Chief Twit

[DefTrap]

I don't need to qualify it, I just need to be allowed to express it the same way people with different opinions can.
Other people are free to ignore me as they wish.

True but I'm just going to have to assume you don't know how to qualify it, have tried and failed or just can't be bothered. Either option perfect for Twitter.

[irie]

Whether the study was run correctly is also a matter of opinion.

It's a matter of law.

Ah, I didn't realise the law specified the size of a perfect test group.
Whether the law is correct and suitable is also a matter of opinion.

To the contrary, science determines whether the law is correct and suitable. Opinions are irrelevant.

[Mussels]

It's a matter of law.

Ah, I didn't realise the law specified the size of a perfect test group.
Whether the law is correct and suitable is also a matter of opinion.

To the contrary, science determines whether the law is correct and suitable. Opinions are irrelevant.

In that case I won't call it my opinion, I'll call it my theory which seemingly makes it fact.

[Horse]

To the contrary, science determines whether the law is correct and suitable. Opinions are irrelevant.

A test case is a legal challenge where the outcome will have significance not only for the person bringing it, but for many others too. In other words, the case has a significant wider public interest beyond those directly involved in it.

Test cases seek to:

challenge the lawfulness of legislation (for example on human rights grounds) or how the legislation is being applied,
obtain a ruling on an untested point of law, or
overturn or confirm a prevailing judicial interpretation.

[wheelnut]

In that case I won't call it my opinion, I'll call it my theory which seemingly makes it fact.

If you were to,publish your hypothesis, allow it to be peer reviewed, it was testable, predictable and could be proved to be false then you could call it a theory.

[wheelnut]

Part 5 just dropped.
They banned Trump under pressure from activist employees even though they themselves admit he didn't violate the rules.

Probably because when trump came along they realised their current rules weren’t sufficient to prevent a widespread orchestrated policy of deliberate misinformation.

[ZRX61]

Part 5 just dropped.
They banned Trump under pressure from activist employees even though they themselves admit he didn't violate the rules.

Probably because when trump came along they realised their current rules weren’t sufficient to prevent a widespread orchestrated policy of deliberate misinformation.

You mean like the entire Russian Collusion hoax?

[ZRX61]

Part 5 just dropped.
They banned Trump under pressure from activist employees even though they themselves admit he didn't violate the rules.

He did incite an insurrection and used Twitter to do it, of course they were going to ban him.

The actual tweets from Trump indicate that he didn't incite anything. He made many comments about protesting peacefully... You probably didn't see or hear those for some reason..

[wheelnut]

]
You mean like the entire Russian Collusion hoax?

I’m not following you. If the entire ‘MSM’ was against trump, then how was the Russian collusion story discredited?

[ZRX61]

Trump will be back, then the left wing butter cups full of hate and resent over someone with more money than they have will explode in a vitriolic hate consumed rage.

It's almost as if they don't want to make America great again.

Even vaguely mediocre would be an improvement over the cascading clusterfuck we're going through right now. Property taxes just increased from $4,800 to $8,500/year.. which is just great in a house with both people on fixed incomes.

[wheelnut]

The actual tweets from Trump indicate that he didn't incite anything. He made many comments about protesting peacefully... You probably didn't see or hear those for some reason..

Ha ha - a lovely example of how memories (and viewpoints) can be highly selective!

[Mussels]

In that case I won't call it my opinion, I'll call it my theory which seemingly makes it fact.

If you were to,publish your hypothesis, allow it to be peer reviewed, it was testable, predictable and could be proved to be false then you could call it a theory.

That was the standard of the Covid drug trials then?
The law decided the tests were a good standard, science decided the law and peer reviews decide science.
The connection about peer reviews deciding what becomes law seems the most far-fetched, closely followed by the law defining good standards rather than minimum standards.

[ZRX61]

I’m not following you. If the entire ‘MSM’ was against trump, then how was the Russian collusion story discredited?

Mueller Investigation had the people promoting the hoax testify under oath, at which point they admitted they had nothing. Also discovered that a Clinton lawyer had paid for the Steele dossier which the FBI admitted they knew was bullshit, but used it to lie to get search & wire tap warrants etc (see Carter Paige etc).

Then the media had an attack of amnesia & forgot all about it lest they have to admit they lied to the people for four years etc.

[ZRX61]

Ha ha - a lovely example of how memories (and viewpoints) can be highly selective!

There's even footage of saying it while he was on stage giving his speech on the day... & EVERY MSM news program cut that part when airing it afterwards.

[Mussels]

I am disappointed by Musk's personal attacks on people to shut them up, it's what he's meant to be opposing.

[DefTrap]

That was the standard of the Covid drug trials then?
The law decided the tests were a good standard, science decided the law and peer reviews decide science.
The connection about peer reviews deciding what becomes law seems the most far-fetched, closely followed by the law defining good standards rather than minimum standards.

Why are you still talking about this? What point are you trying to make?

[Saga Lout]

That was the standard of the Covid drug trials then?
The law decided the tests were a good standard, science decided the law and peer reviews decide science.
The connection about peer reviews deciding what becomes law seems the most far-fetched, closely followed by the law defining good standards rather than minimum standards.

Why are you still talking about this? What point are you trying to make?

Yeah, that's all in the past. No point in raking up old mistakes. Best just to forget about them and move on.

[DefTrap]

Yeah, that's all in the past. No point in raking up old mistakes. Best just to forget about them and move on.

Keep up. Happy to talk about it all day long, I just don't see what point he's trying to make, and why.

[Mussels]

Yeah, that's all in the past. No point in raking up old mistakes. Best just to forget about them and move on.

Keep up. Happy to talk about it all day long, I just don't see what point he's trying to make, and why.

I'm making the point that the whole 'believe the science' because clever people than you have spoken is crap. If open debate isn't allowed (climate change, covid, Trump, and woke issues) then conspiracy theorists are right.

[irie]

In that case I won't call it my opinion, I'll call it my theory which seemingly makes it fact.

If you were to,publish your hypothesis, allow it to be peer reviewed, it was testable, predictable and could be proved to be false then you could call it a theory.

That was the standard of the Covid drug trials then?
...

Perhaps you should find out how trials are made? Just a thought ...

Yeah, that's all in the past. No point in raking up old mistakes. Best just to forget about them and move on.

Ditto.