Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - DonaldD

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30
1
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: Today at 11:48:16 AM »
Yes, and it was gratuitously passive-aggressive and condescending. Fenring was sincerely concerned, and your post was... I won't characterize it any further.

2
While it is fair to discuss the likelihood of each side of the hypothesis not being equally likely, nevertheless the main thrust of my challenge is to wonder how willing either side is to acknowledge that their interpretation may be wrong.
Maybe I missed it, but I still don't see where you actually responded to your own challenge :)

3
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: Today at 11:26:26 AM »
Aris, you do seem a bit frustrated... to put this mildly, that seemed a bit out of control.

ScottF, do you think that post was in any way helpful?

4
So, what would it take for you to change your position, Crunch?

5
While it is fair to discuss the likelihood of each side of the hypothesis not being equally likely, nevertheless the main thrust of my challenge is to wonder how willing either side is to acknowledge that their interpretation may be wrong.
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see where you actually responded to this challenge, either...

6
General Comments / Re: George Floyd
« on: Today at 09:55:41 AM »
You think Floyd having breathing difficulties prior to being knelt upon, then Chauvin choosing to restrict his breathing by kneeling on Floyd's neck, and then ignoring continued statements by the victim about breathing problems, will necessarily improve Chauvin's chances?

7
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: Today at 07:36:46 AM »
You guys have told them they’re safe if they wear cloth masks when we all know damn well they’re not. By giving them a false sense of protection, you put the most vulnerable to this disease at risk.
If the downward trend continues, we may actually see that COVID is within the range of flu fatality rates.
If it's no worse than the flu, why do you really care - or are you suggesting we need to change our attitudes and behaviours around annual influenza outbreaks?

8
General Comments / Re: George Floyd
« on: May 29, 2020, 10:41:00 PM »
Self-protection for the officer does take precedence, and the fly in the ointment is there are criminals out there who have absolutely no problem with faking an illness or injury if it means it will give them a chance to either escape, or hurt one of the detaining officers.
Floyd was handcuffed with his hands behind his back. There were two, then 4 officers on-site. 

Police officers might as well just shoot all detainees right away if they aren't even safe in this situation.

9
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 29, 2020, 10:35:30 PM »
Pass the popcorn <munch><munch>

10
General Comments / Re: George Floyd
« on: May 29, 2020, 05:08:03 PM »
I agree, looks very much like murder. Kneeling on his neck like that for so long was utter bull*censored* and the officer should be charged as well as those that stood around and did nothing.
The three other officers on-site may be charged in the future, but I expect there is not sufficient evidence to charge them at this time.

11
General Comments / Re: Free speech
« on: May 29, 2020, 05:03:34 PM »
Facebook, Twitter, and Google(via YouTube) are demonstrating they can in fact exercise near real-time editorial control of their content.
How does Twitter exercise near real-time editorial control over content?

It is a little bit of both. 230 needs to remain available, but it also needs to be revised, but I wouldn't trust what the Democrats would produce, it needs a Republican Congress before I'd trust any attempt to alter it or its going to end up worse than what's there now.
That's interesting - I wonder if roughly 49.8% of the population agrees with you...  I also wonder whether 50.2% think the opposite. There are none so blind as those who will not see...

12
  This addresses your evidence for believing that side, which is fine, but I've asserted hypothetically that you learn from believable evidence that the data was wrong and the anecdote people were right. 
You misunderstand - I had already accepted your hypothetical.  This was in response to me pointing out that there is no particular reason to believe it, more than, say, believing that the deaths are being undercounted.

13
General Comments / Re: Free speech
« on: May 29, 2020, 03:15:20 PM »
As far as I can tell, if 230 goes away it means twitter/facebook/google/etc, aren't allowed to let lies go unchallenged, which means even stricter fact-checking, and means booting people who regularly lie.

Trump's clearly not doing this to enable free speech, as it'll be the very opposite, all media needing to implement stronger controls.

He's doing it as a weapon to enforce internet companies to be afraid of the government arbitrarily punishing them for whatever anyone among the millions of their users says, and therefore becoming goverment sycophants to make sure they don't get the government angry at them.
Maybe - but more likely he's using it to distract, to change the channel, and rile up his base.  I expect he knows this is going nowhere.

14
Another aspect of this argument seems to be that if shutdowns are not warranted under circumstances with many deaths attributed to 'normal causes', then why are they warranted now?
Because a highly infectious disease responds to "shutdowns" in ways that say, heart attacks and car accidents do not.

