You call updating the thread with expert consensus from the newspaper of record contrarianism? If the only acceptable view is the knee jerk reaction made just after the fact with the least information then we are in a bit of a fix.
On the contrary, I believe it's the central passion of his life.
Expert consensus is unquestionable now, is it? Shall we take an opinion survey among, say, top virologists and epidemiologists on the benefit to risk ratio of covid-19 vaccines?
The Times' experts go through their reasoning with all of them cognisant of roughly the same set of facts; this was not the case with most mediatised covid pronouncements.
Or, more prosaically, your only criterion for how trustworthy information is, is whether it agrees or not with your existing beliefs and values.
So you think that The Times experts are wrong then?
Haven't read it, have no idea who they are or what their affiliations or qualifications are, so I have no opinion.
No, it's the facts and reasoning. Note that I haven't questioned the mainstream analysis of the Ukraine conflict.
Speaking of which, Netanyahu, Gallant, and the IDF commander for southern Israel all made public statements today heavily implying that invasion is coming soon
Yeah just ignore him Olly. Not worth engaging with.
You're both right, of course, and I should know better. What's frustrating is that he wasn't always like this, and I know there is a brain of sorts in there, or there used to be.
A curious symmetry to behold there: each one is each other's boulder, each one's zenith each other's nadir, reciprocally pushing one another to and fro for eternity.
Nah, he's just a bit of a knob.
Reciprocally, I believe he considers you a "cretin"
Well if you're going to take the opinion of a bit-of-a-knob seriously on whether someone else is a cretin then that's on you, really.
I don't consider you a cretin, in fact I'm rather fond of you.
