The coronavirus response seems somewhat suspicious.

[Holly-May Leslie]

Mod Note

Holly-May Leslie, just a few points..

Instead of spamming multiple responses, there's a trick that you can use so that your responses are all in the single post.

If you highlight text or paragraphs, sentences, etc that someone has written that you wish to respond to, you will get a little box appear at the bottom of that highlighted text that says "Reply". If you click on that "reply", it will then create a quoted section and a link to the person you are quoting and you can respond. And instead of hitting post reply, you can keep highlighting and responding in the same chatbox. You know, instead of posting 6 posts to respond to one person's single post. That is considered spamming.

Please don't do that. That is actually against the rules.

Also, I noticed that you copied and pasted another person's post and created a different thread without providing a link to Rainbow's post, nor did you differentiate it or even use quotation marks that would attribute it to the author of those words. That's called plagiarism. That is a huge no no. You can edit your opening thread and correctly assign and quote Rainbow's words correctly and provide a link.

If you fail to do so, I will ping you for plagiarism.

If you aren't sure about formatting, you can use the rich text format (or similar option) when using this site, or you can make use of the BB Codes if you like to do things old school, which can be found here: http://www.sciforums.com/help/bb-codes

And one final note..

We are in the middle of a dangerous pandemic and I take a very dim view of people who post falsehoods or anti-vaxxer arguments or dangerous conspiracies about said pandemic, while on a site that can be viewed by any member of the public.

Whatever jerk pretending to be reasonable. Despite the implication that I am posting falsehoods, I never do because I do not pretend to know what I don't know. I just make estimations about things which I acknowledge may be wrong. Also, despite your other implication it is more dangerous to censor information in any case I think. Anyway, I will try to stop spamming people, as per your instructions. I know that it might get annoying. Also, I never plagiarise. I said that it was rainbow singularities post. Also also, I don't care.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

Google is your friend.

It is... I still don't know what run up the Jolly Roger means though.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

Please do. And keep in mind you would be doing it not just for yourself, but for those around you who might be more likely to get severely ill from the virus than you yourself.

I can tell you, from my own experience of catching it last year, that even if you get it mildly, as I did, it can be rather unnerving. I lost all sense of taste and smell for a fortnight and began to fear it had gone for good. (With some people the loss is indeed permanent.) It took another 6 weeks for it to come back fully. And I found any form of physical exercise made me exhausted for about a month, too.

And I was one of the lucky ones. This virus is no joke. There are millions of people who have officially "recovered" but are still suffering after-effects, often quite debilitating ones.

Okay.
To a small extent, because then they would have the pleasure of OPTIONALLY hanging around me, so to a small extent I would be doing it for them.
Life is a joke exchemist.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

Where is this happening?

In NZ and Australia and Britain intermittently, though it seems to have improved. For example, apparently people wont even be able to play sports in large groups, or go into restaurants in NZ if they are unvaccinated. I recommend tighter harassment laws instead of this, because this takes away some freedom of consent for individuals in the first place, and for restaurant's in the second.

 

[Michael 345]

What's the smart thing to do?

Don't be one of the four

Sad but death comes from the most unlikely places

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Whatever jerk pretending to be reasonable. Despite the implication that I am posting falsehoods...

I think he was referring more to the troll, FatFreddy.


My opinion. Not getting vaccinated is stupid; deliberate or not.

 

[exchemist]

Okay.
To a small extent, because then they would have the pleasure of OPTIONALLY hanging around me, so to a small extent I would be doing it for them.
Life is a joke exchemist.

Until you lose a leg, or your sight - or your taste of sense and smell. Then, I can assure you, the joke wears off pretty quickly.

And unless you are a hermit, you come into contact with people who you can infect every day. So do not pretend it is, somehow, their choice whether you infect them or not. That's selfish bullshit.

 

[gmilam]

In NZ and Australia and Britain intermittently, though it seems to have improved. For example, apparently people wont even be able to play sports in large groups, or go into restaurants in NZ if they are unvaccinated. I recommend tighter harassment laws instead of this, because this takes away some freedom of consent for individuals in the first place, and for restaurant's in the second.

Does a restaurant have the right to determine consent for it's employees? Or is it the restaurant's responsibility to provide safe working conditions for it's people?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Whatever jerk pretending to be reasonable. Despite the implication that I am posting falsehoods, I never do because I do not pretend to know what I don't know. I just make estimations about things which I acknowledge may be wrong. Also, despite your other implication it is more dangerous to censor information in any case I think. Anyway, I will try to stop spamming people, as per your instructions. I know that it might get annoying. Also, I never plagiarise. I said that it was rainbow singularities post. Also also, I don't care.

lol
:grabs popcorn:

it is more dangerous to censor information in any case I think.

so like is censoring the same as age limits ?

like age of consent ?
drugs
driving
sex
voting

same/same ?

are you saying laws & regulations are "censoring" which is "wrong" ?