And of course, the question is "how many of the deaths are being misattributed?"  People are using anecdotes to raise an issue, then assume the anecdotes prove that the issue is significant.

Another observation - nobody seems to be taking you up on your challenge from the side of "what if it is worse than you think?"

15
The problem is that we're still learning the ways that covid can kill people.
I think in the hypothetical we don't actually know that it is COVID-19 having this effect.  It is hypothetically something else.

16
Are we going to find out that 100,000 people did NOT, in fact, die?  This is an interesting mental exercise.
No, the premise is you'll find out that of the 100,000 only some of them died from COVID, and others died while having COVID. I am asserting the hypothetical premise that the skeptics were right, that many deaths have been wrongly attributed to it to buff up the numbers.
Well, sure, if we find out that the numbers are incorrect - that COVID-19 did not in fact kill more people already than does seasonal flu, and also that the antibody tests show that way more people have been infected and have recovered than estimated - then I would absolutely say the suppression methods used were overkill (and also, useless, since they did not actually stop the virus from being transmitted).
Quote
That's an ok question if you just want a clarification (not so much if you're handwaiving it away).
Since I actually responded substantively, what was the point of this comment?

17
General Comments / Re: Free speech
« on: May 29, 2020, 01:16:25 PM »
If 230 gets abolished, doesn't it just incentivize (indeed even force) twitter to exert MORE control over their users, rather than less, since they can be held liable for everything Trump (or anyone else) says?
Yes.  It's the executive order of unintended consequences.  Of course, section 230 will not be changed, because sane people in the legislatures realize the effects it would have, even while they pretend not to (while also knowing that they will never be called upon to change it significantly.)

18
General Comments / Re: Free speech
« on: May 29, 2020, 01:05:33 PM »
Quote
That would be Section 230 which is the gist of Trump's proposal. That prevents social media from being liable for their own lies or fabrications as they attack others.

Twitter is not posting content ("lies or fabrications").
If Twitter starts more generally fact-checking and labelling tweets, that might actually be content, which could include lies or fabrications...

19
That's right. The question is can you answer them. My observation is that the analysis of this health crisis seems to boil down to little more than red vs blue, which is an interesting result if accurate. My question is geared towards testing that and to ask whether one side would endorse the other side's position if the our numbers were updated significantly in a year.
What is this "position"?  In reality, there are many positions. 

Since my position is basically "relax restrictions so long as numbers don't spike (on a region by region basis) then relax them some more, so long as the numbers do not spike (for a certain value of "spike" of course)" 

If restrictions are lifted, and no significant spike occurs, my position will be not to reinstate the restrictions.

If the "other position" is to lift restrictions, and to never reinstate any of them even if infections and deaths rise again to spring 2020 levels or higher, then no, I wouldn't endorse that.

20
Ok, so part of my question was to accept the general premise that you'll find out one day that the information you aware of now will prove to be wrong. Now of course in reality that won't happen, because no one in America is ever wrong  ::)
Are we going to find out that 100,000 people did NOT, in fact, die?  This is an interesting mental exercise.  Are we also going to realize that nobody in fact, isolated, and no industries were affected by being closed?

21
It seems we've devolved into one side wanting or hoping to show that COVID may be no worse than a regular flu, presumably because that would bolster the general belief that this lockdown strategy was bad. And the other side seems needful to demonstrate how horrible COVID is and that the measures taken were needed, and that perhaps even more measures were needed.
Personally, I'm on the "if you say something controversial, back it up with your reasoning" side.

For instance, the claim that COVID is no worse than the seasonal flu is demonstrably false.
It is worse in its speed of spread.
It is worse in the lack of previous exposure in the population
It is worse in its case mortality rate.

In all of these metrics, COVID-19 is demonstrably, non-trivially, worse.  So claiming that COVID-19 is no worse, or even only slightly worse, needs real evidence to back it up - evidence that also addresses why over 100,000 people in the USA have died from it in just a few months, months where industries have been shut as people have isolated themselves in order to retard the spread of the virus.

22
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 29, 2020, 11:25:44 AM »
I've presented quotes that show cloth masks are, at best, 2% effective.
That's nice - but it has nothing to do with Fauci's statement (that masks are not 100% effective). Now, you are supporting your argument with differently - which is fine - but the original claim, that Fauci's statement meant masks are nothing but symbolic, is still wrong.  That was simply not what he said or meant.

