Anonymous wrote:
Imagine thinking a website is a stifling laughingstock, but then continuing to visit it? š³
That says far more about you then it does the website.
jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:That you so much for being the arbiter of what constitutes correct scientific opinion. With you, it's like we don't even need such musty concepts as scientific debate and perhaps even the Scientific Method to resolve those debates.
I hope you haven't been talking to government officials about which posts to delete. I doubt lack of market share is a defense to first amendment violations by the government inducing private entities to censor.
Actually, I text with Biden every morning to find out what topics I should delete. He mentioned that he is particularly appalled by your posts and is preparing a special place in a FEMA camp for you.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That you so much for being the arbiter of what constitutes correct scientific opinion. With you, it's like we don't even need such musty concepts as scientific debate and perhaps even the Scientific Method to resolve those debates.
I hope you haven't been talking to government officials about which posts to delete. I doubt lack of market share is a defense to first amendment violations by the government inducing private entities to censor.
This is some top-notch tinfoil hat thinking right here.
I actually don't think you are talking to government officials--just talking legal theory.
You can mold your content any way you wish. Personally, I think your stifling debate just makes DCUM more of a laughingstock. Perhaps you get more eyeballs that way. It's still a free country... At least for now.
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote: I did remove many posts from that thread that claimed that masks were not effective.
Why this statement if you didn't base the deletions on the "Science?"
I am so sorry my post was barely coherent.![]()
jsteele wrote: I did remove many posts from that thread that claimed that masks were not effective.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That you so much for being the arbiter of what constitutes correct scientific opinion. With you, it's like we don't even need such musty concepts as scientific debate and perhaps even the Scientific Method to resolve those debates.
I hope you haven't been talking to government officials about which posts to delete. I doubt lack of market share is a defense to first amendment violations by the government inducing private entities to censor.
This is some top-notch tinfoil hat thinking right here.
I actually don't think you are talking to government officials--just talking legal theory.
You can mold your content any way you wish. Personally, I think your stifling debate just makes DCUM more of a laughingstock. Perhaps you get more eyeballs that way. It's still a free country... At least for now.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That you so much for being the arbiter of what constitutes correct scientific opinion. With you, it's like we don't even need such musty concepts as scientific debate and perhaps even the Scientific Method to resolve those debates.
I hope you haven't been talking to government officials about which posts to delete. I doubt lack of market share is a defense to first amendment violations by the government inducing private entities to censor.
This is some top-notch tinfoil hat thinking right here.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That you so much for being the arbiter of what constitutes correct scientific opinion. With you, it's like we don't even need such musty concepts as scientific debate and perhaps even the Scientific Method to resolve those debates.
I hope you haven't been talking to government officials about which posts to delete. I doubt lack of market share is a defense to first amendment violations by the government inducing private entities to censor.
This is some top-notch tinfoil hat thinking right here.
Anonymous wrote:That you so much for being the arbiter of what constitutes correct scientific opinion. With you, it's like we don't even need such musty concepts as scientific debate and perhaps even the Scientific Method to resolve those debates.
I hope you haven't been talking to government officials about which posts to delete. I doubt lack of market share is a defense to first amendment violations by the government inducing private entities to censor.
Anonymous wrote:That you so much for being the arbiter of what constitutes correct scientific opinion. With you, it's like we don't even need such musty concepts as scientific debate and perhaps even the Scientific Method to resolve those debates.
I hope you haven't been talking to government officials about which posts to delete. I doubt lack of market share is a defense to first amendment violations by the government inducing private entities to censor.