Oops

94 views
Skip to first unread message

Glenn

unread,
Sep 24, 2021, 3:05:10 PMSep 24
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
'However, in a new study and consensus statement published Thursday in the journal Nature Reviews Endocrinology, an international group of experts urged precautionary action through focused research efforts and by raising awareness.

"A new Consensus Statement summarizes human epidemiological studies and experimental research in cells and animal models, which suggest that APAP exposure during pregnancy can alter fetal development and might increase the risk of certain neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders. The authors make several recommendations around minimizing exposure to APAP during pregnancy and increasing awareness, and present a call for focused research," the statement began."

https://www.foxnews.com/health/acetaminophen-pregnancy-researchers-precautionary-action

RonO

unread,
Sep 24, 2021, 6:50:10 PMSep 24
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Hey, Glenn, how is that search for positive IDiot arguments going. Have
you found any valid and verified IDiot science, yet? Denial and
obfuscation bullshit, just stinks up the ID scam it isn't positive
evidence for IDiocy.

Ron Okimoto

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 3:50:10 AMSep 25
to talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
Do any sane people get their information from Fox "News"? I couldn't
even if I wanted to, as it's not available where I live.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

jillery

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 4:25:09 AMSep 25
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
FWIW Fox News is a Murdoch family phenomenon, who also own The Times
of London and The Sunday Times.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

Martin Harran

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 4:30:10 AMSep 25
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 09:45:21 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

Fox have yet again confirmed their legal right to make things up yet
Glenn and others treat them as a reliable source. The mind boggles.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye?t=1632557246477

<quote>
Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning
heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the
show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual
facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in
'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's
reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate
amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump's, added, "Whether the Court
frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal
commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion
remains the same — the statements are not actionable."
</quote>

Ernest Major

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 5:35:09 AMSep 25
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In this case it's also reported in CNN.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/23/health/acetaminophen-pregnancy-wellness/index.html

Paracetamol has been in use since the mid-20th century, and a pro-drug
for paracetamol for longer.

--
alias Ernest Major

Martin Harran

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 5:45:10 AMSep 25
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Yep, just more things being found by science working on *data*, an
approach in which Glenn seems to have very little faith.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 6:20:10 AMSep 25
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Much of Fox’s reporting on their website follows the same breaking news as
others CNN, NPR, etc. FoxNews might spin or frame certain politically
oriented points but quite a bit of news is unspinnable. That helps set
credibility and launder the crap they do push.

There have been serious journalists with integrity on the Fox News cable
channel. Shep Smith left for CNBC. Chris Wallace might still be there. Most
of the rest is rot.

Now here is where a FoxNews fan might inject some whatabout deflection
highlighting the recent allegation against Chris Cuomo.

RonO

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 9:30:11 AMSep 25
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The issue that the current pandemic brings up is if a news source
purposefully misleads their audience, and some of them die because of
the misinformation, should the perpetrators be held accountable? Free
speech only goes so far, and killing someone would seem to cross that
line. At the very least the "news" casters would have to prove that
they were that stupid and ignorant. Some might take the insanity
defense and claim some mental lapse due to pressures of the job.

My guess is that it would not be difficult to establish that the
misinformation about the pandemic that Fox news was and in some cases
still is responsible for has led to the deaths of thousands of members
of their regular audience. The thing about the pandemic is that people
that never watch Fox News are affected by the people that do watch and
believe what they are told.

You might claim that they did not know that they were misleading the
public, but after the first hundred thousand deaths, that would be hard
to establish as a credible argument.

You might argue that Fox news' contribution was negligible because only
2 or 3 out of a thousand of their audience has died, and they would only
be accountable for the higher risk that they put their audience in, but
that is likely still thousands of deaths at this time, and still
increasing. What have they done to undo what they are responsible for
doing?

As the comment above indicates Fox News is getting a pass because people
should expect to not get reliable information from that source. That is
no excuse for killing people with the misinformation.

Ron Okimoto

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 10:55:10 AMSep 25
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
There doesn't seem to be a report on BBC.

Somewhere recently - here? - there crossed my attention
an assertion that the "confidence" standard of accuracy
of claims in properly reviewed published science research
papers amounts to 5 out of every 100 papers being simply
wrong. That the odds of a finding being a statistical outlier
are 1 in 20. You publish anyway, so that the result can be
seen, but anything that matters has to be confirmed by
other researchers before it is taken seriously.

Meanwhile, even respectable news outlets want attention.
This is an attention-getting subject. I also am thinking of
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Format> running
a parody news story about 20 years ago that a pregnant
woman being anxious causes terrible harm to her baby,
and then seeing an actual news story, some time between
then and now, saying the same thing as that. I think it
didn't stick.

RonO

unread,
Sep 25, 2021, 3:10:10 PMSep 25
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The standard of 5% significance level was adopted for peer review.
There have been discussions about it because 1 out of 20 times you
expect to see the result by chance. What makes it questionable at times
is due to the fact that researchers do not usually publish their
failures. 19 people may have done the same experiment and failed to
come up with a significant result, and one guy publishs his significant
result that doesn't mean what he thinks. It is one of the things
scientists point to when they talk about irreproducible results and how
common they are in the published literature.

The 5% significance level often means that you expect to see that result
by chance 1 in 20 times under the experimental conditions that you are
working under. I was lucky enough to work in some very good labs as a
student and postdoc and we would not rely on the 5% significance level.
We would replicate everything. The idea was if you got an interesting
result, you should be able to get it again. That isn't done in a lot of
cases.

Ron Okimoto

Glenn

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 2:30:12 PMSep 27
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I agree, your mind is boggled beyond repair. The case you provide below has nothing to do with the article referenced in the OP, yet you equate the two as "making things up". You also make a claim about me, but do not seem to realize that isn't "data", but "making things up". It doesn't matter to you whether I have ever claimed any source to be reliable.
>
> https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye?t=1632557246477
>
> <quote>
> Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning
> heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the
> show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual
> facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in
> 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
>
> She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's
> reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate
> amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
>
> Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump's, added, "Whether the Court
> frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal
> commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion
> remains the same — the statements are not actionable."
> </quote>

I find no actual "data', or hard evidence, that McDougal's claim of an affair lasting years with a married man ever happened. She did however, sell a "story" to a magazine for a lot of money. True or not, that story would have a political effect. McDougal seemed to think that publicizing the story was more more important to her than the 150K.

But no, " Now, that sounds like a classic case of extortion." is not a claim of fact and is not legally actionable. McDougal claimed in her court filing that what Carlson said was meant to be a "statement of fact". That is what, if anything, should be actionable.

It appears that you would have others believe that other "News" outlets only state "data" and "facts" and never "bloviate". The 'general tenor" of many critics of Fox News do. It is hilarious to see such apparent stupidity. What it really is, is evil. Hows that Russian Collusion story going for you, Martin?
Don't like the Orange man?

Martin Harran

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 6:00:12 PMSep 27
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 11:29:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
Nope, I did no such thing. My post was a response to a general
observation made by Athel, not a response to your OP.

>You also make a claim about me, but do not seem to realize that isn't "data", but "making things up". It doesn't matter to you whether I have ever claimed any source to be reliable.

Yep, another area where we differ - I don't post stuff unless I
believe the source to be reliable whereas source reliability is
apparently optional for you.

>>
>> https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye?t=1632557246477
>>
>> <quote>
>> Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning
>> heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the
>> show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual
>> facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in
>> 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
>>
>> She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's
>> reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate
>> amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
>>
>> Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump's, added, "Whether the Court
>> frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal
>> commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion
>> remains the same — the statements are not actionable."
>> </quote>
>
>I find no actual "data', or hard evidence, that McDougal's claim of an affair lasting years with a married man ever happened. She did however, sell a "story" to a magazine for a lot of money. True or not, that story would have a political effect. McDougal seemed to think that publicizing the story was more more important to her than the 150K.
>
>But no, " Now, that sounds like a classic case of extortion." is not a claim of fact and is not legally actionable. McDougal claimed in her court filing that what Carlson said was meant to be a "statement of fact". That is what, if anything, should be actionable.
>
>It appears that you would have others believe that other "News" outlets only state "data" and "facts" and never "bloviate". The 'general tenor" of many critics of Fox News do. It is hilarious to see such apparent stupidity. What it really is, is evil. Hows that Russian Collusion story going for you, Martin?
>Don't like the Orange man?

Nope, I generally don't like liars and cheats.

Glenn

unread,
Sep 27, 2021, 6:50:12 PMSep 27
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
It was a response to my OP as well, as it is from FOX, and you would have acknowledged that were you honest.
> >You also make a claim about me, but do not seem to realize that isn't "data", but "making things up". It doesn't matter to you whether I have ever claimed any source to be reliable.
> Yep, another area where we differ - I don't post stuff unless I
> believe the source to be reliable whereas source reliability is
> apparently optional for you.

Like the reference in my OP, huh.

So you post stuff from NPR that claims, or implies, that Carlson's '" Now, that sounds like a classic case of extortion."" was meant to be a claim of fact. But you ignore that below, as you often do with not answering questions, which oddly is one of your criticisms of me.
Sorry, atheist, but you don't fool me. And I'm not claiming that all atheists are dishonest. I am you are though.
> >>
> >> https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye?t=1632557246477
> >>
> >> <quote>
> >> Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning
> >> heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the
> >> show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual
> >> facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in
> >> 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
> >>
> >> She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's
> >> reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate
> >> amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
> >>
> >> Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump's, added, "Whether the Court
> >> frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal
> >> commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion
> >> remains the same — the statements are not actionable."
> >> </quote>
> >
> >I find no actual "data', or hard evidence, that McDougal's claim of an affair lasting years with a married man ever happened. She did however, sell a "story" to a magazine for a lot of money. True or not, that story would have a political effect. McDougal seemed to think that publicizing the story was more more important to her than the 150K.
> >
> >But no, " Now, that sounds like a classic case of extortion." is not a claim of fact and is not legally actionable. McDougal claimed in her court filing that what Carlson said was meant to be a "statement of fact". That is what, if anything, should be actionable.
> >
> >It appears that you would have others believe that other "News" outlets only state "data" and "facts" and never "bloviate". The 'general tenor" of many critics of Fox News do. It is hilarious to see such apparent stupidity. What it really is, is evil. Hows that Russian Collusion story going for you, Martin?
> >Don't like the Orange man?
> Nope, I generally don't like liars and cheats.

Of course you do. You're one of them.

Martin Harran

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 10:20:12 AMSep 28
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 15:46:16 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
Nope, no reference at all to your OP.

>> >You also make a claim about me, but do not seem to realize that isn't "data", but "making things up". It doesn't matter to you whether I have ever claimed any source to be reliable.
>> Yep, another area where we differ - I don't post stuff unless I
>> believe the source to be reliable whereas source reliability is
>> apparently optional for you.
>
>Like the reference in my OP, huh.
>
>So you post stuff from NPR that claims, or implies, that Carlson's '" Now, that sounds like a classic case of extortion."" was meant to be a claim of fact. But you ignore that below, as you often do with not answering questions, which oddly is one of your criticisms of me.
>Sorry, atheist, but you don't fool me. And I'm not claiming that all atheists are dishonest. I am you are though.

It's ok, Glenn, I'll include you in my atheist prayers anway.
.

[snip Glenn floundering around looking for fault where none exists]

Glenn

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 11:45:12 AMSep 28
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Actually you did make reference to the content in the OP, Fox news.

"Fox have yet again confirmed their legal right to make things up yet Glenn and others treat them as a reliable source. The mind boggles."

So what story from Fox did you assume I treated "yet again" as a reliable source?

> >> >You also make a claim about me, but do not seem to realize that isn't "data", but "making things up". It doesn't matter to you whether I have ever claimed any source to be reliable.
> >> Yep, another area where we differ - I don't post stuff unless I
> >> believe the source to be reliable whereas source reliability is
> >> apparently optional for you.
> >
> >Like the reference in my OP, huh.
> >
> >So you post stuff from NPR that claims, or implies, that Carlson's '" Now, that sounds like a classic case of extortion."" was meant to be a claim of fact. But you ignore that below, as you often do with not answering questions, which oddly is one of your criticisms of me.
> >Sorry, atheist, but you don't fool me. And I'm not claiming that all atheists are dishonest. I am you are though.
> It's ok, Glenn, I'll include you in my atheist prayers anway.
>
No you won't. You're a liar.
>
> [snip Glenn floundering around looking for fault where none exists]

That's hilarious! You must think that you don't "flounder around" looking for fault because it does exist.

Well, jerk off, I don't accept or trust *any* source without deciding for myself on it's accuracy or veracity.
The only real difference between you and Ron, if there is one, is that he is deluded and you are intentionally evil.

Martin Harran

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 5:30:12 PMSep 28
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 08:43:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
Glenn, you know that advice that you regularly give others about
getting help ...

Glenn

unread,
Sep 28, 2021, 5:50:12 PMSep 28
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
You don't need it. Your conflicted with past feelings and have gone to the dark side, whether or not you are fully conscious of it - but a willing participant nontheless. Psychotherapy won't help you.

Glenn

unread,
Sep 29, 2021, 6:40:12 PMSep 29
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Sep 29, 2021, 7:30:12 PMSep 29
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[mercy snip]
>
> Glenn, you know that advice that you regularly give others about
> getting help ...
>
You’re giving him what he craves.

Glenn

unread,
Sep 29, 2021, 9:00:12 PMSep 29
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

jillery

unread,
Sep 30, 2021, 1:00:13 AMSep 30
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
How do you know what Glenn craves?

Martin Harran

unread,
Sep 30, 2021, 2:20:13 AMSep 30
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:35:34 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
Respond to what? It gets tiresome trying to figure out why you post
such links, only to be told that I have got it wrong without you
explaining what your thinking actually was.

Explain to me what you think is significant about that link and I will
try to respond.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages