The Con has closed comments on the article now. They have ignored the comments made by yourself and Robin. They are obviously petrified of any challenges to The Science.
Is closing comments after a few days what they normally do? I don't know if substack or other similar have the same restrictions - I seem to remember commenting on fairly old posts in various online rags.
I haven't yet looked for any contact points to get to the editors of the 'conversation' but I'll raise the issue directly with them if I can find a way to do so.
Jim, Robin has contacted the editor and got the comment restored. Apparently, the spam bot deleted it in error . . . . . hmmm. It seems that comments close automatically on articles after 3 days, which is a ridiculously short time. Many people don't read an article for a few days, by which time it will be too late to comment.
Yes, that sounds like a handy explanation that can't be refuted! Anyway, I'm glad Robin did this as it had slipped my mind. He deserves a pat on the back.
I'd never heard of 'the Conversation' before this but I often read articles on other platforms that are quite old so a 3 day cut off seems unnecessarily short. It seems from this that their publication model may be focused on the short term with more 'sensational' articles rather than the more considered pieces I see on substack.
I don't know Jim. I'm aware that they do close comments on posts, but have no idea of how often or how soon after the post is published. Closing after a few days seems a bit excessive though. Thank you for your persistence in trying to get through to them.
Climate crisis!! The sky is falling!!! Chicken little cries SCAM BS. The Plymouth Rock 1609 still above water. Some 300 plus years the seas have NOT RISEN.
The new pandemic climate mental health comes at believing their lies. Physical health in jeopardy from actually be bombarded with scary storms hurricanes earthquakes be very afraid because our experts the same ones who say trust their science our new God has said... the skies are falling.
The way we win is not by futile efforts to criticise these purveyors of fear porn and propaganda on their own turf.
Success is gained by first stopping your own clicks on known sources of lies, and second by doing exactly what you did here, informing others so we can avoid ever having to stumble into their nonsense. I'd never heard of "The Conversation" and now I can continue to avoid it in the future.
Debate is different animal. If there's an uncensored debate I'd be happy to contribute.
I only commented against my better judgement because somebody recommended I do so. I haven't bothered reading or commenting at The Con for years now and will not bother to do so again.
Well, thank you for your service! I can no longer even stomach reading liestream sources. I used to be a big Scientific American reader which featured really esoteric areas of science prior to the Madness. It's since morphed into the strangest woke cult rag!
My grandfather gifted me a subscription when I was 10 years old many decades ago. I understood about 5% of what I read at the time but I stuck with it and believe those articles in part lead to my critical thinking capacity today. ALL of these previously exalted technical magazines and medical journals were corrupted and their loss is a terrible one for humanity.
I wrote another comment about the removal of your comment on this 'Conversation' article.
Someone else has just commented
"Well said Jim. Having subscribed to comments on this thread, I received this one as an email this morning and was surprised and dismayed that it was almost immediately deleted. Why? It was politely phrased, factual and detailed. As you say, it made its point in rational and reasonable terms with supporting evidence for its claims and, in no sense was it a breach of ‘community standards’. The author had clearly taken great care over writing it.
Surely The Conversation doesn’t feel it’s necessary to protect its readers from an alternative point of view? Perhaps, as you suggest, it was just an error. Whether that was so or not, I suggest to whoever is moderating this thread that it be reinstated. It might well prove to be the beginning of an interesting and fruitful debate."
It will be interesting to see if and how things progress.
Censorship and a failure to engage is a clear sign that the original article is unscientific and merely used as propaganda. Well don Jaime. You are the scourge of sloppy thinking.
It may not be an AI bot. I have an old blog that still gets comments now and then and the emails I get when someone comments includes direct action links to delete, mark as spam, etc. it could be that the post author got an email with your comment and very quickly decided to delete it.
Still sad and unfortunate but maybe not the fault of AI.
Thank you for posting your thoughts here, though! I always appreciate people who don’t just swallow the narrative (in whatever domain) and instead have a healthy dose of skepticism and critical thinking. 👍
The Conversation is one of the worst offenders. They were wrong a hundred percent of the time during the Scamdemic but never retracted or corrected anything. In whose right mind would think they have won an argument by simply eliminating any contradictory statements? I am truly dumbfounded these days at the towering idiocy of the media. I have run up against the same thing - posted very reasonable objections to a certain article only to have my comment deleted. A maxim I repeat to myself often is “that which is censored is the truth.” How are we supposed to arrive at the truth if no one is willing to throw the idea around, refine positions, debate etc? I give up. I just look at everyone now with disdain and be generally impolite.
Well, I don't see why they shouldn't.
It's possible that it's an error and also that it's been referred to the author for her detailed response.
Time will indeed tell!
The Con has closed comments on the article now. They have ignored the comments made by yourself and Robin. They are obviously petrified of any challenges to The Science.
Is closing comments after a few days what they normally do? I don't know if substack or other similar have the same restrictions - I seem to remember commenting on fairly old posts in various online rags.
I haven't yet looked for any contact points to get to the editors of the 'conversation' but I'll raise the issue directly with them if I can find a way to do so.
Jim, Robin has contacted the editor and got the comment restored. Apparently, the spam bot deleted it in error . . . . . hmmm. It seems that comments close automatically on articles after 3 days, which is a ridiculously short time. Many people don't read an article for a few days, by which time it will be too late to comment.
Yes, that sounds like a handy explanation that can't be refuted! Anyway, I'm glad Robin did this as it had slipped my mind. He deserves a pat on the back.
I'd never heard of 'the Conversation' before this but I often read articles on other platforms that are quite old so a 3 day cut off seems unnecessarily short. It seems from this that their publication model may be focused on the short term with more 'sensational' articles rather than the more considered pieces I see on substack.
I don't know Jim. I'm aware that they do close comments on posts, but have no idea of how often or how soon after the post is published. Closing after a few days seems a bit excessive though. Thank you for your persistence in trying to get through to them.
Climate crisis!! The sky is falling!!! Chicken little cries SCAM BS. The Plymouth Rock 1609 still above water. Some 300 plus years the seas have NOT RISEN.
The new pandemic climate mental health comes at believing their lies. Physical health in jeopardy from actually be bombarded with scary storms hurricanes earthquakes be very afraid because our experts the same ones who say trust their science our new God has said... the skies are falling.
Gone but not forgotten Jaime, and someone noticed.
Even AI bots have programmers who mindlessly erase critical thinkers from view.
They know that you know and they live in fear that one day we will all mock them and shame them and scorn them.
The way we win is not by futile efforts to criticise these purveyors of fear porn and propaganda on their own turf.
Success is gained by first stopping your own clicks on known sources of lies, and second by doing exactly what you did here, informing others so we can avoid ever having to stumble into their nonsense. I'd never heard of "The Conversation" and now I can continue to avoid it in the future.
Debate is different animal. If there's an uncensored debate I'd be happy to contribute.
I only commented against my better judgement because somebody recommended I do so. I haven't bothered reading or commenting at The Con for years now and will not bother to do so again.
Well, thank you for your service! I can no longer even stomach reading liestream sources. I used to be a big Scientific American reader which featured really esoteric areas of science prior to the Madness. It's since morphed into the strangest woke cult rag!
I cancelled my sub to SciAm several years ago for exactly those reasons.
It was already going off the rails before the Covid nonsense and I haven't read it since.
My grandfather gifted me a subscription when I was 10 years old many decades ago. I understood about 5% of what I read at the time but I stuck with it and believe those articles in part lead to my critical thinking capacity today. ALL of these previously exalted technical magazines and medical journals were corrupted and their loss is a terrible one for humanity.
I wrote another comment about the removal of your comment on this 'Conversation' article.
Someone else has just commented
"Well said Jim. Having subscribed to comments on this thread, I received this one as an email this morning and was surprised and dismayed that it was almost immediately deleted. Why? It was politely phrased, factual and detailed. As you say, it made its point in rational and reasonable terms with supporting evidence for its claims and, in no sense was it a breach of ‘community standards’. The author had clearly taken great care over writing it.
Surely The Conversation doesn’t feel it’s necessary to protect its readers from an alternative point of view? Perhaps, as you suggest, it was just an error. Whether that was so or not, I suggest to whoever is moderating this thread that it be reinstated. It might well prove to be the beginning of an interesting and fruitful debate."
It will be interesting to see if and how things progress.
"It was politely phrased, factual and detailed."
Which is precisely why it was so promptly removed, of course!
Jim,
It will be interesting to see if my comment is reinstated, but I'm not holding my breath on it.
They are just protecting the comfortably numb. Would not want truth to get in the way of feels.
Censorship and a failure to engage is a clear sign that the original article is unscientific and merely used as propaganda. Well don Jaime. You are the scourge of sloppy thinking.
It may not be an AI bot. I have an old blog that still gets comments now and then and the emails I get when someone comments includes direct action links to delete, mark as spam, etc. it could be that the post author got an email with your comment and very quickly decided to delete it.
Still sad and unfortunate but maybe not the fault of AI.
Thank you for posting your thoughts here, though! I always appreciate people who don’t just swallow the narrative (in whatever domain) and instead have a healthy dose of skepticism and critical thinking. 👍
The Conversation is one of the worst offenders. They were wrong a hundred percent of the time during the Scamdemic but never retracted or corrected anything. In whose right mind would think they have won an argument by simply eliminating any contradictory statements? I am truly dumbfounded these days at the towering idiocy of the media. I have run up against the same thing - posted very reasonable objections to a certain article only to have my comment deleted. A maxim I repeat to myself often is “that which is censored is the truth.” How are we supposed to arrive at the truth if no one is willing to throw the idea around, refine positions, debate etc? I give up. I just look at everyone now with disdain and be generally impolite.