 

[Bells]

Whatever jerk pretending to be reasonable.

Are you speaking about yourself here, or was that aimed at me?

Punctuation is your friend.

Despite the implication that I am posting falsehoods, I never do because I do not pretend to know what I don't know.

Oh, you are clearly mistaken. I was not implying that you are posting falsehoods.

I was clearly stating that you were posting falsehoods.

You see, you aren't the first to pull this schtick, nor will you be the last. I'll give you an example, from your opening post in this thread:

I know the virus might be dangerous, but then it might not be. I know that the so called vaccine might actually be a vaccine, but then again it might not be. I know that the lockdowns might be happening just to prevent the spread of the virus, but then again they might not be.

You know it "might" be dangerous, but then say it might not be. Despite the fact over five million people have died from it in less than 2 years. That's the falsehood. It's an insidious manner of posting, where you appear to try to be reasonable, but you're really just posting utter tripe. As I noted, you aren't the first to pull this kind of crap on this site, nor will you be the last.

What makes your denialism insidious is that you are doing it about a virus that has killed millions, in the midst of a pandemic.

And your posts in this thread, as one example, are full of falsehoods:

I do however doubt that it is AS dangerous as it is made out to be, because, delving into the hypothetical's here, if it was I probably would have seen at least one of the numerous people I knew drop dead from it, and yet I have not.

Over five million people dead.

Just because you don't know any of them, does not make it less dangerous. You aren't delving into hypotheticals, you're out and out lying because you are ignoring that over 5 million people have died and instead, have cast doubt on the nature of the virus because you are fortunate enough to not know anyone who has died from it. When you completely ignore the obvious to pull this kind of tripe, then yeah, you're lying. In suggesting that you doubt it's dangerous because you don't know anyone who has died from it, you deliberately misrepresent the virus and deliberately left out that over 5 million people have died from it to date. Lying by omission is still lying.

I just make estimations about things which I acknowledge may be wrong.

I would suggest you look up the definition of estimation.

You aren't making "estimations". You are making statements that are blatantly false and then trying to hide them behind poorly thought out hypotheticals.

Also, despite your other implication it is more dangerous to censor information in any case I think.

And if you were providing information that was being censored, you might have a point.

But you aren't. You are posting anti-vax rubbish that has no basis in fact and is patently dangerous, during a pandemic. Such words and actions endanger the wider community.

Anyway, I will try to stop spamming people, as per your instructions. I know that it might get annoying.

It's also against this site's rules.

Also, I never plagiarise. I said that it was rainbow singularities post. Also also, I don't care.

From this site's rules:

Plagiarism and copying
I14. Plagiarism – the copying of another person’s writings and passing them off as your own – is a breach of copyright, as well as being intellectually dishonest. If you post something that somebody else wrote, you must name the author and appropriately reference the source (e.g. with a link). Posts that include material from elsewhere that is not properly acknowledged will be deleted.
[http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/]​

Just saying that Rainbow wrote this so you decided to start a thread about it doesn't cut it. Quote it correctly and properly and provide a link to Rainbow's post that you copied and pasted.. I am going to assume that you are still in school. If you did this in a paper in school, you'd fail. It's about respecting what others have written and properly referencing it. That way, people can also see context of what you are quoting.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

I think he was referring more to the troll, FatFreddy.


My opinion. Not getting vaccinated is stupid; deliberate or not.

It is not a matter of opinion. Also, in many cases it is probably more due to being scared of the vaccine, just like getting vaccinated in many cases is probably due to being scared of whichever virus the vaccine is for. I trust most vaccine's.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

Until you lose a leg, or your sight - or your taste of sense and smell. Then, I can assure you, the joke wears off pretty quickly.

And unless you are a hermit, you come into contact with people who you can infect every day. So do not pretend it is, somehow, their choice whether you infect them or not. That's selfish bullshit.

It's not bs. They can stay away from places where they would be likely to come into close contact with the unvaccinated if they want. Also, everyone is entirely selfish. What of it? You sound like you are getting emotional. I think you need a chill pill. Why would I lose my leg from coronavirus? Also, I have heard that there is this brilliant vaccine to protect them. Nay, several.

 

[billvon]

It's not bs. They can stay away from places where they would be likely to come into close contact with the unvaccinated if they want.

Not if they rely on the care of others, as many people in assisted living situations do.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

I think he was referring more to the troll, FatFreddy.

What did he do to warrent this message?

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

Does a restaurant have the right to determine consent for it's employees? Or is it the restaurant's responsibility to provide safe working conditions for it's people?

The first one. Not the second one. If the restaurant is not safe, people should probably find another instead to avoid its danger.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

so like is censoring the same as age limits ?

like age of consent ?
drugs
driving
sex
voting

same/same ?

are you saying laws & regulations are "censoring" which is "wrong" ?

No. I just think that censorship of information is bad in any case.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

Are you speaking about yourself here, or was that aimed at me?

Punctuation is your friend.


Oh, you are clearly mistaken. I was not implying that you are posting falsehoods.

I was clearly stating that you were posting falsehoods.

You see, you aren't the first to pull this schtick, nor will you be the last. I'll give you an example, from your opening post in this thread:


You know it "might" be dangerous, but then say it might not be. Despite the fact over five million people have died from it in less than 2 years. That's the falsehood. It's an insidious manner of posting, where you appear to try to be reasonable, but you're really just posting utter tripe. As I noted, you aren't the first to pull this kind of crap on this site, nor will you be the last.

What makes your denialism insidious is that you are doing it about a virus that has killed millions, in the midst of a pandemic.

And your posts in this thread, as one example, are full of falsehoods:



Over five million people dead.

Just because you don't know any of them, does not make it less dangerous. You aren't delving into hypotheticals, you're out and out lying because you are ignoring that over 5 million people have died and instead, have cast doubt on the nature of the virus because you are fortunate enough to not know anyone who has died from it. When you completely ignore the obvious to pull this kind of tripe, then yeah, you're lying. In suggesting that you doubt it's dangerous because you don't know anyone who has died from it, you deliberately misrepresent the virus and deliberately left out that over 5 million people have died from it to date. Lying by omission is still lying.


I would suggest you look up the definition of estimation.

You aren't making "estimations". You are making statements that are blatantly false and then trying to hide them behind poorly thought out hypotheticals.


And if you were providing information that was being censored, you might have a point.

But you aren't. You are posting anti-vax rubbish that has no basis in fact and is patently dangerous, during a pandemic. Such words and actions endanger the wider community.


It's also against this site's rules.


From this site's rules:

Plagiarism and copying
I14. Plagiarism – the copying of another person’s writings and passing them off as your own – is a breach of copyright, as well as being intellectually dishonest. If you post something that somebody else wrote, you must name the author and appropriately reference the source (e.g. with a link). Posts that include material from elsewhere that is not properly acknowledged will be deleted.
[http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/]​

Just saying that Rainbow wrote this so you decided to start a thread about it doesn't cut it. Quote it correctly and properly and provide a link to Rainbow's post that you copied and pasted.. I am going to assume that you are still in school. If you did this in a paper in school, you'd fail. It's about respecting what others have written and properly referencing it. That way, people can also see context of what you are quoting.

1:

1: The second one. I actually am reasonable, though I can be a jerk to I admit.
2: That is true. I welcome any corrections, even if they are intended to hurt me, like this comment was, which didn't work because I am not a wimp.

2:

1: It was not directly stated in your post that I was spreading misinformation. It was implied that I was.
3: What were you referring to specifically?

3:

What rubbish.

4:

I never lie. I might not always be correct, because I speculate a lot, but I never lie. What would I have to gain from that in this case?

5:

1: I do make estimations.
2: I do not spread misinformation.
3: I would say that very few of my estimations are harmful.
4: I don't think poorly. I think that you might think poorly however from what I have just read, especially when you get all angwy about something.
People like you should probably be bullied to discourage them from being cruel to anyone who can't handle it.
5: I did look up the definition of the word estimation.

6:

1: But anti vax information almost is censored unofficially by those who don't like it.
2: Maybe what I say is rubbish, or maybe it is you instead and you will find out one day.
3: I rarely have a point. Why must I?
4: I don't think that my words endanger very many people.

7 and 8:

Yes yes.

8:

It is more about being a pedantic little nit wit.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

Not if they rely on the care of others, as many people in assisted living situations do.

Okay. So there should be restrictions about who has clearance to where in such cases.

 

[Seattle]

1: The second one. I actually am reasonable, though I can be a jerk to I admit.

That should be "though I can be a jerk too, I admit". That's why they teach English in school.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

That should be "though I can be a jerk too, I admit". That's why they teach English in school.

I know that. It just happened because I was typing quickly. Also, I am not against English despite the implication. I am against word salad. I am actually very adept at English despite the other implication.