That's a misrepresentation of my argument and poor application of the term conflate. I was doing the precise opposite - contrasting and comparing the 2 sets of data. Probably an outcome of your fallacious stereotyping all mention of the flu as "its the flu".
See, much better to leave posts where they are and expose them if they are trash and we can all learn from it.

Its an absolute totally accurate summary of your argument.

You were comparing to conflate and the point is you never brought in the variables I mention, e.g. one set of excess deaths was from a particularly cold winter and the other was from a warm spring.

Any comparison that does not mention those variables is moot, which is the only relevant take away.

So the ultimate take away is this:

C19 is killing people in significant numbers in Northern Hemisphere states with poor prevention in June, July and August and suggesting well so what flu did the same when there was a bad vaccine during a particularly cold winter December to March is of course a terrible argument. Even more so when you drill down into those excess deaths and find it was the cold weather causing the lion share.

If we implement the same poor prevention here then there is no reason not to expect the same results.

Yeah Billy, next you'll be telling us that the Earth is flat or something...

Can we start a gofundme to get Gregorio some 2+2 books? New mods have to wait until 2032.

Chez is the quixotic crusader of life being “fair”.

Tell people to edit their posts in future please rather than arbitrarily deleting the entire post instead of the bits you have issue with.

And seeing as you have such an issue with reactive personal attacks moderate on other posters bad faith posting, gaslighting and false accusations of racism and untrue claims in general, then maybe heated reactive personal attacks might not happen, that might work too.

And it's not a personal attack to doubt a poster's claim of being a criminal lawyer when they make a bunch of false claims about actual criminal cases. Slighted has absolutely falsely claimed that confessions in a criminal case were forced when this is utterly untrue, so calling him a pathetic excuse for a lawyer isn't a personal attack

I for one would like for posters to stop being dishonest, so their dishonesty wouldn't gauge a heated response which would offend mods who then delete posts immediately without even suggesting an edit first.

That said I also wouldn't mind a CP5 thread in theory but in practice it'll amount to me correcting a bunch of false claims while other posters falsely wail racism to detract attention away from the evidence against the cp 5 and the whole topic will get bogged down, so overall it's probably ( and by that I mean almost certainly) pointless.

I think personal attacks are a good thing and we should have more of it.

I didn't arbitrarily delete the entire post, I purposefully deleted the entire post. That's part of the disincentive to not post personal attacks.

You can and are pointing out what you feel is bad faith posting, as does the other side. That is fine. Attacking the poster on a personal level is not necessary to make your point and its only purpose is to make the thread more toxic.

It appears that the moderators are not fully on board with my suggested improvements...

Again he claims to be a criminal lawyer then makes a bunch of false claims about an actual criminal case- calling him a pathetic excuse for a lawyer due to his false claims is perfectly valid. I already pointed out umpteen times on the Amahd Aubery thread instances of bad face posting false accusations and flat out lies and not one of said posts was deleted. So again moderate others as well if you don't want heated reactive responses. Bad faith posting and lies is to make a topic more toxic so again moderate against this please if you want better discussions.

And no- deleting the actual part you take offence to is sufficient not the entire post.

Disagree with that. I'm not going to sit there asking people to edit their post and wait around for. Also not going to selectively edit people's posts like a profanity filter.

If you want to have a discussion with these people, have a modicum of civility, those are the ground rules.

Yeah and you moderate properly and other posters won't give reactive heated responses to begin with. And regardless of your disagreement, bad faith posting lies and gaslighting are designed to make a forum more toxic and if you can't see that then you shouldn't be a mod, sorry

I have a feeling that if I took your suggestion, you would probably not like the results of my deleting "bad faith posting lies and gaslighting."

Ah, so I've done this have I, is that your veiled passive aggressive suggestion? Whatever mate. I've never lied or made false claims repeatedly about people so again whatevs.

+1

Deleting entire posts IS the correct mod response imo.

Bad faith and gaslighting are against the forum rules as they currently stand.

I'm alluding to the fact that posters on the left constantly make the very same complaints vs posters on the right that you just did about them.

So is making presumptions about the bad faith of other posters.

And they aren't "rules" so much as a guideline for posting. I think most posting is always going to fall into a grey area where multiple considerations will have to be weighed.

I have given quite a lot of benefit of the doubt around here, its true, but I'm not super comfortable imputing malicious intent upon posters in general.

No need to presume when there is ample evidence.

Point of order: the "don't accuse other people of posting in bad faith" has never been a longstanding rule here. It was added by WN to give cover to kelhus and bahbah and the various other bad-faith posters he unleashed on the community.

Haven't you followed discussions to decide for yourself?

Duly noted.

I'll only comment on your particular case.

No, I don't think you were treated unfairly by the peanut gallery. Slighted tried to explain his views to you. Goofy even took the time to multiquote for you why they believed their assertions to be correct. I think that's pretty clear indication they were not arguing in bad faith. The fact you disagree with their assessments does not make it so.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=5201

This post was probably over the line as well, but I let it stand:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=5228

Didn't see anything else really out of line, besides the other post of yours I deleted. Slighted, the object of your ire, thankfully did not respond in kind.

So no, I don't think you were treated unfairly by me in term of modding, and no I don't think they were arguing in bad faith.

Yea, that seems a far cry from your characterization of the hordes storming around the neighborhoods assaulting people.

And I am asking as a mod, now, since I'd already put you on notice re: these subtle distortions of fact.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=4726

The standard would be for you, since it appears to be somewhat of a pattern in your posting.