Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 70 of 289 < 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 >

eaglesdare 10 May 23 9.09pm
I remember when sleepy Joe and many other so called top doctors / scientist said..."If you have the vaccine you will not get covid" I have never trusted doctors... regardless of their pro vaccine or anti vaccine stance or somewhere in between. Or anything else to be honest! Edited by eaglesdare (10 May 2023 9.15pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare

10 May 23 9.09pm

I remember when sleepy Joe and many other so called top doctors / scientist said..."If you have the vaccine you will not get covid"

I have never trusted doctors... regardless of their pro vaccine or anti vaccine stance or somewhere in between. Or anything else to be honest!

Edited by eaglesdare (10 May 2023 9.15pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 10 May 23 9.37pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Carnegie Mellon is ranked #28 in the TES world university rankings for the year. Interesting that you're prepared to accept self identification for gender but not educational status. Why do you think I do? I am undecided, especially as its meaning is not really clear and varies around the world. Many places require that you have been living as the sex you wish to identify for at least 2 years. It's more to avoid a physical determination than anything else. The two processes are entirely different anyway. One just involves answering an anonymous (probably) question on a form whilst the other is much more likely to be the end of a long process. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 10 May 23 9.37pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Carnegie Mellon is ranked #28 in the TES world university rankings for the year.
Interesting that you're prepared to accept self identification for gender but not educational status.

Why do you think I do? I am undecided, especially as its meaning is not really clear and varies around the world. Many places require that you have been living as the sex you wish to identify for at least 2 years. It's more to avoid a physical determination than anything else.

The two processes are entirely different anyway. One just involves answering an anonymous (probably) question on a form whilst the other is much more likely to be the end of a long process.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 10 May 23 9.42pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Why do you think I do? I am undecided, especially as its meaning is not really clear and varies around the world. Many places require that you have been living as the sex you wish to identify for at least 2 years. It's more to avoid a physical determination than anything else. The two processes are entirely different anyway. One just involves answering an anonymous (probably) question on a form whilst the other is much more likely to be the end of a long process. So the respondents at one of the leading universities in America are lying on a form? OK.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

10 May 23 9.42pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The two processes are entirely different anyway. One just involves answering an anonymous (probably) question on a form whilst the other is much more likely to be the end of a long process.

So the respondents at one of the leading universities in America are lying on a form? OK.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 10 May 23 11.15pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle So the respondents at one of the leading universities in America are lying on a form? OK. I think you have misunderstood what happened. This was an online survey of US adults by the Universities. Not at the Universities. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 10 May 23 11.15pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

So the respondents at one of the leading universities in America are lying on a form? OK.

I think you have misunderstood what happened. This was an online survey of US adults by the Universities. Not at the Universities.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 10 May 23 11.31pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I think you have misunderstood what happened. This was an online survey of US adults by the Universities. Not at the Universities. Yes but the percentage of respondents saying they were educated to PhD level is the same as the American average.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

10 May 23 11.31pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I think you have misunderstood what happened. This was an online survey of US adults by the Universities. Not at the Universities.

Yes but the percentage of respondents saying they were educated to PhD level is the same as the American average.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 11 May 23 12.44am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle It's worthy of further investigation, but on its own is not worth a lot. Firstly, the "survey" was only in the USA, which you didn't mention. Secondly, it asked respondents to self-identify, so there is no verification that the claimed status is real. Just as with the "Great Barrier Declaration" being signed by self-certifying scientists. Thirdly, there was no attempt made to try to discover the reason for the result. Fourthly, has been no peer review. Until today I had not heard of Carnegie Mellon University, but today it features twice in this thread. It was responsible, together with Pittsburgh, for this study and it was where Dr Dan Wilson attained his Phd. Co-incidence? Probably but it raised my eyebrows. Now hang on there. I mentioned this as an aside, because I'd heard about it over a year back. and you decided to cast doubt on it as whether it was true. Now I have zero issues with you checking it out, in fact that's positive. However, once proof was shown to you we get this typical undermining routine which quite frankly just looks like an agenda, not someone actually interested in the truth of a matter. As for suggesting that you have never heard of Carnegie.....at your age? Really? Ok then, but most educated person from your era would at least know who he was let alone know he funded lots of institutions.....but ok. Anyway I find the idea that this university had an agenda or didn't do its work professionally pretty unlikely considering its level but whatever. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 May 2023 12.45am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

11 May 23 12.44am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It's worthy of further investigation, but on its own is not worth a lot. Firstly, the "survey" was only in the USA, which you didn't mention. Secondly, it asked respondents to self-identify, so there is no verification that the claimed status is real. Just as with the "Great Barrier Declaration" being signed by self-certifying scientists. Thirdly, there was no attempt made to try to discover the reason for the result. Fourthly, has been no peer review.

Until today I had not heard of Carnegie Mellon University, but today it features twice in this thread. It was responsible, together with Pittsburgh, for this study and it was where Dr Dan Wilson attained his Phd. Co-incidence? Probably but it raised my eyebrows.

Now hang on there.

I mentioned this as an aside, because I'd heard about it over a year back. and you decided to cast doubt on it as whether it was true.

Now I have zero issues with you checking it out, in fact that's positive. However, once proof was shown to you we get this typical undermining routine which quite frankly just looks like an agenda, not someone actually interested in the truth of a matter.

