Telegraph censorshi...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Telegraph censorship

10 Posts
5 Users
7 Likes
1,601 Views
Posts: 2
Topic starter
(@iainclark)
Joined: 4 years ago

I just made a comment on the Telegraph site challenging their assertion that lateral flow tests are well-regarded. 

I mentioned the US FDA which said they were only good for the trash. 

After a while I was surprised it had no likes at all. In a different browser I looked without logging on and it wasn’t there. 

I logged on and it miraculously reappeared. 

So it seems you can’t question the lateral flow tests. 

9 Replies
1 Reply
(@ewloe)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 319
Posted by: @iainclark

I just made a comment on the Telegraph site challenging their assertion that lateral flow tests are well-regarded. 

I mentioned the US FDA which said they were only good for the trash. 

After a while I was surprised it had no likes at all. In a different browser I looked without logging on and it wasn’t there. 

I logged on and it miraculously reappeared. 

So it seems you can’t question the lateral flow tests. 

Do not be alarmed, there is an honest explanation for your observation. modern web apps temporarily hold recent transactions locally in the browser, hence, your post is present in your current browser but not yet visible to others, it would become visible in time when your browser commits the change to the server and ultimately to the database.

These tricks are done to reduce load on the server. They can lead to these phantom posts. it actually has a name, there is a whole branch of computer science devoted to the topic of phantom reads and uncommitted transactions, google concurrency and acid properties. it is not simple , you will get 34 million hits. it is often and very buggy.

 

 

Reply
Posts: 42
(@shotclog)
Joined: 3 years ago

If you think that's bad, you should try posting on the Guardian "comment is free" website. My comments were repeatedly removed for "breaching community standards" if I made any comment or statement that challenged the orthodox Covid panic response of the Government ,which has been shamelessly plugged by the Guardian from the start (they and their readers are truly the bedwetters-in-chief). My posts were never rude, or abusive or ad hominem in nature (although I regularly received responses of that type after posting-none of which were ever removed) and when I queried this with the forum moderator I was told, in effect, that the Guardian policy was to maintain "a high line" in defence of the Government and its scientific advisers and that I needed to cite evidence in support of anything I said, despite this not being a requirement for anyone supporting the Government line. Simply pointing out that there had been no peer reviewed RCTs of the efficacy of facemasks, a statement of fact (at the point I made it-I see some other purported trials have since been made), would lead to the post's deletion. That website is simply an echo chamber for what the Liberal elite believe to be true and they will countenance no dissent. 

I saw the same during the Brexit debates where I was (again) on the other side of the Establishment view. Whilst my polite, pro-democratic arguments were routinely deleted, the abuse they provoked remained. The one I remember most, because it was so stupid and abusive (and I apologise if this offends anyone here) was when I was asked if I enjoyed sucking Tory cxxx. 

You won't be surprised to hear that I have given up trying to debate with anyone on that website. I would bet that a huge percentage of Guardian readers are amongst the most scared people in this country (of Covid) and that, if so, the fact that they are only ever allowed to see one side of the debate will be the main reason for that. 

Reply
6 Replies
(@illimitible)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 196

@shotclog they’re scared of the truth so have to maintain the narrative and ban anything that might question that.

 

you know you’re on the right lines when they’re banning you.

Reply
(@donald)
Joined: 4 years ago

Posts: 29

@shotclog There was no 'Establishment view' about Brexit.  The 'Establishment' was split down the middle - yes, no, or abstain.  Anyone who thought Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, and Iain Duncan Smith were not part of the 'Establishment' was having a bad dream.  Unfortunately, the bad dream lasted five years.  PS By the way, what has got to do with Covid 19?

 

Reply
(@shotclog)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 42

Well Donald, I beg to differ about the Establishment point. It is true that there were a few high-profile individuals, such as the ones you name, who were unquestionably part of the Establishment but who took on the role of apostate, largely for personal advancement. That does not detract from the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people and institutions who comprise the Establishment in this country came down on the Remain side. We may be quibbling over terms-the Establishment is a nebulous thing to pin down, as is the Liberal elite (a term I also used), but when you see that even Private Eye took a strongly pro-Remain stance, you get the measure of the influential forces lined up against Brexit. Still, it doesn't matter now. 

What has this got to do with Covid? Sorry, I thought that was clear-I was simply giving another illustration of the way in which the Grauniad has decayed into an echo chamber for bien pensant liberal views.

 

Incidentally, does anyone know (without simply googling the answer) who is credited with coining the term the Establishment? He is now largely forgotten, but was a very high profile journalist in his day-sic transit gloria mundi and all that. 

Reply
(@donald)
Joined: 4 years ago

Posts: 29

@shotclog My first guess was Anthony Sampson.  The correct answer (by looking it up) was familiar to me - but whether I would have eventually got it by guessing...  (When will we ever know that leaving the EU was a good thing, a bad thing, or of no real importance?  We never wll.)

Reply
(@shotclog)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 42

@donald Good first guess, and impressive that you had even heard of Henry Fairlie. I had never heard of him till I picked up a collection of his work ("Bite the hand that feeds you"-I can recommend this highly). He lived, by all accounts, an old-style Fleet Street journo's life of the type that is simply not possible today.

Reply
(@ewloe)
Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 319

@shotclog sadly the once great Guardian is nowadays unreadable. I avoid it if I can. I have a look now and again for old times' sake, but it's painful.

Reply
Posts: 2
Topic starter
(@iainclark)
Joined: 4 years ago
  • At least you know it’s been removed. The sneaky Telegraph makes you think it’s there but no one else can see it. 
Reply
Share:
March 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
Free Speech Union

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Create New Account!

Please note: To be able to comment on our articles you'll need to be a registered donor

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.