3 ms·

Only, cloth masks _haven't_ caused massive damage, or even any damage. They've prevented damage, possibly _massive_ damage. Can we do better? Yes. Are cloth ma

Only, cloth masks _haven't_ caused massive damage, or even any damage. They've prevented damage, possibly _massive_ damage. Can we do better? Yes. Are cloth masks useless "theater"? No, not even remotely. > That's an incredibly disingenuous/uncharitable analogy for what I actually posted It's really not. It would be disingenuous if it was aimed at one part of your post (we can do better). However, it is perfectly applicable when aimed at the "this is useless" part.

Someone1234 6y ago
> Only, cloth masks _haven't_ caused massive damage, or even any damage. I think you replied to the wrong comment/comment chain, it said nothing even ballpark like that. The word "damage" doesn't appear in the comment chain aside from this comment. > Are cloth masks useless "theater"? Again, this wasn't something anyone in the comment chain claimed. > However, it is perfectly applicable when aimed at the "this is useless" part. That quote is a fabrication. The word "useless" doesn't even appear in this comment chain aside from this post/quote. So when you're creating fake quotes and making multiple baseless claims (quite literally putting in words/quotes that don't exist), it is the epitome of disingenuous.
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  > The word "damage" doesn't appear in the commen I was "converting" from _injuries_ (in relation to seat belts) to _damage_ (in relation to masks) as the closest parallel I could make. My apologies that it wasn't clear. ---- >> Are cloth masks useless "theater"? > Again, this wasn't something anyone in the comment chain claimed. I was grouping the comment about how most of what had been done was "COVID theater" and the comment about masks together. The overall post read, to me, in a way that made it sound like the former also applied to the later. That may not have been intended. ---- >> However, it is perfectly applicable when aimed at the "this is useless" part. > That quote is a fabrication. It's another wording for part of the original post. The double quotes were intended to indicate the grouping/meaning, not the actual words. I've been using ">" where something is an actual quote, which is generally standard for text communication, but I can see where it might be confusing to someone not used to it. > most of it was "COVID theater" rather than intended to actually make people safer That statement, I believe, comes across very clearly as presenting a lot of what was done as useless. ---- I'm going to stop on this thread, as replying to multiple individual blocks of text (as I have done here) tends to be a sign that things have either gotten off topic or people are going to stop caring. The high level summary of what I originally meant was that I believe the steps we are taking are very useful, but agree we should be doing more.

Someone1234 6y ago

> Only, cloth masks _haven't_ caused massive damage, or even any damage. I think you replied to the wrong comment/comment chain, it said nothing even ballpark like that. The word "damage" doesn't appear in the comment chain aside from this comment. > Are cloth masks useless "theater"? Again, this wasn't something anyone in the comment chain claimed. > However, it is perfectly applicable when aimed at the "this is useless" part. That quote is a fabrication. The word "useless" doesn't even appear in this comment chain aside from this post/quote. So when you're creating fake quotes and making multiple baseless claims (quite literally putting in words/quotes that don't exist), it is the epitome of disingenuous.

RHSeeger 6y ago
> The word "damage" doesn't appear in the commen I was "converting" from _injuries_ (in relation to seat belts) to _damage_ (in relation to masks) as the closest parallel I could make. My apologies that it wasn't clear. ---- >> Are cloth masks useless "theater"? > Again, this wasn't something anyone in the comment chain claimed. I was grouping the comment about how most of what had been done was "COVID theater" and the comment about masks together. The overall post read, to me, in a way that made it sound like the former also applied to the later. That may not have been intended. ---- >> However, it is perfectly applicable when aimed at the "this is useless" part. > That quote is a fabrication. It's another wording for part of the original post. The double quotes were intended to indicate the grouping/meaning, not the actual words. I've been using ">" where something is an actual quote, which is generally standard for text communication, but I can see where it might be confusing to someone not used to it. > most of it was "COVID theater" rather than intended to actually make people safer That statement, I believe, comes across very clearly as presenting a lot of what was done as useless. ---- I'm going to stop on this thread, as replying to multiple individual blocks of text (as I have done here) tends to be a sign that things have either gotten off topic or people are going to stop caring. The high level summary of what I originally meant was that I believe the steps we are taking are very useful, but agree we should be doing more.