We can certainly debate the effectiveness of masks.  Annals of Internal Medicine
Quote
A 2020 study confirms that some fabrics block clinically useful percentages of transmission, even for aerosols and even in single layers; multiple layers improve efficiency (5).


23
Is that a Rain Man thing, where you smack your head in response to anxiety?

24
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 29, 2020, 09:29:46 AM »
Quote
During the interview, the infections diseases expert also admitted that wearing a mask is not 100% effective...

Masks are symbolic, nothing more.
Try to figure out why even this paraphrase of Fauci's statement does not at all support your conclusion.

Try to figure out why it actually is. I don't think you can, ain't got the chops. But it's all upthread.
Let me help you, since you aren't actually able to support your statements at the best of times: "wearing masks is not 100% effective" does not imply "they have no benefit".   In theory, the initial statement is consistent with the statement "wearing masks is 99% effective".  And NO, that is not what Fauci was claiming, either.  But he also wasn't claiming that "wearing masks is 0% effective", which is also consistent, but also clearly NOT what he meant.

Only by asserting that the latter meaning is the only possible interpretation could one assert as a consequence of that statement that masks are nothing more than symbolic.  Even a 1% effectiveness (also NOT what Fauci was suggesting) is more than nothing.

I was really hoping you could honestly evaluate your statement, though

25
If the downward trend continues, we may actually see that COVID is within the range of flu fatality rates.

Nearly half the deaths that have occurred are directly attributed to intentionally infecting nursing homes and long term care facilities. If not for those efforts, we would already be in the range of seasonal flu.
I know that old people don't count, but do show your math supporting this belief, excluding this old people if you like (and of course, NOT excluding old people from seasonal flu deaths if that helps you, too)

26
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 29, 2020, 08:56:31 AM »
Quote
During the interview, the infections diseases expert also admitted that wearing a mask is not 100% effective...

Masks are symbolic, nothing more.
Try to figure out why even this paraphrase of Fauci's statement does not at all support your conclusion.

27
General Comments / Re: Free speech
« on: May 29, 2020, 08:53:43 AM »
Gosh, I watch morning Joe all the time, and although he can say controversial stuff, he's never insinuated that autopsy reports were wrong or that public figures literally got away with murder.

He also doesn't generally insinuate with leading questions like that: "many people are saying he is a murderer!"  "the investigator must have been corrupt!" "just sayin'!"

Feel free to provide examples if you can find them.

28
What are the statistics on nursing home influenza deaths?  Also, nursing home deaths include care givers who have died...

As an aside, we have a pretty good idea now that case fatality for COVID-19 is about 5 times that of seasonal flu - 0.5%. Also, being a new virus, and considering its relatively long pre-symptomatic phase, it's highly likely that upwards of 50% of the population would contract it absent policies to retard the spread of the virus.

 Does that mean COVID-19 is not dangerous enough to have instituted suppression policies?

29
General Comments / Re: Voting During a Pandemic
« on: May 28, 2020, 08:46:43 PM »
This:
As Dr. Fauci just announced, the feared resurgence does not appear to be a factor.
Does not at all mean this:
Quote from: Dr. Fauci
“But now is the time, depending upon where you are and what your situation is, to begin to seriously look at reopening the economy, reopening the country to try to get back to some degree of normal.”
Take a moment and try to figure out why they don't mean the same thing.

But they do. The antithesis is the Democrat fear-mongers who do not want that "V"-curve.
Try to explain why you think one of those statements implies the other.  Lay it out there.  Use your words.

30
General Comments / Re: Free speech
« on: May 28, 2020, 08:04:46 PM »
I would also argue that EO’s are and always have been unconstitutional.

I largely agree, or at least that the scope should be massively curtailed. Like only in circumstances of a national emergency (a real one, like 9/11).

Another weird response.  You're missing a massive amount of information if you don't want to watch other news shows or read major newspapers.  I'm not surprised, but always disappointed in the way you present your view of the world.
I'm pretty sure this is not the quote you were responding to...

31
General Comments / Re: Voting During a Pandemic
« on: May 28, 2020, 06:50:45 PM »
This:
As Dr. Fauci just announced, the feared resurgence does not appear to be a factor.
Does not at all mean this:
Quote from: Dr. Fauci
“But now is the time, depending upon where you are and what your situation is, to begin to seriously look at reopening the economy, reopening the country to try to get back to some degree of normal.”
Take a moment and try to figure out why they don't mean the same thing.

