So basically you are only comfortable debating as long as you can keep it vague and never put down anything solid that you may have to actually argue, based on substance.
Pal, I was specific as hell about my own experiences with clots. You were absent from lunch on any substantiation of your fancies about a Navalny "kill switch." And even now, you dodge any substantiation. Are you as boring to yourself as you must be to others? I guess not.
Change of subject is always a sign of a failing argument.
When you are bold enough to get back to your numbered itemized list and articulate what exactly you mean by "visibility of celebrities to public" and "visibility of public to public" and why exactly one would be higher than another, I will be happy to engage in an intelligent discussion. I cant argue with meaningless assertions.
You can still engage in an intelligent discussion. Simply provide evidence for your fantasy claims.
So that is not a problem. Visibility of celebrities to the public (how well the public is aware of them and their lives) is high because their behavior is followed by the news media and advertised frequently to the masses of people. Visibility of any ordinary member of the public to any other member of the public (how well you are aware of your neighbors' identify and lives) is low because as they become more remote (live farther away), your information on them is increasingly sporadic and incomplete.
But that is incidental to the fact that you have provided no evidence to support your original assertions. You work on that, and we might have an intelligent discussion. You try to make this all about my mastery of English, then you have flopped and changed the subject. Who will you impress? Not me. Not you. And the more we go at this, the less likely it will impress anyone else, because the thread is too deep.
Visibility of celebrities to the public (how well the public is aware of them and their lives) is high because their behavior is followed by the news media
This is what I was trying to elicit from you, because atleast now I know what you are basing your assertion on, and we can have an intelligent discussion.
Here is the fundamental error in your logic. What is relevant to our discussion is the relative increase in the celebrity deaths as reported by the media before and after vaccines. It does not matter how highly the media reports their behaviour as long as you are not claiming that suddenly the media has increased their coverage of the celebrities compared to pre-vaccines.
Visibility of any ordinary member of the public to any other member of the public (how well you are aware of your neighbours' identify and lives) is low because as they become more remote
This is another deduction based on similar faulty logic:
We are interested in relative increase is overall mortality of general public. All we care is the stats. You don't need to know which of your neighbours died. You just need to know what the overall increase in mortality rates are.
But that is incidental to the fact that you have provided no evidence to support your original assertions.
Again, you are mistaking the purpose of this comment. It is for people to exchange opinions and dig into potential connections, and build a bigger picture. Thats what being an Anon is. Its not about proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt. We dont do that here. If that is what you are looking for, you are in the wrong place.
There is a reason why I keep saying that you are confusing logical and provable. I don't claim that anything I post is provable. My claims are logical assertions based on my own observations. If my observations are wrong, then my claims are wrong. I most definitely am not posting a scientific paper.
You really need to take a chill pill and stop trying to make it your life's goal to catch me in a mistake simply because I have called out your subject matter expertise one too many times in the past. Honestly, catching me in a mistake is not that hard.
Many Anons do it routinely and I stand corrected more times than I can count. Thats what helps me grow.
What is irritating is that you try to do it in some grandiose manner with obvious flaws, and you quibble over technicalities when it is convenient for you and yet when cornered you complain that I quibble too much. Just be consistent.
So basically you are only comfortable debating as long as you can keep it vague and never put down anything solid that you may have to actually argue, based on substance.
Pal, I was specific as hell about my own experiences with clots. You were absent from lunch on any substantiation of your fancies about a Navalny "kill switch." And even now, you dodge any substantiation. Are you as boring to yourself as you must be to others? I guess not.
Lets recall what you said before
When you are bold enough to get back to your numbered itemized list and articulate what exactly you mean by "visibility of celebrities to public" and "visibility of public to public" and why exactly one would be higher than another, I will be happy to engage in an intelligent discussion. I cant argue with meaningless assertions.
You can still engage in an intelligent discussion. Simply provide evidence for your fantasy claims.
So that is not a problem. Visibility of celebrities to the public (how well the public is aware of them and their lives) is high because their behavior is followed by the news media and advertised frequently to the masses of people. Visibility of any ordinary member of the public to any other member of the public (how well you are aware of your neighbors' identify and lives) is low because as they become more remote (live farther away), your information on them is increasingly sporadic and incomplete.
But that is incidental to the fact that you have provided no evidence to support your original assertions. You work on that, and we might have an intelligent discussion. You try to make this all about my mastery of English, then you have flopped and changed the subject. Who will you impress? Not me. Not you. And the more we go at this, the less likely it will impress anyone else, because the thread is too deep.
This is what I was trying to elicit from you, because atleast now I know what you are basing your assertion on, and we can have an intelligent discussion.
Here is the fundamental error in your logic. What is relevant to our discussion is the relative increase in the celebrity deaths as reported by the media before and after vaccines. It does not matter how highly the media reports their behaviour as long as you are not claiming that suddenly the media has increased their coverage of the celebrities compared to pre-vaccines.
This is another deduction based on similar faulty logic:
We are interested in relative increase is overall mortality of general public. All we care is the stats. You don't need to know which of your neighbours died. You just need to know what the overall increase in mortality rates are.
Again, you are mistaking the purpose of this comment. It is for people to exchange opinions and dig into potential connections, and build a bigger picture. Thats what being an Anon is. Its not about proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt. We dont do that here. If that is what you are looking for, you are in the wrong place.
There is a reason why I keep saying that you are confusing logical and provable. I don't claim that anything I post is provable. My claims are logical assertions based on my own observations. If my observations are wrong, then my claims are wrong. I most definitely am not posting a scientific paper.
You really need to take a chill pill and stop trying to make it your life's goal to catch me in a mistake simply because I have called out your subject matter expertise one too many times in the past. Honestly, catching me in a mistake is not that hard.
Many Anons do it routinely and I stand corrected more times than I can count. Thats what helps me grow.
What is irritating is that you try to do it in some grandiose manner with obvious flaws, and you quibble over technicalities when it is convenient for you and yet when cornered you complain that I quibble too much. Just be consistent.