Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

The NYT takes the CDC to the woodshed over masks


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, mudgirl said:

That you aren't embarrassed to post a Newsmax link says it all.

It was just on the CDC news conference.  Newsmax (whether you like them or not) was posting information disseminated in the press conference.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AndyPanda said:

Oh, so sometimes they do actual reporting. Does not mean it is ever a good idea to look at anything Newsmax says, knowing where their convictions lie. No pun intended.

Reported in numerous sources.  By your criteria most of the MSM should be ignored.  Think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We’re more than a year into this pandemic and most of us have decided what to believe and what not to believe, what to do and what not to do and yet here we go rehashing last years arguments. If my wife nagged half as much as MC does I would have left her years ago.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jreboll said:

We’re more than a year into this pandemic and most of us have decided what to believe and what not to believe, what to do and what not to do and yet here we go rehashing last years arguments. If my wife nagged half as much as MC does I would have left her years ago.

hang on  Jreboll; we are not done yet--got to sell the rest of all those jabs-!---HA -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2021 at 3:09 PM, Mainecoons said:

Knowing that so many of you find this source credible I thought you'd find this very interesting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/11/briefing/outdoor-covid-transmission-cdc-number.html

And here from a source most of you hate is a pretty detailed discussion of the NYT piece.  If you just can't handle other points of view you should skip this one.

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-nyt-catches-cdc-in-gravely-consequential-lie-about-outdoor-transmission

Surprise, surprise.  For the most part those face diapers are not necessary outside.  Of course sources many here don't like have been saying this for some time but, hey, whatever it takes to start puncturing this face diaper nonsense...

 

What does this have to do with Mexico? As a moderator, or whatever your title is, you should not break the rules - just sayin’ . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason some folks don't love the Blaze just might be explained here:

  • The Blaze - Media Bias Fact Check

    mediabiasfactcheck.com › the-blaze

    May 07, 2021 · In review, The Blaze reports news with a far-right bias that utilizes strong loaded words such as New Jersey Democrats propose a gerrymandering plan that would give them a permanent majority. This story properly sources from mainstream media outlets. Story selection almost always favors the right on The Blaze, and there is a heavy Christian bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alli said:

What does this have to do with Mexico? As a moderator, or whatever your title is, you should not break the rules - just sayin’ . . .

Obviously and you should know this, Mexico takes many cues from the pronouncements of the CDC.  Hence it is very germane to this board.  And I was not posting as a moderator.  Are you a wanna be mod?

Gringal, when it comes to journalistic pulchiritude, the NYT is hardly a paragon of beauty.  However it for that very reason I lead the post with the NYT and pointed out the Blaze was not for everyone here including, it seems, you. 

Frankly I was stunned at the NYT's moment of candor, those coming so rarely with them.  In light of the CDC's latest zig zag on the topic of face diapers though, it was not really a major expose.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mudgirl said:

MC, I suggest that the next time you go to the dentist, or require surgery, you instruct the dentist or surgeon to take off their "face diaper". 

So exactly what has that statement to do with the CDC posting incorrect information? And now lifting mask mandates for fully vaccinated people? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mainecoons said:

Obviously and you should know this, Mexico takes many cues from the pronouncements of the CDC.  Hence it is very germane to this board.  And I was not posting as a moderator.  Are you a wanna be mod?

Gringal, when it comes to journalistic pulchiritude, the NYT is hardly a paragon of beauty.  However it for that very reason I lead the post with the NYT and pointed out the Blaze was not for everyone here including, it seems, you. 

Frankly I was stunned at the NYT's moment of candor, those coming so rarely with them.  In light of the CDC's latest zig zag on the topic of face diapers though, it was not really a major expose.

 

Just your use of the term face diaper is demeaning; forget all the rest of your biases.

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I'm far from being a "right wing Christian", there's no point in my reading publications like the Blaze, si?  I don't usually read the New York Times, either.  I get all my news over the 'net and am more in favor of the BBC site than most others. Right now, the political news is so volatile that any truth is hard to find.  Seems like lying and covering up are the most common practices with all of them.  I'm hoping for a return of plain old logic and sanity... rare and wonderful things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mostlylost said:

So exactly what has that statement to do with the CDC posting incorrect information? And now lifting mask mandates for fully vaccinated people? 

 

Once again, as with MC, you don't seem to understand the quite simple concept that changing findings as scientists learn more, warrant changing directives. It doesn't mean you were lied to or purposely misled to start with.

It doesn't kill anyone to wear a mask in public, despite all the anti-maskers' false rhetoric. When you are dealing with a serious medical crisis, erring on the side of caution is the intelligent approach.

Just because it's unlikely that you would have a serious car accident putting along at 30 miles an hour to drive 3 blocks to the store doesn't mean a cop can't ticket you for not wearing your seat belt in places where those seat belt laws are enforced. In other words,the likelihood of getting in an accident, or the likelihood of transmitting Covid outdoors when maskless does not necessarily determine the rules.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, mexjerry said:

 

An appropriate application of a diaper.

a diaper's function is to FILTER and separate the solids, liquids, from passing thru, in other words, I would not like to consume the left over, would you?

nuff said

Sorry, rhetoric doesn't work here. We all know what he means and why he said it that way.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, rhetoric has everthing to do with the current situation.

Definition of rhetoric

 

1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: such as
a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times
b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2a : skill in the effective use of speech
b : a type or mode of language or speech also : insincere or grandiloquent language
 
Applying the above criteria to what has been stated, ie covid, via THE CDC, NIH et al, and I would call out item 2a and 2b.
For your reference, have a look at numerous publications regarding rhetoric pertaining to the covid, might want to go several years back, say
1970 - 1990, dealing with AIDS/HIV, what you will find, numerous sources claim, HIV originated in Africa, all propagated by a single individual, fed to select sources, and published as gospel, , what occurred was destruction, of an individual, a way of life and the beginning of a new style of medicine, and this is the result of your "rhetoric"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mexjerry said:

I disagree, rhetoric has everthing to do with the current situation.

Definition of rhetoric

 

1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: such as
a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times
b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2a : skill in the effective use of speech
b : a type or mode of language or speech also : insincere or grandiloquent language
 
Applying the above criteria to what has been stated, ie covid, via THE CDC, NIH et al, and I would call out item 2a and 2b.
For your reference, have a look at numerous publications regarding rhetoric pertaining to the covid, might want to go several years back, say
1970 - 1990, dealing with AIDS/HIV, what you will find, numerous sources claim, HIV originated in Africa, all propagated by a single individual, fed to select sources, and published as gospel, , what occurred was destruction, of an individual, a way of life and the beginning of a new style of medicine, and this is the result of your "rhetoric"

 

Boy--the cat fur is really flying ---HA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mexjerry said:

I disagree, rhetoric has everthing to do with the current situation.

Definition of rhetoric

 

1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: such as
a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times
b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion
2a : skill in the effective use of speech
b : a type or mode of language or speech also : insincere or grandiloquent language
 
Applying the above criteria to what has been stated, ie covid, via THE CDC, NIH et al, and I would call out item 2a and 2b.
For your reference, have a look at numerous publications regarding rhetoric pertaining to the covid, might want to go several years back, say
1970 - 1990, dealing with AIDS/HIV, what you will find, numerous sources claim, HIV originated in Africa, all propagated by a single individual, fed to select sources, and published as gospel, , what occurred was destruction, of an individual, a way of life and the beginning of a new style of medicine, and this is the result of your "rhetoric"

 

Sorry, rhetoric doesn't work here. But okay, since you studied so hard and missed the point just like he did, then let me change rhetoric to what I really meant: bullsh**.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2021 at 10:05 PM, Jreboll said:

 If my wife nagged half as much as MC does I would have left her years ago.

Yes, he does seem to have a determination and love for rehashing the past.....LOL

Repeat and repeat until you are gas lighted in is his forte.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal attack is the favorite refuge of people who can't address the topic or handle different points of view.  I'm simply reporting the news here, if any of you don't like it I suggest you write nasty letters to the NYT and CDC.  Looking at some of the responses to this thread I see an abundance of talent for doing so.

You were also warned those who can't handle opinions that don't follow the narrative to not read the Blaze op ed about the CDC action and the NYT piece.  If you read it, it really doesn't differ much from the NYT piece but does expand on several aspects with factual citations in support.  I suspect most just simply had the usual knee jerk reaction to the source and haven't a clue what is really in the piece.

Incessant personal attack is also a sign of dementia among the elderly, slainte. :D 

Another new development on the mask front.  Note the source of the original report, Bloomberg, at the bottom of the article.  This too is germane since most of these retailers are big in Mexico and what happens in the U.S. is widely noted here and has major influence.

https://www.newsmax.com/us/walmart-costco-samsclub-masks/2021/05/14/id/1021465/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MC: "I suspect most just simply had the usual knee jerk reaction to the source and haven't a clue what is really in the piece."

Why don't you clarify what you mearn by a "knee jerk"?  Why would anyone who is not of the same persuasion of such sources be expected to seek them out to get simple news information?  If you are aware that a publication is inclined to the far left, do you bother to go there for information?  Whether or not a source happens to be accurately reporting on a news item is irrelevant.  My point was: why waste precious time?

As for the posters who seem to be in attack mode...that's another waste of time.  Nobody in the predominant age group on here is likely to change his or her mind.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean by knee jerk is exactly what I said.  To be fair, after numerous retractions and editorializing on the "news" pages I have somewhat of a "knee jerk" reaction to the NYT if that is any consolation to you.  However, I give them credit for even this rare occasion of serious journalism and this is why I quote them first.

"News" sources should not be of a persuasion on the news pages.  I remember when this was so and if you think about it, you will too.  The main result of this is that fully 3/4th of the public sees the bias and there has been a serious loss of credibility as a result.  I do not view this as a good thing.  I was a subscriber to both the NYT and WashPo for many years until they largely descended into the interjection of their "persuasion" into everything.  Now I find the foreign press to be far more useful for finding out what is really going on.

Posters who constantly attack other posters over difference of opinion simply demonstrate they don't have the intellection horsepower to discuss the topic intelligently, factually and without personal rancor.  They are the useful $%&/()s of the cancel culture.

As for belaboring the topic, a simple check over the last 6 months or so will find orders of magnitude more threads started pushing the narrative point of view than any dissent from same.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...