32
General Comments / Re: Free speech
« on: May 28, 2020, 06:46:47 PM »
Begs the question we does free speech mean on social media platforms and what is Trumps definition of free speech?
I think his definition of free speech is he should get to say anything that distracts from what would otherwise be the major news item of the day... and we keep falling for it.

33
General Comments / Re: Free speech
« on: May 28, 2020, 04:40:19 PM »
I am wondering why Joe Scarborough hasn't spoken out about this.  I think he would have the right to sue Trump for slander and/or libel since there is no factual basis for his claims.  In other words, he's lying.
I'm pretty sure Trump hasn't come out and said "Joe S killed her!!"

Just that it's ridiculous there's not an ongoing investigation, and "questioning" whether Scarborough got away with murder - just asking!  Some people think so!! And maybe "an affair??"  "What about that investigator??"

Basically, he is being a coward and throwing out insinuations disguised as questions.

34
General Comments / Re: Voting During a Pandemic
« on: May 28, 2020, 02:37:27 PM »
Just provide us with an accurate transcription, then.  It's what other people do.

35
General Comments / Re: Voting During a Pandemic
« on: May 28, 2020, 01:05:47 PM »
As Dr. Fauci just announced, the feared resurgence does not appear to be a factor.
That's not what Fauci said.

36
General Comments / Re: The impossible economy
« on: May 28, 2020, 12:12:28 PM »
I'm pretty sure you sincerely believe all of that.  Sad.

37
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 27, 2020, 05:26:30 PM »
So Republicans in 2001 were the enemies of conservatives, and were murdering people, got it.

38
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 27, 2020, 05:23:36 PM »
Annals of Internal Medecine: Cloth Masks May Prevent Transmission of COVID-19: An Evidence-Based, Risk-Based Approach
Quote
Although no direct evidence indicates that cloth masks are effective in reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the evidence that they reduce contamination of air and surfaces is convincing and should suffice to inform policy decisions on their use in this pandemic pending further research.

Cloth does not stop isolated virions. However, most virus transmission occurs via larger particles in secretions, whether aerosol (<5 µm) or droplets (>5 µm), which are generated directly by speaking, eating, coughing, and sneezing; aerosols are also created when water evaporates from smaller droplets, which become aerosol-sized droplet nuclei. The point is not that some particles can penetrate but that some particles are stopped, particularly in the outward direction. Every virus-laden particle retained in a mask is not available to hang in the air as an aerosol or fall to a surface to be later picked up by touch.
Quote
Outward protection for cloth masks was extensively studied decades ago, and the results are highly relevant today. Compared with bacteria recovery from unmasked volunteers, a mask made of muslin and flannel reduced bacteria recovered on agar sedimentation plates by 99.3% to 99.9%, total airborne microorganisms by 99.5% to 99.8%, and bacteria recovered from aerosols (<4 µm) by 88% to 99% (6). A similar experiment in 1975 compared 4 medical masks and 1 commercially produced reusable mask made of 4 layers of cotton muslin (7). Filtration efficiency, assessed by bacterial counts, was 96% to 99% for the medical masks and 99% for the cloth mask; for aerosols (<3.3 µm), it was 72% to 89% and 89%, respectively.

39
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 27, 2020, 03:50:51 PM »
My point wasn't about reality, but rather of perceptions of reality and consistency...

You can certainly believe that the COVID-19 death rate is not worse than that of the flu, if you don't believe the numbers.  But 50% of Republicans believe that the COVID-19 death counts are at least 100,000 in the USA, So at least 20% of those folks, (and likely a fraction of the other 50%, too) hold the completely conflicting opinion that the death rate from seasonal flu is just as bad as that of COVID-19.

40
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: May 27, 2020, 03:39:09 PM »
Gallup poll on perceptions of COVID-19

A few factoids:
  • From the survey, 50% of Republicans believe the death count associated to COVID-19 is overstated.  Equivalently, 50% of Republicans believe that the death count is either understated or accurate.
  • From the survey, 40% of Republicans believe the death rate for COVID-19 is greater than the seasonal flu... meaning that 60% of Republicans either have no opinion or do not believe the COVID-19 death rate is greater than that of the seasonal flu.
  • 100,000 people in the USA have died in the past 2 months from COVID-19, while people have been self isolating, shops have been closed, etc, etc for the past 2 months.
  • The seasonal flu kills between 15,000 and 80,000 people, with normal flu seasons falling in the 30,000-40,000 range.
  • Seemingly, Republicans can't/don't/won't do math

41
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 27, 2020, 01:30:30 PM »
I am also getting a mild laugh about how Donald's talking about forcings and various other external inputs and using pretty much the skeptics arguments about why the models have problems predicting the future as a justification for why correcting the older models should be considered permissible.
Again, you misunderstand - the models are not being changed - what you referred to as the 'math' earlier.  The GHG forcing input values are being changed.  That is not the same thing.  Also, the older models actually did not need input corrections to be consistent with actual GHG forcings, and were consistent with observed temperature increases (with the exception of the one model that ran cool due to, yes, predicted GHG levels being lower than actuals.

Basically, everything in that statement was off the mark.

42
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 27, 2020, 01:15:17 PM »
The unaltered models were wildly wrong, and almost universally ran hot(as I said, a scant handful came close to the ballpark out of dozens). From what Serati is reporting, the "corrected" models still run warm, but are lurking within their error bars, so victory can be claimed by them, for now.
DonaldD, I was reacting to this claim that you made:  "Even early models from the 1970s have been surprisingly consistent with observed future temperatures," when citing to the study.

That was false, if you don't qualify it - which you did not.  When TheDeamon quite accurately speculated about what they must have done, based on having seen the original studies, you claimed it was handwaiving. 
I think you are misreading the paper.

The models from the early 70s were very consistent with observed future temperatures.  Of the 17 models compared, 10 were already consistent with future observed temperatures, and all of the models from the early 70s fall into that category (well, with one exception, where the model under-predicted temperatures - and not coincidentally, the forecasted CO2 forcings for that paper/model were 'too' low.) The models that most benefitted from the corrected forcings were released in 1977, 1981 and 1988 - not the early 1970s.
Quote
Using the temperature versus time metric, 10 of the 17 model projections show results consistent with observations. Of the remaining seven model projections, four project more warming than observed—N77, ST81, and H88 Scenarios A and B—while three project less warming than observed—RS71, H81 Scenario 2a, and H88 Scenario C.
So 10 were consistent, 4 ran high, and 3 ran low.  And that changes to 14 consistent after using the corrected forcing values.

So no, the claim about the models from the early 1970s was not, in fact, false.

43
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 27, 2020, 08:17:19 AM »
Two examples - the Montreal Protocol on (CFCs and other gases) was signed in 1987.  The resulting reduction in CFC emissions (CFC being a GHG) had the result of reducing effective GHG warming by the equivalent of all CO2 emissions associated to burning fossil fuels in 2006.

The Kyoto agreement had a similar effect on emissions.  The Montreal Protocol and Its Implications for Climate Change
Quote
With little new production, CFC banks alone are estimated to decline from 16 Gigatons CO2‐equivalent (GtCO2‐eq) in 2002 to 8 GtCO2‐eq in 2015, with most of the decline in the BAU scenario accounted for by emissions rather than controlled recovery. This cumulative decline is broadly equivalent to the entire global CO2 emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels in 2006.

Was the signing and implementation of GHG treaties a 'mistake' of the models ("yeah, they got it wrong the first time, but that's because we didn't have the math for modeling it then")?

This is the same argument we are seeing with COVID-19, where top line numbers are being quoted ("They said 2 MILLION PEOPLES WERE GOING TO DIE!!  It's only been 100,000!") while completely ignoring the context of the numbers. Changing the inputs is necessarily going to change the outputs of the models.

44
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 27, 2020, 06:58:36 AM »
I have to assume you are still incapable of understanding what the models are, as opposed to being purposefully dense.

You claim that the models are wrong because a number of them have reality at the very low end of the 'range' of 'projected' warming, but then ignore the point that the 'range' spans a number of forcing input sets, and you don't exclude those ranges that do not match what eventually happened with the input forcings.

45
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: May 26, 2020, 08:53:23 PM »
So... when presented with evidence counter to your beliefs, your response is - hand waving?

The Models have a warm bias. Their "error bars" may have got it right, but the actual predicted value is consistently warmer than what happened.

