4 ms·
Interesting that your first post was attacking the source as being antivax and casting doubt about the substance of the article because there was no independent
by abduhl 5y ago
Interesting that your first post was attacking the source as being antivax and casting doubt about the substance of the article because there was no independent verification but the second half of your second post was able to credibly comment on the substance of the article without relying on third party verification.
Lead with the second post next time.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago>Interesting that your first post was attacking the source as being antivax So visit the source. It's antivax focus is confirmed by reading the opening paragraph or by visiting the homepage. > casting doubt about the substance of the article because there was no independent verification 180 FIFA athletes dropping dead would get worldwide attention. If that were to ever happen, we'd have tons of verification. > but the second half of your second post was able to credibly comment on the substance of the article Yep. It credibly commented that the substance of the article was sewn together from SM posts and anecdotes of hospitalized individuals who happened to sport - and who have nothing to do with FIFA. Most importantly, all of it together doesn't add up to the claimed numbers.
- abduhl 5y agoYes, great post. These are all good substantive comments on the article which are far superior in quality to your first post which, at its core, was a post saying “this guy is antivax don’t trust him!” Try to post more like this without having to have someone draw your substance out first.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y agoOr, you know, reallocate some snark time into actually reading the Israeli antivax source for yourself.