conorlarkin: Why do you repeatedly link to paysites?
I thought it was against board rules?
"No advertising on the forum, of any kind, without prior approval from either Frank or Kyle. Repeatedly linking your site or blog without prior consent is considered advertising"
It is irritating to those who do not wish to subscribe to that site. But you know that. That is why you do it.
Do the rules not apply to you?
Replies to: conorlarkin: Why do you repeatedly link to paysites?
FYI...the NY Times online costs much less than a cup of coffee...do yourself a favor...get
outstanding content and perspectives that often delve deeply into the issues...unlike the "Tabloids" like the NY Post, FOX etc....plus all staff are held to clearly written standards of conduct, and when in rare occasions they are violated, there are consequences...not so with the others I mentioned.
How is this not blatant advertising?
(no message)
I agree...problem solved...thanks for the heads up.
while you're at it...re-read all the other Open Forum rules...
Well I read them alright. That's why I questioned the interpretation you and conorlarkin had.
Hey if you guys have an exemption just say so. Maybe Ops told you that you were untouchable.
Maybe you should worry about you.
(no message)
I just did, Jake...acknowledged the error immediately and took action...even thanked him...don't see
that sort of behavior very often here, now do you? ;-)
btw, I'm guessing it will be a sub-zero day in Hades before Baron apologizes for his latest false accusation of me...it is what it is... rules for everyone else, but none for him...
What was Baron's false accusation?
(no message)
Just citing a prime example of how so many here refuse to acknowledge their own errors, but are
quick to accuse others...in Baron's case, look to his posts on the NEJM Editorial I posted earlier...then my responses...he failed big time, but refuses to apologize...typical.
If you'd like to go into further detail, ask away...you just might then question his 'cred' as well.
What example are you claiming to cite? What was Baron's false accusation?
(no message)
LOL...I answered that for you, Jake...read the posts and then get back to us with your assessment.
(no message)
I read the thread in question.
I'm still not finding a false accusation, just disagreement.
From Baron's posts.."The NEJM article is not a study & has no data..."...as I pointed out, the
article specifically identified the "Study" and provided a link to it, which shows their full report...plus the report provides a link to an even more detailed set of DATA in the "Supplemental Appendix"...that's all the data anyone would require from a world renowned medical journal.
Kind of odd that Baron, after 30 years of practice, never thought to seek out the referenced report that formed the basis of the Editorial article...at least it does to me?
Baron was WRONG...the Editorial DID CONTAIN A REPORT...and it had plenty of DATA.
btw, you're looking pretty silly right now...care to go on?
I'm looking silly? I just proved you to be a lying fraud. Again.
You said that Baron had made false accusations towards you. I asked you to name one. The best you've got is to retreat into his disagreement with the nature of something published in N.E.J.M.
That isn't a "false accusation" of you.
You're an embarrassment to yourself, if that's even possible.
Jake...his post said the NEJM Editorial had no Report or Data...that's wrong.
(no message)
Your claim wasn't that he was factually incorrect about a publication.
You said he levied a false accusation towards you, and that you were entitled to an apology. That's badly misleading, and you know it.
Maybe this post from Baron regarding the same NEJM Editorial will help you understand...
from BVZ's attached post...
--------------------
I Knew he’d post some falsity to thus. Misrepresenting an editorial as a study w/data and
… not only is it just an editorial opinion piece by two liberal nonmedical doctors, its an editorial of an opinion formed BEFORE the Cochrane study was known.
The thing is, he probably didnt understand what he was posting - he’s an uneducated Cliff Claven wanna be….with lots of relatives
to quote, I am sure.
Now back to ignore for him.
-------------------
Again...the NEJM Editorial I posted contained the Full Report, along with Detailed Data...he was/is wrong...why he didn't notice the report and data, I have no idea...charitably, he was just being lazy...that being said, he still hasn't apologized for accusing me of posting a "FALSEHOOD"...I think we've settled that claim already.
Baron's whole identity and self worth are wrapped up in his MD degree...with my very successful Infectious Disease and Pulmonary/Critical Care (ICU) family docs close at hand, I'm a threat to him since if there's ever a serious medical issue related to COVID, I've got the right answer...he's not dealing with it very well.
btw, I got a kick out of Baron admitting that he wasn't always 'Ignoring' me...I knew that, but it's nice to hear him come clean. BVZ is an odd duck...makes stuff up all the time...all day, every day.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=120141
Fair enough.
(no message)
Why not just admit you have no logical answer?
(no message)
Embracing Victimhood will not empower you. Weep and Creep On!
(no message)
You think Baron is right to avoid apologizing?...and btw, I didn't hide behind "Victimization" in
acknowledging the error you pointed out...just showing there are clear examples of proper and improper behavior...
...you know, we should talk more about your claims against me and see if they are justified...want to do that?
Baron is not a lying nutjob. That's a FACT.
(no message)
Do you agree that he was dead wrong wrt the NEJM Editorial/Report?...isn't that cause for apology?
(no message)
He's a doctor. You are a God knows what. I'm thinking his opinion is rational.
(no message)
Stick to the facts of the matter...was he right or wrong?
It's not a hard challenge to you...read the posts and then...using those documented facts...tell me your call.
Re-read his posts and it is obvious he is 100% correct.
(no message)
I've already done the hard work of proving him wrong with my thoughtful, well
researched posts...all you have to do is copy and paste his statements if you think he was correct in what he said...you've hung in this long, shouldn't be all that hard for you...
You are not thoughtful. All you do is copy and paste. He is right.
(no message)
LOL...you sure do wriggle a lot when you're caught on the hook...yeah, let's just avoid evidence...
(no message)
You fish stories bore everyone. Go unload a pallet down at the horsecrap factory.
(no message)
I assume everyone has access to our nation’s premier newspapers.
Sorry it makes you feel inferior.
Keep your chin up. Talk to your friends for support.
You read a journoactivist paper whose most respected department is Wordle.
(no message)
Heh. Truth.
(no message)
OVER 330,000,000 unsubscribed people in America. Most of them libs.
(no message)
It's a bad assumption. You are bad at assuming things.
WaPo only has 2.5 million subscribers. The Times is better, at 10 million. Those numbers show that your assumption is wildly inaccurate. Of course, this isn't surprising given that you are consistently wildly inaccurate. It's just another data point.
I wonder if conorlarkin has gifted any subscriptions to less fortunate libs?
(no message)
He only has those subscriptions because of his privilege.
How racist are the NYT and WaPo for not providing those subscriptions to marginalized groups free of charge?
He believes the Federal Government should offer subscription debt relief to marginalized Americans.
Essentially everybody but white male Republicans
You avoided my questions like a coward. The Chris 94 impression doesn't work for you.
Buying a subscription makes you superior to those who don't? That's a lot of people. A lot of your lib constituents.
Elitist white supremacist.
(no message)
Becoming even more elite as they are hemorrhaging subscriptions.
(no message)
That pretty much comes to mind.
(no message)
Fish wrappers are all they are good for. Just for the Halibut.
(no message)
The libs here live in "Jimmy's World". The realm of fictional bullsheeeeeeeet.
Remember that 1980's fiasco?
Link: https://sites.smith.edu/fys169-f19/2019/11/22/janet-cookes-jimmys-world-and-the-fear-of-lying-media/
I hope conor doesn't read this link...it may trigger a Cognitive Dissonance episode.
(no message)
He's a sociopath. He should be OK.
He's also a cheap bastard who won't help his fellow unsubscribed libs.