But at the same time I see people complaining about folks not using Bob's thread, and unfairness as to how people are asked to take things there. To be honest I think where the whole thing falls apart is when we start calling each other names or treating people with disrespect because they disagree with our worldview.
I am personally offended by the "You don't agree with me/science/the church/government/qanon/etc therefore you are dumb" argument.
I would think if we could avoid that in here we would be better off... Not meaning to be on a high horse. I am guilty too.
That said... My job is hospital informatics. I am taking a deep dive into some data I should probably not be analyzing, Heh. Although it is my exact work area, so I am allowed to look at this data. Kinda of a moral conundrum. But it will not be the first time I have crunched some numbers around the mess we are in. But my curiosity gets the better of me. Maybe if I come across anything interesting I will share it (a sanitized version perhaps) over in Bob's thread.
I for one have never been offended by any of your posts on any subject that I can recall Cap! I do agree that the facts and implications of the ongoing 2020 Pandemic are very much in line with the ongoing Global War over economics, decentralization and global power structures as are "Observed" and therefore discussed in this thread. It's heartbreaking to see the media forces, politicians, and globalist puppetmasters so successfully dividing people, including our fellow WO's with thus topic that should be a wake up to unite and work together to overcome this global foe. Unfortunately, I am afraid the "foe" is not the actual virus, but the power of fear and hate and those using that power against us.
First rule of debate, if you resort to attacking the debater rather than the debated, you are conceding to the weakness of your position. Anger and aggression are tactics used to hide fear. Fear that you are losing the debate. If we cannot calmly discuss the facts and debate rationally, the proper recourse is to step back and let the more capable debaters advance the conversation. To go on the attack is to announce that you are weak in your stance, and worse to demand powers that be should shut down the conversation (which is often the real goal of those showing weakness) is an abrogation of the key principles of freedom of speech. If you advocate limiting the rights of others, you quickly find the rights of all greatly diminished. For this reason I have never participated in or even read Bob's C19 thread. I think it is wrong in it's very principle and from what I've heard has been wrong on other levels as well. Rights checked are Rights lost.
Cap, I'd be very interested in any findings you may derive from crunching your privileged data. I think it a pivotal factor in what we are here to Observe. And I believe it would be a loss to us all to allow the divisive powers of our common enemies to relegate such key points to a substandard platform. Period.