Kenngo1969 Posted April 18, 2020 Posted April 18, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Hard to say, but I have noticed that @Fair Dinkum has made some changes in words used by me (he changed my "apriorism" to "aphorism"). Is he trying to be too cute by half? Don't know. Auto Complete™ and/or Auto Correct™ strike(s) again? I can't remember who it was, (Rory/3DOP, maybe?) but, a few years ago, someone on here said that attempting to compose posts for this board on his phone made him seem like a dyslexic chimp! Perhaps poor Fair Dinkum has the same problem? Edited April 18, 2020 by Kenngo1969
let’s roll Posted April 18, 2020 Posted April 18, 2020 On 4/15/2020 at 8:34 PM, JamesBYoung said: Keep praying and fasting overnight on Saturday to Sunday. It will humble the individual soul immeasurably. A resurgence of the infection with occur in late June and July. Salt Lake City will be hit hard. Isn’t a surge a prerequisite for a resurgence? Utah hasn’t yet seen a surge.
JamesBYoung Posted April 18, 2020 Posted April 18, 2020 Will 'spike' be better, let's roll? Yes, a surge will occur this summer. I will remind you when it happens,
let’s roll Posted April 18, 2020 Posted April 18, 2020 29 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said: Will 'spike' be better, let's roll? Yes, a surge will occur this summer. I will remind you when it happens, I trust you’ll be sad if you have the opportunity to do so. Godspeed to you.
Robert F. Smith Posted April 18, 2020 Posted April 18, 2020 9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: Auto Complete™ and/or Auto Correct™ strike(s) again? I can't remember who it was, (Rory/3DOP, maybe?) but, a few years ago, someone on here said that attempting to compose posts for this board on his phone made him seem like a dyslexic chimp! Perhaps poor Fair Dinkum has the same problem? Maybe so, but I was referring to his actually changing the word inside my post, which I find quite odd.
JamesBYoung Posted April 18, 2020 Posted April 18, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, let’s roll said: I trust you’ll be sad if you have the opportunity to do so. Godspeed to you. Yes, I will be sad because it could be avoidable. But, like those nimrods in St. George, we have plenty of careless individuals in Davis, SL, and Utah counties. I would love to see more LDS mindfulness displayed. Edited April 18, 2020 by JamesBYoung
mfbukowski Posted April 19, 2020 Posted April 19, 2020 On 4/17/2020 at 11:45 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Hard to say, but I have noticed that @Fair Dinkum has made some changes in words used by me (he changed my "apriorism" to "aphorism"). Is he trying to be too cute by half? Don't know. Perhaps doesn't know the difference. There. I said it. 1
mfbukowski Posted April 19, 2020 Posted April 19, 2020 On 4/17/2020 at 4:59 AM, Kenngo1969 said: Forgive me if, in my earlier perusal of the thread, I missed this if someone else posted it, but I do think it's interesting. One challenge for faith is that its effect isn't really quantifiable in empirical terms. Others have challenged my conviction that, on three separate occasions, I received absolute assurance, unavailable from earthly sources, that, when I woke up from the operations for which I was waiting to be anesthetized, it would be to news of the best possible outcome. I don't blame them. The evidence I have isn't available empirically, just as the evidence that anyone has of the efficacy of fasting and prayer on this occasion isn't available empirically. https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2020/4/8/21213579/president-nelson-good-friday-fast-lds-mormon-general-conference I have also experienced this many times, and given blessings where I have known that the person would be healed
Kenngo1969 Posted April 19, 2020 Posted April 19, 2020 24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I have also experienced this many times, and given blessings where I have known that the person would be healed I probably haven't experienced it enough (though there have been other instances besides those three). Those instances, however, along with a few others, are my Oliver Cowdery, "did-I-not-speak-peace-to-your-mind-concerning-the-matter?", "what-greater-witness-can-ye-have-than-from-God?" moments (see Doctrine & Covenants 6:22-23).
