Elon’s Twitter Investment

[Leftfield 2,593]

12 minutes ago, pensacolatiger said:

Lol - NY ruled it unconstitutional to require a shot that doesn’t prevent transmission.  How many of your communist overlords touted “it’s selfish to not get the shot, think of others” and when that was disproved, quickly pivoted to “but muh viral loads”?

I’m sorry some of you weren’t smart enough to even see that progression 

As I posted in the thread where this was being discussed (which you were a part of), the judgment was not in any way based on the efficacy of the vaccine. The statement was an editorialization by the judge, and reading further revealed it wasn't even the absolute it had been made out to be. 

So, were you too lazy to read what I posted about that judgment (and/or the judgment itself), or are you just too dumb to understand it?

I'm thinking a little bit of column A, little bit of column B.

[homersapien 11,367]

4 minutes ago, pensacolatiger said:

Lol - NY ruled it unconstitutional to require a shot that doesn’t prevent transmission.  How many of your communist overlords touted “it’s selfish to not get the shot, think of others” and when that was disproved, quickly pivoted to “but muh viral loads”?

I’m sorry some of you weren’t smart enough to even see that progression 

 

I think you are wrong.  I haven't seen that used as the basis of any court ruling. 

Show me otherwise.

 

 

[Didba 5,256]

Let me ask the reasonable people in this thread,

do any of you ever go up to a doctor, engineer, or psychiatrist and tell them in the most condescending way possible:

"Oh sorry but you don't know what you are talking about regarding XYZ theory in your chosen field of expertise. I, a layman, know more than you and what you are saying is definitely wrong." 

It boggles my mind that people on here do that routinely.  Its like they think;

"Oh Didba, got a political science degree, went to law school, passed the bar with a high enough score to get licensed in every US State, and got licensed as an attorney.  Basically an expert in how the american legal system works.  But because he has a different political views than I do, he is no expert and I am more correct on every issue regarding his chosen field of expertise." 

[pensacolatiger 313]

Just now, Leftfield said:

As I posted in the thread where this was being discussed (which you were a part of), the judgment was not in any way based on the efficacy of the vaccine. The statement was an editorialization by the judge, and reading further revealed it wasn't even the absolute it had been made out to be. 

So, were you too lazy to read what I posted about that judgment (and/or the judgment itself), or are you just too dumb to understand it?

I'm thinking a little bit of column A, little bit of column B.

No - your opinion just doesn’t carry much weight.  Instead of owning up to the transmission topic, you pivoted to viral load.  Face it, you got duped into getting a meaningless, dangerous shot.  But hey, after the 8th booster maybe you’ll see something cool

[Didba 5,256]

5 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

As I posted in the thread where this was being discussed (which you were a part of), the judgment was not in any way based on the efficacy of the vaccine. The statement was an editorialization by the judge, and reading further revealed it wasn't even the absolute it had been made out to be. 

So, were you too lazy to read what I posted about that judgment (and/or the judgment itself), or are you just too dumb to understand it?

I'm thinking a little bit of column A, little bit of column B.

Dude I have posted so many scholarly articles, and court opinions disproving people's claims on here.  It's always so obvious that they never even attempt to open the links or read anything we post.

[AUDub 11,147]

Just now, Didba said:

Dude I have posted so many scholarly articles, and court opinions disproving people's claims on here.  It's always so obvious that they never even attempt to open the links or read anything we post.

Too be fair it would likely go over their heads in most cases. 

[homersapien 11,367]

32 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

As I posted in the thread where this was being discussed (which you were a part of), the judgment was not in any way based on the efficacy of the vaccine. The statement was an editorialization by the judge, and reading further revealed it wasn't even the absolute it had been made out to be. 

So, were you too lazy to read what I posted about that judgment (and/or the judgment itself), or are you just too dumb to understand it?

I'm thinking a little bit of column A, little bit of column B.

 

Exactly. 

He is using a court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs as an excuse to make an unrelated claim about the science of the vaccine which is simply wrong.

Efficacy was not the basis of the ruling. It's something he invented - possibly because of his actual lack of understanding of the ruling (it is rather subtle) or an unwillingness to understand it.

He invented the idea of (lack of) efficacy as being the basis of the ruling because that would conform with his own inaccurate, erroneous understanding of the science. 

I just started reading up on this myself.  (Thanks Leftfield for "holding the fort" in the meantime.)

Edited October 28, 2022 by homersapien

[Leftfield 2,593]

6 minutes ago, pensacolatiger said:

No - your opinion just doesn’t carry much weight.  Instead of owning up to the transmission topic, you pivoted to viral load.  Face it, you got duped into getting a meaningless, dangerous shot.  But hey, after the 8th booster maybe you’ll see something cool

So it's column B then. Thanks.

[AUDub 11,147]

Pensacola reminds me of Raptor

 

Maybe a little more verbose. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by AUDub

[pensacolatiger 313]

3 minutes ago, Didba said:

Let me ask the reasonable people in this thread,

do any of you ever go up to a doctor, engineer, or psychiatrist and tell them in the most condescending way possible:

"Oh sorry but you don't know what you are talking about regarding XYZ theory in your chosen field of expertise. I, a layman, know more than you and what you are saying is definitely wrong." 

It boggles my mind that people on here do that routinely.  Its like they think;

"Oh Didba, got a political science degree, went to law school, passed the bar with a high enough score to get licensed in every US State, and got licensed as an attorney.  Basically an expert in how the american legal system works.  But because he has a different political views than I do, he is no expert and I am more correct on every issue regarding his chosen field of expertise." 

