3 ms·
I think you are reading way more into my response than I wrote. I literally rephrased a position specifically about the government's communication of booster sh
by sophacles 5y ago
I think you are reading way more into my response than I wrote. I literally rephrased a position specifically about the government's communication of booster shots in the form of a question highlighting the illogical portion of the position.
* I have not made and continue to not make any statements regarding mask communication, nor about reports on reasoning for that.
* I am not engaging in nor countering absurd conspiracy theories
* I am not broadcasting my feelings and thoughts on political purposes and what I do or do not see to you, so I don't know why you think you are capable of surmising what I can and cannot see.
* I do find hilarious how very angry you are that I pointed a logical inconsistency.
- deltarholamda 5y agoYour response inferred something from the OP that was clearly never implied. Nobody expects perfect knowledge of the future, and suggesting the OP was asking for that is (charitably) a snarky way of pointing out a logical inconsistency. But pointing out the the messaging from the government has been, at best, muddled--and at worst, misleading, if not downright dishonest--you interpret as "anger"? I find that pretty disingenuous. You are again inferring that which is not implied.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]