As for suggesting that you have never heard of Carnegie.....at your age? Really? Ok then, but most educated person from your era would at least know who he was let alone know he funded lots of institutions.....but ok.

Anyway I find the idea that this university had an agenda or didn't do its work professionally pretty unlikely considering its level but whatever.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 May 2023 12.45am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 23 8.59am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Now hang on there. I mentioned this as an aside, because I'd heard about it over a year back. and you decided to cast doubt on it as whether it was true. Now I have zero issues with you checking it out, in fact that's positive. However, once proof was shown to you we get this typical undermining routine which quite frankly just looks like an agenda, not someone actually interested in the truth of a matter. As for suggesting that you have never heard of Carnegie.....at your age? Really? Ok then, but most educated person from your era would at least know who he was let alone know he funded lots of institutions.....but ok. Anyway I find the idea that this university had an agenda or didn't do its work professionally pretty unlikely considering its level but whatever. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 May 2023 12.45am) I didn't say I hadn't heard of Carnegie! I hadn't heard of the University! I make no accusations. I am observing. If you conduct an online survey then you are necessarily limited in your ability to double-check every response for accuracy. The bigger the survey, the bigger the problem. That's true for everyone, not this particular University group. You are depending on people's honesty and the purity of their motivations. So the results are broad brush and throw-up questions, rather than answers. Worthy of further investigation but not providing any kind of reliable evidence. I used what happened with "The Great Barrington Declaration" to illustrate the point. Drawing conclusions from unchecked data means there is a big risk that the conclusions are flawed. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 11 May 23 8.59am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Now hang on there.

I mentioned this as an aside, because I'd heard about it over a year back. and you decided to cast doubt on it as whether it was true.

Anyway I find the idea that this university had an agenda or didn't do its work professionally pretty unlikely considering its level but whatever.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 May 2023 12.45am)

I didn't say I hadn't heard of Carnegie! I hadn't heard of the University!

I make no accusations. I am observing. If you conduct an online survey then you are necessarily limited in your ability to double-check every response for accuracy. The bigger the survey, the bigger the problem. That's true for everyone, not this particular University group. You are depending on people's honesty and the purity of their motivations.

So the results are broad brush and throw-up questions, rather than answers. Worthy of further investigation but not providing any kind of reliable evidence.

I used what happened with "The Great Barrington Declaration" to illustrate the point. Drawing conclusions from unchecked data means there is a big risk that the conclusions are flawed.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare 11 May 23 9.02am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Now hang on there. I mentioned this as an aside, because I'd heard about it over a year back. and you decided to cast doubt on it as whether it was true. Now I have zero issues with you checking it out, in fact that's positive. However, once proof was shown to you we get this typical undermining routine which quite frankly just looks like an agenda, not someone actually interested in the truth of a matter. As for suggesting that you have never heard of Carnegie.....at your age? Really? Ok then, but most educated person from your era would at least know who he was let alone know he funded lots of institutions.....but ok. Anyway I find the idea that this university had an agenda or didn't do its work professionally pretty unlikely considering its level but whatever. Edited by Stirlingsays (11 May 2023 12.45am) This has happened numerous times in this thread.
Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare

11 May 23 9.02am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Now hang on there.

I mentioned this as an aside, because I'd heard about it over a year back. and you decided to cast doubt on it as whether it was true.

Now I have zero issues with you checking it out, in fact that's positive. However, once proof was shown to you we get this typical undermining routine which quite frankly just looks like an agenda, not someone actually interested in the truth of a matter.

Anyway I find the idea that this university had an agenda or didn't do its work professionally pretty unlikely considering its level but whatever.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 May 2023 12.45am)

This has happened numerous times in this thread.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 23 9.36am
Originally posted by eaglesdare This has happened numerous times in this thread. Got something right! Yes, it has, mostly by you. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 11 May 23 9.36am

Originally posted by eaglesdare

This has happened numerous times in this thread.

Got something right!

Yes, it has, mostly by you.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare 11 May 23 10.34am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Got something right! Yes, it has, mostly by you. there we go again.....You are presented with facts and like stirling says all you do is try to discredit them
Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare

11 May 23 10.34am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Got something right!

Yes, it has, mostly by you.

there we go again.....You are presented with facts and like stirling says all you do is try to discredit them

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 23 12.23pm
Originally posted by eaglesdare there we go again.....You are presented with facts and like stirling says all you do is try to discredit them I agreed with you!!! Just not who is doing it. You don’t know a fact from your elbow! Is your nickname “ole brown eyes”? For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 11 May 23 12.23pm

Originally posted by eaglesdare

there we go again.....You are presented with facts and like stirling says all you do is try to discredit them

I agreed with you!!!

Just not who is doing it.

You don’t know a fact from your elbow!

Is your nickname “ole brown eyes”?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare 11 May 23 1.39pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I agreed with you!!! Just not who is doing it. You don’t know a fact from your elbow! Is your nickname “ole brown eyes”? Here we go again with more petty insults...you loose all credibility once you start that again....... All you do is smear and stigmatise anyone who asks legitimate questions or provides you with facts and or data.
Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare

11 May 23 1.39pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I agreed with you!!!

Just not who is doing it.

You don’t know a fact from your elbow!

Is your nickname “ole brown eyes”?

Here we go again with more petty insults...you loose all credibility once you start that again.......

All you do is smear and stigmatise anyone who asks legitimate questions or provides you with facts and or data.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 70 of 289 < 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors