Hydroxychoroquine/Azithromycin/Zinc Sulfate

[hogjack]

Left wingers are just Marxists at this point.

Marxism has a bad rep. It's all that starvation and crap but the annual parades are really beautiful. Kinda balances things out.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Well, I guess I'm not ready to shutup.

So tell me, how can you "engage in meaningful discourse" when you don't trust my opinion and I don't trust yours? When neither one of us will trust what the other claims without some kind of verification? And when one party to the discussion refuses to do that, demands their opinion or what they quote be taken without verification, while discounting and vilifying each and every post from the opposition even if it contains a link to what they consider verification, how is that a balanced and meaningful discussion?

Let me ask it another way, if I am to take everything you post that has no link to a creditable cite or verification as true, are you prepared to do the same for me? And if not why not?

Simple questions. They should be easy for you to answer.


Comshaw

Not sure why you can’t find it through your searches, but I found, and posted it, easily.

 

[Klinkster]

Not sure why you can’t find it through your searches, but I found, and posted it, easily.

Can't find something you don't search for, or actually don't want to find.

 

[Comshaw]

https://www.airforcemedicine.af.mil/News/Biographies/Display/Article/1024443/colonel-dr-r-shane-day/

Here's Col. Day.

Ask him if he said what I said he said or if it is some vast, right wing conspiracy just because every single leftist "news" site ignored his statement.

Or, just contact your favorite left leaning site and point out to them that the vast right wing conspiracy is putting out a phony statement by this actual person. Should be easy enough for them to check and it will be a huge scoop for them to show how the vast right wing conspiracy works.

Let me see if I can explain this again so you'll understand it.

IT IS NOT ANYONE ELSE'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE YOUR POINT FOR YOU! If you can not, which you haven't with this link, it becomes an unproven claim on your part that will not be taken as true by those whom you are trying to convince. I have no problem with the truth. I have no problem with backing up and admitting I'm wrong when I am. But you have proved nothing other then you have a predisposition for deflection and deception.

As I said before, you must have seen, read or came across the quote you claim he made some place. So provide it. Verbal tap dancing, convoluted verbal vacillating, isn't going to cover the fact you have no way to verify what you claim. Perhaps you should just admit it and let's move on.

Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

Not sure why you can’t find it through your searches, but I found, and posted it, easily.

Cool. Would you mind pointing me to where you posted it? Like I told Conager, if I'm wrong I will admit it. In actually I'm not. I never said it was bullshit but only that he hadn't verified it. Once I see it I'll say it was so though.

Comshaw

 

[Conager]

I accept your abject apology for adding to Comshaw's stupidy.

 

[Aglaopheme]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/int...isis-early-november-sources/story?id=70031273


Not sure why my comments didn’t show up when I posted this before.

It’s all over the news, but that doesn’t make your sources any less hilarious.

Cool. Would you mind pointing me to where you posted it? Like I told Conager, if I'm wrong I will admit it. In actually I'm not. I never said it was bullshit but only that he hadn't verified it. Once I see it I'll say it was so though.

Comshaw

Yep. ABC updated their own article to included his statement.

The Pentagon did not comment Tuesday, but on Wednesday evening following the publication of this report, the Defense Department provided a statement from Col. R. Shane Day, Director of the NCMI.

"As a matter of practice the National Center for Medical Intelligence does not comment publicly on specific intelligence matters. However, in the interest of transparency during this current public health crisis, we can confirm that media reporting about the existence/release of a National Center for Medical Intelligence Coronavirus-related product/assessment in November of 2019 is not correct. No such NCMI product exists," the statement said.

 

[Aglaopheme]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/defense-november-coronavirus-intelligence-assessment-reports-false

Cool. Would you mind pointing me to where you posted it? Like I told Conager, if I'm wrong I will admit it. In actually I'm not. I never said it was bullshit but only that he hadn't verified it. Once I see it I'll say it was so though.

Comshaw

And there.

 

[Aglaopheme]

ABC news ran with a story that National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) reported in November that a possible “cataclysmic event” was in the making in China's Wuhan city. The NCMI – part of the Pentagon's intelligence apparatus – gave a warning to the US government, but it failed to act early to prevent the spread of the Covid-19 epidemic in the country or to prepare for mitigating the damage

The spokesman for the NCMI which is a division of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) which generally avoids publicity is Dr R. Shane Day <----click

Widely publicized in right leaning publications and conspicuously absent in left leaning publications that ran with the initial story was an official statement by Dr. Day in his capacity as the official spokesman for the agency named in the above report categorically denying that any such report exists:



Aglo maintained that since no one she reads has ever mentioned the initial story being ground to dust, it must still be true.



After some back and forth, she seems to have finally acknowledged that the above quote was valid, but none of the usual nitwits seem up to speed on that. Still.

It sure why you moved this, but you’re included in the “nitwits”.

 

[Comshaw]

Yep. ABC updated their own article to included his statement.

Yep. Okay thank you.

So Conager someone did your work for you and verified your claim. It is true. See how painless that was?

As I said I'm all for the truth, but I absolutely refuse to take your opinions or claims as fact without verification, for the reasons I posted before.

You want meaningful factual discourse? Then factual verification's are required.

TA

Comshaw

 

[Aglaopheme]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/int...isis-early-november-sources/story?id=70031273

Cool. Would you mind pointing me to where you posted it? Like I told Conager, if I'm wrong I will admit it. In actually I'm not. I never said it was bullshit but only that he hadn't verified it. Once I see it I'll say it was so though.

Comshaw

And here....

 

[Conager]

Cool. Would you mind pointing me to where you posted it? Like I told Conager, if I'm wrong I will admit it. In actually I'm not. I never said it was bullshit but only that he hadn't verified it. Once I see it I'll say it was so though.

Comshaw

It isn't my job to act for the reference desk to dispel every piece of disinformation you willingly swallow.

Bad enough that I should have to have dug the exact complete quote at your bidding and thst my (accurate) recollection on what was said on this subject was not sufficient, it is completely inexcusable that once I dug up the actual quote, you want proof that a QUOTE from a WELL PUBLICIZED, and ON THE RECORD quote is an actual quote.

Now that you have it, I want you to prove that unnamed sources said what they are reported to have said. I want it in a reputable news source.

That report was reported by ABC News which is obviously not a reputable new sorurce since they reported a false story.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Yep. Okay thank you.

So Conager someone did your work for you and verified your claim. It is true. See how painless that was?

As I said I'm all for the truth, but I absolutely refuse to take your opinions or claims as fact without verification, for the reasons I posted before.

You want meaningful factual discourse? Then factual verification's are required.

TA

Comshaw

You’re welcome.

 

[Comshaw]

It isn't my job to act for the reference desk to dispel every piece of disinformation you willingly swallow.

Bad enough that I should have to have dug the exact complete quote at your bidding and thst my (accurate) recollection on what was said on this subject was not sufficient, it is completely inexcusable that once I dug up the actual quote, you want proof that a QUOTE from a WELL PUBLICIZED, and ON THE RECORD quote is an actual quote.

Now that you have it, I want you to prove that unnamed sources said what they are reported to have said. I want it in a reputable news source.

That report was reported by ABC News which is obviously not a reputable new sorurce since they reported a false story.

Since you believe I should verify what you claim, I no longer need to post a verifying link for what I claim and it is now your responsibility to prove up what I say is true? Cool! It's a lot of work doing that.

Na, you're just being self centered and arrogant assuming others should do your work for you. Ain't gunna happen. You say it, you prove it. If you're to lazy, to incompetent or to arrogant to do so that's on you, not on others.

So what "unnamed source said what they are reported to have said" are you talking about? I have no idea what you're referencing. You're going to have to quote what I posted, or point me to what I claimed, if you want me to prove it up. If you can I'll be happy to prove it or claim it as just my opinion.

Comshaw

 

[HisArpy]

Since you believe I should verify what you claim, I no longer need to post a verifying link for what I claim and it is now your responsibility to prove up what I say is true? Cool! It's a lot of work doing that.

Na, you're just being self centered and arrogant assuming others should do your work for you. Ain't gunna happen. You say it, you prove it. If you're to lazy, to incompetent or to arrogant to do so that's on you, not on others.

So what "unnamed source said what they are reported to have said" are you talking about? I have no idea what you're referencing. You're going to have to quote what I posted, or point me to what I claimed, if you want me to prove it up. If you can I'll be happy to prove it or claim it as just my opinion.

Comshaw

Translation:

I ain't gonna do it. Nope, not gonna.

 

[Comshaw]

Translation:

I ain't gonna do it. Nope, not gonna.

Translation of sarcastic reply:

Fuck off. I ain't gunna be truthful nor factual either.


Comshaw

 

[HisArpy]

Translation of sarcastic reply:

Fuck off. I ain't gunna be truthful nor factual either.


Comshaw

WE already know you can't be truthful or factual neither.

And when pressed to support your bullshit you resort to threats and Ad Hom attacks.

Such an internet hero you are.

 

[Conager]

Yep. Okay thank you.

So Conager someone did your work for you and verified your claim. It is true. See how painless that was?

As I said I'm all for the truth, but I absolutely refuse to take your opinions or claims as fact without verification, for the reasons I posted before.

You want meaningful factual discourse? Then factual verification's are required.

TA

Comshaw

It's not my work. It's your work to inform yourself.

If you're ill informed and someone points out that you're ill informed you should want to go out and inform yourself. If you don't want to be informed, remain ignorant.

 

[Klinkster]

I ain't gunna be truthful nor factual either.


Comshaw

Tell us something we don't know.

 

[Comshaw]

It's not my work. It's your work to inform yourself.

If you're ill informed and someone points out that you're ill informed you should want to go out and inform yourself. If you don't want to be informed, remain ignorant.

Are you informed on every little detail of every piece of news? No? Why not? The rest of us aren't either. I don't spend my life on the net so I miss things.

That isn't the point. You are still claiming it's my responsibility to do your work for you, to prove up your point. That is a very idiotic claim. Why?

Simply this: let's say I make a claim. I know it's false, but I send you off on a chase to find it. you can't. I therefore tell you you aren't smart enough, you didn't look hard enough or long enough. I can then sit back and smugly claim what I posted was fact. I'm not about to spend my time trying to prove something you claim as true. I could be looking for days, without ever finding anything.

As I told you earlier, I can not nor will I take what you say at face value. As far as I'm concerned everything you claim is suspect until proven. I'm sure you feel the same about what I post. That is your prerogative. That is why if I claim it as fact or true I prove a link to where I got it. That doesn't mean you believe it, you have a practice of dismissing out of hand, without good reason or without ever providing refuting evidence that which you do not want to believe.

Getting back to my point, I take nothing at face value from those I consider to an unreliable source. And I refuse to spend my time trying to verify what you claim. Asking others to do what you should be doing is asinine, lazy or a dodge to claim what is false is true.

Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

Tell us something we don't know.

Oh look, parsing to get it to say what you want it to say. Surprise, surprise, surprise! Anybody surprised? Anybody? Anybody? *crickets*

Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

WE already know you can't be truthful or factual neither.

And when pressed to support your bullshit you resort to threats and Ad Hom attacks.

Such an internet hero you are.

Threats? post one threat I've made. One. Ad Hominem attacks? post one. I've taken Conger and others to task for not supporting their claims, that is true. I have also called them on their lack of logical posting or prevaricated and unsubstantiated claims. But I think, perhaps you should find out what a "Ad Hominem" attack is before you try to accuse anyone of using one. And no I won't go find it for you.

And I need to go a bit more depth on one of your claims: If I've made threats, why haven't you, or the one I made them to reported it? Why haven't I at a minimum been warned by the powers that be, or banned because of it? As you can see by my join day I've never been banned. I suppose you could claim that I'm one of those liberal leaning pets of the Laurel and that's why I haven't been banned, but since there is no proof or basis to the claim of threats, and you can't provide any evidence of such, it seems your assertions have as much substance as smoke on the wind.

And BTW, your post is a great example of a Red Herring fallacy, arguing an irreverent point (that I make threats and Ad Hominem attacks rather addressing the main point that verification should be provided for a claim).


Comshaw

 

[Conager]

Threats? post one threat I've made. One. Ad Hominem attacks? post one. I've taken Conger and others to task for not supporting their claims, that is true. I have also called them on their lack of logical posting or prevaricated and unsubstantiated claims. But I think, perhaps you should find out what a "Ad Hominem" attack is before you try to accuse anyone of using one. And no I won't go find it for you.


Comshaw

Why are you always insisting the everyone else scamper around to find quotes to educate you? Shouldn't you take care of your own education? Especially about your own nature?

 

[Conager]

Are you informed on every little detail of every piece of news? No? Why not? The rest of us aren't either. I don't spend my life on the net so I miss things.

That isn't the point. You are still claiming it's my responsibility to do your work for you, to prove up your point. That is a very idiotic claim. Why?

Simply this: let's say I make a claim. I know it's false, but I send you off on a chase to find it. you can't. I therefore tell you you aren't smart enough, you didn't look hard enough or long enough. I can then sit back and smugly claim what I posted was fact. I'm not about to spend my time trying to prove something you claim as true. I could be looking for days, without ever finding anything.

As I told you earlier, I can not nor will I take what you say at face value. As far as I'm concerned everything you claim is suspect until proven. I'm sure you feel the same about what I post. That is your prerogative. That is why if I claim it as fact or true I prove a link to where I got it. That doesn't mean you believe it, you have a practice of dismissing out of hand, without good reason or without ever providing refuting evidence that which you do not want to believe.

Getting back to my point, I take nothing at face value from those I consider to an unreliable source. And I refuse to spend my time trying to verify what you claim. Asking others to do what you should be doing is asinine, lazy or a dodge to claim what is false is true.

Comshaw

I don't make claims "that I know are fslse."

I'm not uniformed about one of the biggest stories in ABC News his posted in months being completely destroyed by the next day. How did you possibly miss that?

See where you and I differ is I read likely everything you do plus everything that you refuse to read because you're quite sure that those sources are not trustworyhy.

To repeat- you continue to go back to the same sources that have been proved to be regularly disseminate fake news.

The phrase fake news was actually developed by lefttis, legacy media trying to protect their imprimatur of authority. They did this to discredit right wing blogs. The idea was "We're the official news source and they aren't."

Trump tur ed that against them by labeling there false stories as fake news. Every time they lay another one of these eggs he gets more ammunition for the poor me the media is out to get me strategy. At this point, regardless what he says or does nobody that matters to his reelection is going to buy it.

Go read that ABC article objective Lee. Then think about if you were the editor of that paper and your reporter head Layton egg that big would you put a small blurred at the bottom of that same article saying well depending on finally did get back to us and they said that that wasn't quite right. Or would you issue or attraction like a "reputable" news organization.

If you were the editor and that statement had been issued a few hours earlier so that it was available before that story ran would you have run that story with um name sources being completely dispute advice and on the record statement?

Yet, there that article still resides, the headline still reads what it reads and anyone who Google's for that is going to find that Trump ignored intelligence reports that warned him in November.

Something that did not happen.

 

[Comshaw]

Why are you always insisting the everyone else scamper around to find quotes to educate you? Shouldn't you take care of your own education? Especially about your own nature?

Why are you always insisting that I should do your work for you? Why do you insist I take your word as gospel when you refuse to do the same for me?

It comes down to a simple premise, you claim it, you prove it, otherwise it's unsubstantiated opinion, and as I've said and repeated ad nusium, your opinion holds no water with me.

Comshaw