Stargazer Posted April 19, 2020 Posted April 19, 2020 For what it's worth, there is some evidence that all this quarantining might not be as useful as the authorities have thought it to be. Because coronavirus is everywhere already. There is this article in Nature: "Antibody tests suggest that coronavirus infections vastly exceed official counts" Nature is usually behind a paywall, but for the moment they have made coronavirus articles open. This may change later, of course. Please note that Nature is one of those peer-reviewed journals people like to quote in regards to science information. The data in the article has not been discussed in the media, or raised by any politicians, so far. As far as I can tell, anyway. There's one commentator who recently noticed it and posted a video talking about it. It's on YouTube, and keep in mind that this "Mr. Reagan" is conservative, politically. I point this out so that you are aware that while he makes a few interesting observations regarding the article, he does make some political remarks. Those of you who are revolted by conservative politics thus can avoid being triggered, by not clicking on the YouTube link. 1
Calm Posted April 19, 2020 Posted April 19, 2020 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Stargazer said: there is some evidence that all this quarantining might not be as useful as the authorities have thought it to be. Because coronavirus is everywhere already. Given there has been limited testing in most areas due to limited number of tests, that more have been some time infected than the official count should not be surprising. Quote Widespread antibody testing in a Californian county has revealed a much higher prevalence of coronavirus infection than official figures suggested. The findings also indicate that the virus is less deadly than current estimates of global case and death counts suggest. But some scientists have raised concerns about the accuracy of kits used in such studies because most have not been rigorously assessed to confirm they are reliable However, as with many stats in this not as well known virus, we can’t be certain of its accuracy at this time...in this case because the tests may not be reliable. Best to withhold drawing conclusions yet and changing behaviour on a possibility. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01115-z Quote But as with most new technologies, there are signs that the promises of COVID-19 antibody tests have been oversold, and their challenges underestimated. Kits have flooded the market, but most aren’t accurate enough to confirm whether an individual has been exposed to the virus. And even if tests are reliable, they can't indicate whether someone is immune to reinfection, say scientists. It will be a while before kits are as useful as hoped, says Smith. “Countries are still gathering the evidence.” Quote The UK government learnt about this the hard way after it ordered 3.5 million tests from several companies in late March, only to later discover that none of these tests performed well enough. “No test is better than a bad test,” says Michael Busch, director of the Vitalant Research Institute in San Francisco. Other issues with the testing: Quote Kilpatrick says another potential source of bias in the study is that participants were recruited using social media. As a result, the sample could include a disproportionally higher number of people who thought they were exposed to the virus and volunteered to get tested, he says. “The real prevalence might be half as high, a tenth as high, or it might even be the number presented in the paper - we don’t know because recruiting participants over Facebook presents an unknown bias,” he says Bhattacharya says the results probably undercount the prevalence in the wider population, because they miss anyone who has been infected too recently to have mounted an immune response, and exclude people in prisons, nursing homes and other institutions. Edited April 19, 2020 by Calm
Stargazer Posted April 19, 2020 Posted April 19, 2020 11 minutes ago, Calm said: Given there has been limited testing in most areas due to limited number of tests, that more have been some time infected than the official count should not be surprising. However, as with many stats in this not as well known virus, we can’t be certain of its accuracy at this time...in this case because the tests may not be reliable. Best to withhold drawing conclusions yet and changing behaviour on a possibility. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01115-z Yep, there's a lot of doubt about all of this. That's the reason I indicated things "might not" be like they is thought to be. And the article itself admitted that the data could be equivocal. There may be conclusions at the end of all this that reveal that some of the responses to this problem had no useful effect. If the virus is as widespread as it seems to be, with the vast majority being asymptomatic... well, we will see. From the NY Post we have this: "A new study showed that some women who delivered babies in the city in recent weeks had been inflicted with the coronavirus without displaying symptoms. "NewYork-Presbyterian and Columbia University Medical Center screened more than 200 women for the illness upon admission between March 22 and April 4, according to the study. "Among the 33 patients who tested positive, 29 of them had no symptoms." https://nypost.com/2020/04/14/pregnant-women-without-symptoms-are-getting-coronavirus-study/ 1
Calm Posted April 19, 2020 Posted April 19, 2020 Here is the actual study: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316 If I read it correctly, of those who originally asymptomatic, three later developed symptoms. Need to reread it to be sure. Maybe later.
