Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Your assertion "that statement was made within the first couple of days of the investigation" is false. The Watergate burglars were arrested on June 17, 1972 and an investigation began immediately. Within hours of their arrest, the FBI had already found E. Howard Hunt's name in the address books of two of the burglars which linked the burglars to the White House.

The statement that you found "striking" was made by Attorney General Richard Kleindienst on September 15, 1972 nearly three months later when the five Watergate burglars were indicted by a federal grand jury. It obviously was not "made within the first couple of days of the investigation".

Watching movies, including historical dramas, is fun. Studying history requires a little more effort to get right.

Appreciate the correction.

But it is a technicality. Completely irrelevant for the point I was making. It could be days, weeks, or months, it doesn't change the point.

I can remove the offending phrase and the claim still stands:

"... that statement was made within the first couple of days of the investigation that concluded no one from the White House was involved."

The point is different: it was hailed as "historic," "intensive, objective, and thorough" In spite of the fact that it had been obstructed from the outside of FBI from the beginning, and its findings suppressed, leading to the erroneous public statement cited. Had it not been so, there would have been no need for the Deep Throat role.

In other words, the Justice Department came up with a false statement, while hailing it as "historic."

The similarity with the 2020 "historic" statement is thus uncanny.

[Craig Lamson]

I knew you would not answer a simple question.

If you had actually done the work you would know my answer.  Its clear you didn't.  I'm not suprised.

[Craig Lamson]

That's a real silly answer.
The question was if you believed Trump won the election and there was massive voter fraud.
If you are not willing to share that no research can show how you think about this.

My answer is found on this very forum, and if one wants to look for it, they can find it.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You are right. Slobo will just slink away from sight...

You wish.

... I suspect it will be ignored, as seen the last number of times being called out...

Like when? I even responded to your otherwise senseless comments, and did so at length (even if you think that collection of words and numbers you put on screen, which individually might make sense, but not the way you arrange them, constitutes "calling out"). Unfortunately, you seem incapable of understanding and following a reasoned argument.

[faberryman]

Appreciate the correction.

But it is a technicality. Completely irrelevant for the point I was making. It could be days, weeks, or months, it doesn't change the point.

I can remove the offending phrase and the claim still stands:

"... that statement was made within the first couple of days of the investigation that concluded no one from the White House was involved."

The point is different: it was hailed as "historic," "intensive, objective, and thorough" In spite of the fact that it had been obstructed from the outside of FBI from the beginning, and its findings suppressed, leading to the erroneous public statement cited. Had it not been so, there would have been no need for the Deep Throat role.

In other words, the Justice Department came up with a false statement, while hailing it as "historic."

The similarity with the 2020 "historic" statement is thus uncanny.

Why are we talking about Watergate other than you saw a movie about it? It was fifty years ago. Next up the Kennedy assassination.

[faberryman]

My answer is found on this very forum, and if one wants to look for it, they can find it.

Crikey, I can barely find my own posts, and you want me to find one of your posts? Anyway, I think I remember what you said, but I could be wrong.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

More of the authors "credentials"...

And... here we go again!

In the best tradition of the inherently violent left - ad hominem. The character assassination squad in action. Never mind the arguments in the article. No one bothered addressing those, but let's knock down the person.

Even the retraction explanation did not engage in denying the arguments. It just stated that using "relative percentages" instead of "actual figures" is... wrong!? Wrong because it goes against the porn pornographers narrative?

The same argument I've been using all along: the 300 thousand fatalities might sound like a national tragedy for, say, Montenegro (population about 600,000, that is, 50%), but in the US it is only 0.09%. That is two decimal places behind zero.

[digitaldog]

My answer is found on this very forum, and if one wants to look for it, they can find it.

Yes or no; just attempt to type three letters or two.
We are at 54 friggin pages in this thread, let alone the very entire forum.
You believe Trump won the election and there was massive voter fraud?
1. Yes
2. No
Type one of the two numbers above, please: IF NOT TOO TOUGHT and time consuming for you.
Thanks in advance IF provided.

[TechTalk]

"He" being who...?

You were able to follow the link and read the article because (emphasis mine): "The original article is now deleted from the Johns Hopkins website ... for some reason. Luckily the internet is forever and it's available via the Wayback Machine."

You don't need the Internet Archive Wayback Machine to read the original article—which was falsely mischaracterized as a study from Johns Hopkins University which published it on their website then deleted it—in the retraction article from the independent weekly student newspaper that originally published the article, which was written by a student quoting from an economics professor's informal online presentation, there is a link to the deleted article.

https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19

"In accordance with our standards for transparency, we are sharing with our readers how we came to this decision. The News-Letter is an editorially and financially independent, student-run publication. Our articles and content are not endorsed by the University or the School of Medicine, and our decision to retract this article was made independently."

"We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we noted on social media. However, it is our responsibility as journalists to provide a historical record. We have chosen to take down the article from our website, but it is available here as a PDF."