Not according to the linked analysis. Let me repeat that particular excerpt:
Quote
The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.
as I read it, the study author's recalculated the models using observed results from 2018 on certain forcing concepts (that's section is technical, but it looks like it's the rate that increases in certain factors directly increase/decrease temperature).  They viewed this as fair because the rate of forcing was unknown when the models were generated and they had a number of them now calculated in 2018.  Based on the recalculation there was no over or under bias - I think if you looked at the actual predictions of the models (figure 2) you see the models are mostly on the high end of the observed trend. 
Yes - that was the point of the study - using actual emission rates of CO2 and other GHGs, as opposed to estimated future emissions, how accurate are the models.  Some of the papers in fact used a number of different scenarios, e.g., CO2 increases by 100ppm in scenario X, 75ppm in scenario Y and 50 in scenario Z, but the actual CO2 increase was, for argument's sake, 60ppm.  Rerunning 4 of the models where actual forcing were significantly different than the estimates yielded significantly improved results.  Here's the thing - the models never were meant as predictors of forcing - forcings are always inputs to the models.

Changes in technology, economies and natural processes like volcanoes and even solar irradiance were always going to introduce potential divergence from the models - but this should not be confused with error margins.  This is pretty basic.

Quote
I think one could just as easily read this a demonstrating the exact principal that models fail at predictions because of what the modellers don't actually understand and that their biases get incorporated in place of that understanding.  I mean take a look at the "hockey stick" reformulation - they call it H88 - and what you don't see is a hockey stick.  Is that a fair "test" of that model's prediction?
This would be a complete misunderstanding of what the models are designed to do - the models are completely dependent on literally hundreds of variables, and the forcing variables are not an output of the models; nobody ever claimed they were - quite the opposite.  That you think the "hockey stick" is somehow inherent in the model, as opposed to a result of both the model and the estimated forcing, is a challenge with your understanding.

I suppose you could blame climate scientists for not being able to read the future of economies and fossil fuel usage accurately enough, but again, that has nothing to do with the models.

46
On Memorial Day, Trump attacks and lies about Marine Corps veteran Conor Lamb:
Quote
Sean Parnell is an American Hero. Connor Lamm has proven to be an American fraud, and a puppet for Crazy Nancy Pelosi. He said he would NOT vote for her for Speaker, and did. Will kill 2A. Voted to impeach (on nothing). A TOTAL & COMPLETE Sean Parnell Endorsement!

47
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 26, 2020, 07:52:37 PM »
Yet her family said she had no heart condition and was in top health.
But what does her family actually say?  Foxnews: Twitter deeply sorry it hasn't deleted Trump's tweets
Quote
"Nearly 19 years ago, my wife, who had an undiagnosed heart condition, fell and hit her head on her desk at work. She was found dead the next morning. Her name is Lori Kaye Klausutis and she was 28 years old when she died. Her passing is the single most painful thing that I have ever had to deal with in my 52 years and continues to haunt her parents and sister,” Timothy J. Klausutis wrote. “I have mourned my wife every day since her passing.”

48
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 26, 2020, 07:40:33 PM »
Oh, wmLambert, the pretzels you twist yourself into to avoid cognitive dissonance...

Can you admit that Scarborough announced his resignation two month's prior to Klausutis' death?  And can you answer why Scarborough's divorce, two years prior to his resignation, is even pertinent? (let's not even get into how '2 years later' can be characterized as 'suddenly')

Can you admit that the autopsy listed the cause of death, head trauma, as precipitated by complications of a heart condition, and that her death was ruled accidental? (as an aside, there have been professional athletes that have died from undiagnosed heart conditions - it is not exactly unheard of.)

Can you admit that Scarborough was in Washington at the time of her death?

As for "When the MSM doesn't give any coverage to an issue, and the few news outlets that do are all taken down and not archived" I provided you a link to the wayback machine archive of the Florida Times Union story from 2001.

As for the family, what do they say?  Well, we don't have to guess - here is what her widower is saying right now:
Quote
The frequency, intensity, ugliness, and promulgation of these horrifying lies ever increases on the internet. These conspiracy theorists, including most recently the president of the United States, continue to spread their bile and misinformation on your platform disparaging the memory of my wife and our marriage.
It would seem the family isn't so much upset with Scarborough as with Trump spreading lies about how she died (and presumably, internet wack jobs that repeat those conspiracy theories.)

49
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 26, 2020, 01:27:22 PM »
Also, why did he suddenly resign and drop out of sight?
You are insinuating here that Scarborough left Congress in some way as a response to Klausutis' death... but he announced his departure from Congress 2 months before she died. The question is how could you not have known this?  You are parroting a conspiracy theory and slandering a real person - why would you not do even the most basic fact checking?

50
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: May 26, 2020, 01:13:12 PM »
Have you even seen a reference to the autopsy, wmLambert?  If not, why are you making baseless accusations?  If you did, why are you making baseless accusations?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30