Fair Dinkum Posted April 20, 2020 Author Posted April 20, 2020 On 4/17/2020 at 5:48 AM, Kenngo1969 said: Well, at least you, in contrast to the thread's originator, used the correct form of the verb. (Actually, I think it's pretty funny that someone who, apparently, thinks fasting and prayer by the faithful is stupid cannot be bothered to check his own work before posting ... but, maybe that's just me.) How's about it, Fair Dinkum? Since you're so smart, ya wanna tell us how ta "flat" something? "Sure, Ken! Just sit on it. That'll flat it right out!" Your world must be smaller than mine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradmcmillan/2020/04/14/a-coronavirus-milestone-the-flattening-of-the-curve/#6309592c4ba5 https://nypost.com/2020/04/09/fauci-agrees-ny-likely-seeing-flattening-of-the-curve-on-coronavirus/ Your post seems rather petty actually.
Fair Dinkum Posted April 20, 2020 Author Posted April 20, 2020 On 4/17/2020 at 5:48 AM, Kenngo1969 said: Well, at least you, in contrast to the thread's originator, used the correct form of the verb. (Actually, I think it's pretty funny that someone who, apparently, thinks fasting and prayer by the faithful is stupid cannot be bothered to check his own work before posting ... but, maybe that's just me.) How's about it, Fair Dinkum? Since you're so smart, ya wanna tell us how ta "flat" something? "Sure, Ken! Just sit on it. That'll flat it right out!" Also sir, you may want to re read my original post. You have characterized my opinions on fasting and prayer. I have never said anything of the kind that I "think fasting and prayer by the faithful is stupid" Also, Is it standard procedure on this board to attack the poster rather than the contents of their post? I've got thick skin and take it but I'm rather surprised by the approach of some that they find it necessary to attack through the use of passive ad hominem the one making a post rather than the contents and opinions made within the post.
Kenngo1969 Posted April 20, 2020 Posted April 20, 2020 1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said: Also sir, you may want to re read my original post. You have characterized my opinions on fasting and prayer. I have never said anything of the kind that I "think fasting and prayer by the faithful is stupid" Also, Is it standard procedure on this board to attack the poster rather than the contents of their post? I've got thick skin and take it but I'm rather surprised by the approach of some that they find it necessary to attack through the use of passive ad hominem the one making a post rather than the contents and opinions made within the post. Okay. Point taken.
Kenngo1969 Posted April 20, 2020 Posted April 20, 2020 1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said: Your world must be smaller than mine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradmcmillan/2020/04/14/a-coronavirus-milestone-the-flattening-of-the-curve/#6309592c4ba5 https://nypost.com/2020/04/09/fauci-agrees-ny-likely-seeing-flattening-of-the-curve-on-coronavirus/ Your post seems rather petty actually. Different strokes for different folks. Perhaps I'll simply avoid interacting with you in the future. It might save us both some grief. 1
Fair Dinkum Posted April 20, 2020 Author Posted April 20, 2020 On 4/17/2020 at 10:59 PM, Kenngo1969 said: @Robert F. Smith Okay. If that's the case, he certainly has my apologies for implying that he'd butchered the Queen's English. However, if your explanation is correct, I do wonder, then, why did he use such an uncommon form of the verb (if, in fact, as you state, it isn't necessarily incorrect) in the title of the thread, only to turn around and use the much more common (correct?) gerund in the post itself? It is comforting to be among someone who has never made a typing error and failed to catch it prior to publication. To know that such human perfection still exists in this world gives me hope for humanity but still causes me mental anguish knowing that I will never reach such perfection in this life for alias I am but a mere mortal among the perfection of god Kenngo. I bow my head to you sir.
Fair Dinkum Posted April 20, 2020 Author Posted April 20, 2020 11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Different strokes for different folks. Perhaps I'll simply avoid interacting with you in the future. It might save us both some grief. It was rather pedantic of you don't you think?
Kenngo1969 Posted April 20, 2020 Posted April 20, 2020 25 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: It was rather pedantic of you don't you think? As I said: 37 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Different strokes for different folks. Perhaps I'll simply avoid interacting with you in the future. It might save us both some grief.
Recommended Posts