Advertisement
Where is Report Post on mobile? We've made a slight change, see here
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

All Covid-19 measures are permanent, don't be a boiling frog!

1242243245247248356

Comments



  • No there is no definition of what the conspiracy is. We've been asking for it for 240 pages and we haven't gotten answer.

    Some theorists like the op believe it's a plot to install a Communist government. Other theorists get very agitated if you suggest they also believe this.


    The reason we're don't have an answer is because the conspiracy theory is purposefully left vague. This is so it can change and move the goalposts as needed, like how we've gone from all measures, to just masks and then back again. Or how it's gone from "the measures are never going to be lifted" to "the measures are obviously going to be lifted and brought back later." The list of flip flopping and goalpost moving goes on.

    The reason this is happening is that conspiracy grifters keep it vague to help milk the emergency for as long as possible. If they start making definite statements or predictions they know that they'll be shown yo be wrong pretty quick. Additionally by keeping things vague they can appeal to a wider base of conspiracy theorists.

    So when conspiracy theorists here are copy pasting what they find on Twitter or Parler or whatever, they can only be as vague as the grifters. They certainly can't extrapolate on their own.

    In some cases it's because they haven't thoughts all that deeply about the theory.

    In Gortannas case it's because he also understands that being vague is useful. I also suspect it's because his real beliefs are very ridiculous and he knows that if he's open about them even other conspiracy theorists would be put off. I suspect it might be some wild fringe religious stuff.





  • I have no interest in the Sweden thread or what you wrote on it. Please stop saying that I advocate a herd immunity strategy. Do you not understand that saying natural immunity is being ignored (ignored in Melbourne where no jab, not no jab, or natural immunity, or a test, means no job, ignored in the US with the vaccine mandates - not vaccine, or natural immunity, or tests) doesn't equal "go for a herd immunity strategy"? Why is that hard to understand?


    You should let WHO know that they recently employed a charlatan. But then again the head of WHO has been accused of committing war crimes, over covering up three cholera outbreaks and of being a member of a terrorist organisation, so not the most trustworthy organisation.





  • The person who was identified as being the source of most of the problems on this forum on the thread about the problems with this forum, that was closed for some reason.





  • What? Stop the riddles. For once use plain English and say what you want to say.





  • I believe he's referring to me.

    He won't do so openly for some reason.


    The thread was also closed because he and the other theorists looking to close it down and stifle questions failed to make an argument. But rather than admit this is the case, he's trying to infer that the thread was closed for ulterior reasons.



  • Advertisement


  • The thread was closed by admin, and the reasons were given. There is nothing suspicious about the reasons. Life must be hard when you see a conspiracy in everything. It must be so scary.





  • Nah sounds much nicer. Never have to admit you're wrong or think to hard or confront uncomfortable facts. Anything can just be blamed on a conspiracy.





  • You mean the thread that your fellow conspiracy theorists got themselves banned from because they couldn't argue in an adult fashion??

    There's no elephant in the room.

    Same as there are no permanent covid restrictions.

    Get out more gortanna, life is there to be lived. Go for a walk in a woods and sit by a steam and just listen quietly. You'll be all the better for it





  • @Gortanna why are you deflecting again? Every opportunity is being used to derail this thread just like the feedback thread.





  • It's taken 240 pages to FINALLY get him to outline specific measures he believes will be permanent.

    He is now deflecting from explaining why these measures will be permanent and how the benefit the people behind the conspiracy.

    I'm betting we'll hit page 250 before we'll get a straight answer.



  • Advertisement


  • 250? That’s optimism for you. I’d say another 250!





  • The MO

    1. Fanatically believe that "something is going on"
    2. Reject anything that doesn't support that, latch onto anything that does






  • Even if the new thing you are latching onto doesn't agree with the previous thing.





  • You should let WHO know that they recently employed a charlatan. But then again the head of WHO has been accused of committing war crimes, over covering up three cholera outbreaks and of being a member of a terrorist organisation, so not the most trustworthy organisation.

    Have you done any independent reading about the head of WHO? I've no strong opinion either way on Tedros, however a small bit of reading puts a bit of context on your comment.

    Firstly, "member of terrorist organisation"!! Yes, one that later became the government of Ethiopia, so just like Fianna Fáil, or Sinn Fein! And a government, by the way, that Tedros was health minister in from 2005 to 2012

    Next "has been accused of committing war crimes"!! The accusations seem to be by rivals in what seems to amount to a civil war in his country - see https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/11/19/ethiopia-who-tedros-criminal-military-tigray/. I'm not saying Tedros is a saint, but what makes you think your black and white interpretation of that situation is fair and balanced?

    As regards cholera outbreaks, two points. Firstly, the accusations were raised in 2017 by a rival for the top job in WHO after Tedros got the most votes in a preliminary vote for the WHO top job. Secondly, read this to get a bit of context on governments denying cholera -> https://www.devex.com/news/why-governments-tiptoe-around-the-word-cholera-92348.

    Would you like to counter these points, and explain why they are wrong, and why your blanket condemnations of Tedros are more correct, and why anything you said makes him unfit to be head of WHO? Or will you simply ignore this and continue to believe what you said because it's part of some narrative you have swallowed (which probably originates in the politicised public health debate in the US!)?





  • But I said accused. I never said he was guilty. Would you agree with me that at the very least he should consider stepping aside in the light of those very serious accusations? At least until they have been properly investigated.


    An economist who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize called for him to be charged with genocide: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-chief-tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus-may-face-genocide-charges-2fbfz7sff


    (May be behind a paywall)


    That's not some rival with an axe to grind.





  • They once called Nelson Mandela a terrorist, do you agree with that accusation?


    If you were accused if a crime (no trial just accusations) would you resign from your job?





  • But it hasn't been debunked. That's the problem. People keep insisting that it has. The problem is what one considers to be measures. For me it's masks, vaccine passports, and lockdowns. I'm saying it's better to wait to see whether those restrictions will ever really go.


    As others on various threads have pointed out, not once has it ever been said that normal life will resume. Best we've got is 'a semblance of normality'.





  • Again we keep running into this notion that the moment some one wins or is nominated for a Nobel Prize they become an enlightened figure who knows all and cannot possible be wrong. (Unless they say something against the conspiracy theory, at which point they are corrupt.)



  • Advertisement


  • I always try to be respectful. If I don't reply to a poster it's because they're on Ignore, or I might forget to reply to them if I'm replying to others at the same time. But how should I reply to posters who insist that I'm arguing in favour of something I'm not arguing in favour of? For example, I said that natural immunity is being ignored in various countries around the world. I gave the examples of Melbourne in Australia where, unless a person gets vaccinated they can't work, and the US, where the government is mandating vaccination for federal employees. And somehow that means I'm arguing for a herd immunity approach. I'm not. And then I say that measures should have been taken and in the reply to my post there's something about me being in favour of letting it rip. So what's the point in responding to those posts?


    And my point is really about the Ignore function. It doesn't really work that well. You still see the person's posts, and the posters insist on replying to your posts. So you can't really Ignore them. That's what I think is the main problem with this forum. If posters are on Ignore then they shouldn't insist on replying.





  • But the OP said ALL measures.


    And again, it took 230 pages for your to list those 3 measures (ie. not all of them) and you are not once again deflecting and running away from explaining why those measures will be permanent. You can't provide a rational reason for how those measures benefit the people behind the conspiracy. That's because it's not rational and it doesn't make sense. Hence your claim is false until you can provide rational motivations that stand up to a bare level of questioning.

    You can't do that. You know you can't do that. Hence you dodge and run away and whinge to deflect. For some reason you think this stops people from noticing.

    In addition, there are no lockdowns, so even your pared down list is incorrect.


    At what point will you accept the conspiracy theory is false?

    Or will it be the case that even when all of these measures are ended, you'll still claim their "permanent" because they might come back some day?





  • Lol Nope. You've been ignoring points and posts and questions long before you started putting people on ignore.

    You repeatedly do this for points in posts you respond to. You go out of your way to avoid specific points and questions because you know you can't address them.

    Everyone is very aware this is your usual tactic.






  • This thread has devolved into other posters having to explain basic info and reality to you. Which you don't want to accept because you have a religious style belief that "something nefarious" is going on, but you can't explain what it is. And everything goes through that nonsensical filter. If someone has an irrational belief that they are being followed, then they'll see "clues" for it everywhere.





  • What's laughable is we didn't actually have masks or vaccine passports when we had the first lockdown.

    So all your doing is picking and choosing "measures" that still exist, and ignoring all the ones that have already been lifted.

    That's incredibly dishonest and bad faith arguing on your behalf.

    And again, just because you preface it with "I believe" does not make it unworthy of contempt.

    The original post in this thread has been patently and objectively been proven to be wrong.





  • And yet according to Gortanna, it was "Spot on".





  • Just more of your usual so when the truth hurts

    You now have no interest in Sweden when your previous post was a question on Tegnell and Giesecke, even though you know the answers as well as I do by from you being all over the Sweden thread like a rash supporting the two chancers.

    Australia has enough problems after wasting time that should have been used to vaccinate, as does the US with low uptake, to be overly worried about the sensitivities of antivaxxers.

    I have no opinions one way or another on the WHO, other than to me they were attempting to be all things to everyone during this pandemic. Giving the job of advisor on pandemic response to a charlatan like Giesecke who got this one so wrong would not inspire me though.

    As to the head of the WHO, both no thoughts on the man or interest of being dragged down another rabbit hole by you with another of your attempts at deflection.





  • There is no shortage of awareness in them when their bull is exposed for what it is.

    It`s then run away and hide to later pop up on yet another thread attempting to sell the same old rubbish, or totally ignoring replies by attempting to deflect.



  • Advertisement


  • How about we agree to never reply to each others posts? It's exhausting repeating yourself and correcting things.


    I think we're both wasting each others time here.



Advertisement