"As assistant director for the Master’s in Applied Economics program at Hopkins, Briand is neither a medical professional nor a disease researcher. At her talk, she herself stated that more research and data are needed to understand the effects of COVID-19 in the U.S.

Briand was quoted in the article as saying, “All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.” This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19. Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers.

Briand also claimed in her analysis that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may be incorrectly categorized as COVID-19-related deaths. However, COVID-19 disproportionately affects those with preexisting conditions, so those with those underlying conditions are statistically more likely to be severely affected and die from the virus."

"Because of these inaccuracies and our failure to provide additional information about the effects of COVID-19, The News-Letter decided to retract this article. It is our duty as a publication to combat the spread of misinformation and to enhance our fact-checking process. We apologize to our readers."

The article was not published by Johns Hopkins University, but by an independent student newspaper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Johns_Hopkins_News-Letter

If you want information from Johns Hopkins University, you can find it here...

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/e-newsletters/

[digitaldog]

... I suspect it will be ignored, as seen the last number of times being called out...

Like when?

Like here:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1198064#msg1198064
So let's try again: Do you also believe that Trump actually won the election and there's massive voter fraud too?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... as I asked Slobodan who's not answered: You believe Trump won the election and there was massive voter fraud?

Why would I have to answer your inane questions?

But for the sake of others, no, I do not. Not at the current state of presented evidence. Some fraud, yes, but not massive enough to change the results.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Why are we talking about Watergate other than you saw a movie about it? It was fifty years ago. Next up the Kennedy assassination.

Because I was making a parallel with the similar 2020 "historic" statement.

[digitaldog]

Why would I have to answer your inane questions?

Like these inane questions:

It just stated that using "relative percentages" instead of "actual figures" is... wrong!? Wrong because it goes against the porn pornographers narrative?

But for the sake of others, no, I do not. Not at the current state of presented evidence. Some fraud, yes, but not massive enough to change the results.

See, now that wasn't that hard now was it. (not a question, I don't want to tire you). 

[faberryman]

For winning the election and suppressing dissent.

The Democrats used censorship, Soviet style, as their method of choice for winning the election and suppressing dissent?

How so?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

See, now that wasn't that hard now was it.

I am waiting for your next unprovoked question: "Do I believe in fairies?" To save everyone's time, I'll answer it in advance: "No, I do not."

[Craig Lamson]

Yes or no; just attempt to type three letters or two.
We are at 54 friggin pages in this thread, let alone the very entire forum.
You believe Trump won the election and there was massive voter fraud?
1. Yes
2. No
Type one of the two numbers above, please: IF NOT TOO TOUGHT and time consuming for you.
Thanks in advance IF provided.

0

[Craig Lamson]

Crikey, I can barely find my own posts, and you want me to find one of your posts? Anyway, I think I remember what you said, but I could be wrong.

Take a shot.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The Democrats used censorship, Soviet style, as their method of choice for winning the election and suppressing dissent?

How so?

You really have to ask that? Were you living under a rock in the pre-election period? When Trump's, his campaign's, and. in general. conservative voices were partially or totally censored on Twitter and Facebook, while the bad news about Biden and his son were also totally blocked from reaching the public by the same? And Google selectively presenting search results?

[Manoli]

And... here we go again!
In the best tradition of the inherently violent left - ad hominem.

in case you missed it, propaganda is on the way out together with the orange buffoon in the WH.

[TechTalk]

And... here we go again!

In the best tradition of the inherently violent left - ad hominem. The character assassination squad in action.

I linked to her published academic research. Is that the character assassination to which you're referring? Or, was it the link to her rating by students. Or, perhaps it was here own words in a letter to the editor to which you're referring.

No, I guess it must have been my comment... "She may be a good person to contact if you want to know more about managing Alaska Red King Crab production, given her background is in agricultural economics. I think that I'll stick with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine for Covid related data." That I would find more credible actual scientific experts in epidemiology than a professor whose academic background is in agricultural economics regarding information on the the topic of viruses and their impact may be shocking to you; but to others, there is some reason to consider the background of the source of information and to look at their previous statements which might shed light on their "findings".

You of course are free to ignore these things when deciding where to obtain information. I even provide you with a link to the economics professor's online presentation which was the basis for the student article and her quotes within it. You stated that it was "worth at least trying to understand her point of view. Did you watch it?

Never mind the arguments in the article. No one bothered addressing those, but let's knock down the person.

Even the retraction explanation did not engage in denying the arguments.

The retraction article to which I linked did address the inaccuracies which prompted their retraction.

"As assistant director for the Master’s in Applied Economics program at Hopkins, Briand is neither a medical professional nor a disease researcher. At her talk, she herself stated that more research and data are needed to understand the effects of COVID-19 in the U.S.

Briand was quoted in the article as saying, “All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.” This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19. Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers.

Briand also claimed in her analysis that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may be incorrectly categorized as COVID-19-related deaths. However, COVID-19 disproportionately affects those with preexisting conditions, so those with those underlying conditions are statistically more likely to be severely affected and die from the virus."