Well I guess there’s no point in any attorney or judge ever questioning your take on any legal topic.  I mean, maybe clients should pay you crazy amounts because your degree and law school means you are right on all legal matters🤣

To pretend like this is not a highly contested topic is just disingenuous and makes you sound pretty insecure.

[TexasTiger 12,833]

30 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Absolutists don't put that much thought into it. 

Elon’s gonna need to hire some lawyers back.

[pensacolatiger 313]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

So it's column B then. Thanks.

Have a great weekend, get some fresh air

[AUDub 11,147]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Elon’s gonna need to hire some lawyers back.

The one he let go from Twitter was a very good 1st amendment attorney.

He's probably riding off into the sunset with both middle fingers in the air with that severance package though. 

[homersapien 11,367]

52 minutes ago, pensacolatiger said:

No - your opinion just doesn’t carry much weight.  Instead of owning up to the transmission topic, you pivoted to viral load.  Face it, you got duped into getting a meaningless, dangerous shot.  But hey, after the 8th booster maybe you’ll see something cool

But, you see, viral load is important if you are focusing on whether or not transmission of the disease is inhibited in a population - which is exactly what epidemiology is concerned with.

In other words, the more people in a population who are vaccinated, the slower a disease will progress (spread) in that population.  That doesn't mean that any given vaccinated person cannot transmit the disease, but they are far less likely than unvaccinated persons to do so.

(And I'd lighten up on the intelligence and communist insults if I were you.  You are obviously out of your depth on this.)

Edited October 28, 2022 by homersapien

[AUDub 11,147]

3 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The one he let go from Twitter was a very good 1st amendment attorney.

Twitter doesn't get as much credit as they deserve for this, but they spent millions litigating people's right to be an anonymous shìtposter.

[Didba 5,256]

9 minutes ago, pensacolatiger said:

Well I guess there’s no point in any attorney or judge ever questioning your take on any legal topic.  I mean, maybe clients should pay you crazy amounts because your degree and law school means you are right on all legal matters🤣

To pretend like this is not a highly contested topic is just disingenuous and makes you sound pretty insecure.

We do get paid pretty well for that particular reason, thanks for acknowledging it.

The thing is within the non-polarized/politicized legal community it is not a highly contested topic.

Also, still waiting on that cite and for you to explain your understanding of the public forum doctrine's intent.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Didba

[AUDub 11,147]

9 minutes ago, pensacolatiger said:

Well I guess there’s no point in any attorney or judge ever questioning your take on any legal topic.  I mean, maybe clients should pay you crazy amounts because your degree and law school means you are right on all legal matters🤣

To pretend like this is not a highly contested topic is just disingenuous and makes you sound pretty insecure.

Jeez this is like watching someone that knows nothing about engines tell a mechanic that the proper way to drain oil from a car is to take the head off and turn it upside down. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by AUDub

[homersapien 11,367]

10 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Pensacola reminds me of Raptor

 

Maybe a little more verbose. 

And will undoubtedly share the same fate once the abuse gets unbearable.

The only question is how long will it take.

[Didba 5,256]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

Jeez this is like watching someone that knows nothing about engines tell a mechanic that the proper way to drain oil from a car is to take the head off and turn it upside down. 

What's really funny is that he thinks he is "getting to me" because "I sound insecure".

nah man, I am just laughing at all this while sitting in my nice 11th floor office with a view of downtown Houston admiring the bottle of Dom Peringnon my Boss gave me when I passed the Bar, chatting casually with my paralegal while we wait for the thunderstorm to pass so we can drive home.

Its been going good for the Didbster lately and ole Pensacola is just a funny diversion to pass the time when I am bored.

[TexasTiger 12,833]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Tricky thing about “legal” is that Twitter is a global platform. Legal where?

Here we go:

 

[Didba 5,256]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Here we go:

 

Same situation as Apple being forced to convert to the USB-C because of the EU legislation

[Leftfield 2,593]

43 minutes ago, pensacolatiger said:

Well I guess there’s no point in any attorney or judge ever questioning your take on any legal topic.  I mean, maybe clients should pay you crazy amounts because your degree and law school means you are right on all legal matters🤣

To pretend like this is not a highly contested topic is just disingenuous and makes you sound pretty insecure.

It's one thing to ask experts skeptical questions. It's quite another to say "Dude, you don't know what the **** you're talkin' about."

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

 

 

Already making a difference.

[AUDub 11,147]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Already making a difference.

Getting a head start on topping off the cesspit 

[pensacolatiger 313]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

But, you see, viral load is important if you are focusing on whether or not transmission of the disease is inhibited in a population - which is exactly what epidemiology is concerned with.

In other words, the more people in a population who are vaccinated, the slower a disease will progress (spread) in that population.  That doesn't mean that any given vaccinated person cannot transmit the disease, but they are far less likely than unvaccinated persons to do so.

(And I'd lighten up on the intelligence and communist insults if I were you.  You are obviously out of your depth on this.)

Maybe you are on the leading edge of covid viral load research?  Maybe you should report your findings to webmd because they don’t seem convinced of viral load affecting transmission.

https://www.webmd.com/lung/covid-viral-load

 

or maybe you’re just a dumb lib that believes everything “muh cnn” pumps into your eager little throat 🤣