Originally Posted by
accountinquestion
Originally Posted by
redietz
Pretty obvious. He has been trained, unlike some people, to "read thoroughly and carefully."
The thing about reading "thoroughly and carefully." If you ain't gonna do it, why read at all? Kinda defeats the purpose of reading altogether if you don't do it thoroughly and carefully.
And I'm speaking as someone with some experience, as I was tortured in my youth on speed reading machines. I think I was semi-competent up to 600-some wpm. No fun, but I got the gist. I don't recommend it. It's not thorough or careful.
Yea, it defeats the purpose of reading to not read everything thoroughly. Genius.
You're really fairly stupid relative to most posters on here and I mean this sincerely.
Lets take your goofball blog. There is literally no reason to read what you write thoroughly. One skims over the bullshit. People smarter than you do this all the time.
But I understand, in your head this is your big gotcha moment.
You might not be so broke if you didn't spend too much on your shoes that appear to be a big source of pride for you. Wow $300 shoes. lol.
No clue what speed reading machines are but you always have to pump yourself up over something asinine. In this post we are introduced to "speed reading machines". Whatever the fuck that is!
Your insecurity is up there with the best of the insecure ones.
Oh yea, and where does Stanford recommend Ivermectin for long covid or at all? <crickets>
LOL. So let me get this straight. I listed six or seven things regarding Ivermectin, all of which you presumably checked in your two-minute googling commitment to "finding the truth," and the only one you couldn't dig up was the Stanford use of Ivermectin for long Covid. I surmise this because you didn't mention any of the other items. Well, not my job to aid with your "research."
Let's be honest here -- how much time do you spend searching for something via google? Two minutes? Thirty minutes? Two hours? How many listings do you check when pages pop up as listings? The first 10 pages? The first five? The first three?
Don't be shy. Tell the audience what you consider thorough "research."
Bottom line -- you checked everything I wrote. Everything checked except the Stanford long Covid use of Ivermectin. But you reported the one thing you could not find, as opposed to saying, "Yeah, the other five things he said checked out, but I couldn't locate this one."
Your honesty is shot. You purposefully have not commented on anything I wrote that checked out via your "research," but you went after the one subject you couldn't easily find.
Did it occur to you to make phone calls and call Stanford? Or track down email addresses and try to contact appropriate departments there? I would think someone who really wanted to figure reality out would do that kind of thing. Or is it too much work?
You're a real honest "AP" there, account. You report your bottom line the same way? Report what's making your case and skip everything else?
And this is one example of why I think "AP" reporting of reality usually leaves a tad to be desired.
Speed reading machines presented a line or lines of text rather than paragraphs or pages so as to limit the words viewed per second and test the comprehension and memory without the reader's ability to go back and re-read what had previously been presented. They could be set for number of lines and speed. You were basically watching a film strip.
Reply With Quote
