|
|
Post by sweep on Jun 4, 2021 7:04:40 GMT -6
Yeah and Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize.
This is your best argument why Fauci is a hack? Has won too many awards? Has too many refereed publications in top journals? Must just be politics?
No I am merely illustrating how mass recognition and awards often go to people who in retrospect were undeserving. We are going to find out if Fauci is one of those people or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Jun 4, 2021 8:35:48 GMT -6
When you don't believe in God, you find something else to believe in.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 4, 2021 8:38:46 GMT -6
What you are doing is pursuing an astoundingly bad line of argument to support an astoundingly bad initial opinion.
First you say: Oh please he is a career bureaucrat...I'll bet he is viewed as a complete hack by most experts in his profession. Your claim that there is no evidence of his scientific accomplishments was easily refuted. Now, when confronted by hundreds of blind refereed publications and numerous awards which are the measure of quality work done as attested to by by scientists and experts in his field:
mass recognition and awards often go to people who in retrospect were undeserving... We are going to find out if Fauci is one of those people or not. Just too many of those experts in his profession disagree with you...in too many different ways? Just wait, you will be proven right? That's your best argument!?
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 4, 2021 8:54:33 GMT -6
When you don't believe in God, you find something else to believe in. God has spoken on this matter? halftime is Moses?
Have I been a heretic to doubt one speaking for God on the basis of divine inspiration?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Jun 4, 2021 9:16:24 GMT -6
When you don't believe in God, you find something else to believe in. God has spoken on this matter? halftime is Moses?
Have I been a heretic to doubt one speaking for God on the basis of divine inspiration?
Nope, just saying that people always find something to be their religion, whether it's science in general, global warming specifically, sexual identity... whatever. We all have a desire to believe in something that doesn't always make a lot of sense. That's why it's called faith. And why we try to convert the infidels. |
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Jun 4, 2021 9:33:43 GMT -6
Your claim that there is no evidence of his scientific accomplishments Where did I ever say or even insinuate that ? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 4, 2021 13:25:33 GMT -6
Your claim that there is no evidence of his scientific accomplishments
Where did I ever say or even insinuate that ? That would be when you called him a hack. Oh, and when you said you bet his peers would consider him that.
"hacks" don't get 100's of publications in top journals.
Peers do not referee articles and recommend publications, or make awards and cite the hacks work.
You are just being a clown now.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 4, 2021 13:48:24 GMT -6
God has spoken on this matter? halftime is Moses?
Have I been a heretic to doubt one speaking for God on the basis of divine inspiration?
Nope, just saying that people always find something to be their religion, whether it's science in general, global warming specifically, sexual identity... whatever. We all have a desire to believe in something that doesn't always make a lot of sense. That's why it's called faith. And why we try to convert the infidels. Global warming and sexual identity theories are not religious beliefs. Nor are those two remotely the same kind of theories, one more a social science, one more a physical science, one supported by very strong measurable data, one a very fuzzy psychological hypothesis. The two are not characterized by similar general acceptance among those who are scientists in their field. That is common in science. Science states theories in a way that invites testing and confirmation, theories are testable and are not accepted without evidence and can be rejected based on evidence.
Religious faith too often accepts little or no possibility that belief is wrong or could be. Even in face of fact. That is a big difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Jun 4, 2021 14:49:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 4, 2021 15:35:37 GMT -6
There us vert good reason to doubt zerohedge.
As usual with the publication the article is more about innuendo and promoting a conspiracy than substance. Why think that?
Looking at the nature of the publication it is hard to say it is anything like a reliable scientific publication.
As to the "substance" of the article, I am not too concerned that Lancet will be fooled. Or be dishonest. The members of the task force are all distinguished scientists who have their reputation at stake. And the report they write will be public and subject to scrutiny by the scientific community.
The report has not been written and you both assume its conclusion and that the conclusion is unsupported.
But the main problem with your post is it has little or nothing to do with peer review of Dr Fauci's many publications.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jun 4, 2021 16:33:54 GMT -6
Your claim that there is no evidence of his scientific accomplishments Where did I ever say or even insinuate that ? I think a fun game for the board would be to post something 00 says and ask people to guess what he was responding to. |
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Jun 4, 2021 18:02:25 GMT -6
I think a fun game for the board would be to post something 00 says and ask people to guess what he was responding to. Eh, you'd need to open it up to more than just 00. Let's see, I guess somebody called someone a hack with little respect from their peers. Who would that "hack" be? Whitford? Fauci? Goetz? Mearns? Gora? Trump? Biden? 00? Sweep? Wentz? LaRussa? The choices seem endless. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jun 4, 2021 19:44:23 GMT -6
Where did I ever say or even insinuate that ? I think a fun game for the board would be to post something 00 says and ask people to guess what he was responding to. Did you read this thread? Should be no problem understanding my post. |
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Jun 4, 2021 20:37:09 GMT -6
I think a fun game for the board would be to post something 00 says and ask people to guess what he was responding to. Did you read this thread? No he didn't. In fact, nobody has read your posts. Or Sweep's posts. Or bsutrack's links. In the 47 or so pages of this thread, not one post of pure wit or elucidative information has changed anybody's mind on anything. If that's anyone's goal, they'll save a lot of time by giving up now. |
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jun 4, 2021 20:53:52 GMT -6
Did you read this thread? No he didn't. In fact, nobody has read your posts. Or Sweep's posts. Or bsutrack's links. In the 47 or so pages of this thread, not one post of pure wit or elucidative information has changed anybody's mind on anything. If that's anyone's goal, they'll save a lot of time by giving up now. See? I have 00 on block, but I can see when other people quote him. If I said “00 said ‘did you read this thread?’ What was he responding to?” I think most people would guess he was responding to something about the thread. But no, way off, he was actually responding to a joke about how he never ever directly addresses what he’s purporting to respond too. Hilarious. |
|
