and its variants.
They are not my claims, but I cited them for those who doubt me. Go argue with them, not me.
The rest of your post does not have citations, either. Thus, you (and others) may be posting unsubstantiated opinions of others. Because they are not cited, what some "opponents" are posting may be simple plagiarism.
Where is the peer-reviewed evidence that refutes what I posted?
By definition, those who do not post peer-reviewed and cited evidence are relying on something else, other than facts and evidence.
What is an adequate adjective to describe something with no cited facts? "Ignorance" is the best one.
What is an adequate adjective to describe those who do not bother to chase down a fact to make or refute a point? "Uninformed" is the best one.
What is an adequate adjective to describe fear mongering, and playing "Chicken Little"? In this case, ""paranoid" does not refer to a mental health diagnosis, but it accurately describes the emotional state of those living in fear.
NOTICE:
I have not used those adjectives to attack you, nor anyone else personally. I am merely stating an opinion based on the many posts directed to me in which no poster has come up with academic-level evidence on which to form an opinion to refute my facts, which I cited.
I mentioned a book to read. ALL the information you need is in it. If you want to learn the truth about all that is going on, I strongly suggest you add it to your reading list.
It was an across the board insult regardless of not mentioning anyone personally.
Wasn’t the Lancet article they had to retract because it was all a lie peer reviewed?
Did you notice that you failed to post one cited bit of evidence here?
I was rather hoping that you would not play "hide and go seek" with evidence. You said that there is evidence, and my expectation was that you would post something constructive in that regard.
Since you did not give an adequate response, posting 1 or 2 examples, there is no obligation for me to respond to your post. It works both ways.
Not really. I believe you may be imagining something that was never intended to be the case. I described the GENERAL ACTIONS of posters, not mentioning nor hinting at names.
I really don’t care if you respond or not. No one is obligated to respond to your requests. I gave you a book to read with all the info you need and much more. Every single fact put forth in it is referenced.
Im sure that’s what you think. I think otherwise.
Not really.
You can insult many without ever mentioning a name, even if it isn't on purpose.
I do not know about any sort of article Lancet retracted; therefore, I cannot comment.
HOWEVER, I do note that once again, no sort of citation whereby your allegation could be researched is posted. And that has become a pattern that greatly hinders discussion.
I told you what it was. It was about Hydroxychloroquine and it was all a lie.
Then read the book I recommended.
I cannot be responsible for posters wrongly assuming an insult, where none is intended nor hinted at. Essentially, you are stating that I insulted many posters because your imagination says so, and you will not accept my explanations of why I maintain my innocence in that regard.
Thus, I am condemned having no explanation being sufficient to dispel that notion from your imagination. The bottom-line giving reason for that false allegation is the fact that I am desiring to have a discussion based upon cited facts, and on my monitor (correct me if I am wrong), you wish to discuss unsubstantiated anecdotal "proofs".
As I said, anyone can insult an entire group of people without mentioning any names. Happens all the time.
Im telling you how your words come across to some. Take it or leave it.
No one condemned you. You were told how your words come across…..by more than one person. You explaining it away doesn’t negate the way it came across.
That is not the same thing as a citation, PLUS you just added something new to the actual words you wrote below.
This above is the quote that I replied to. Where is the Hydroxychloroquine in that sentence?
Because I perceive that
- this discussion is going nowhere
- we seem to be posting at each other
- you unjustly accused me of insulting others, several times
- you have not indicated any change your mind on that
Thank you for considering my request.
It was mentioned in a prior post. Apparently you didn’t pay attention to it.
You are entitled to believe what you wish. I pointed out how your post came across. Take it or leave it. There’s no reason to close this thread.