zlacker

Thank you for putting this stuff together. In the past, I did the same when people asked for "source?" for things like "Fauci and the HHS recommended against masking". After I go through the painful process of reacquiring each of the sources, these people disappear.

"Source?" is now the dual of the Gish Gallop strategy. It is a meta-rhetorical strategy to amplify work done by some perceived "opponent".

After all, for anyone who truly believes in sourced claims, they would say "I found these sources that do X. What have you found?" This is natural because they are more interested in the truth than in an argument against an "opponent".

So now I don't respond to disproportionate requests for work. I am glad you did, though. And looking through them, it's exactly as I remember: anti-mask advocacy.

>>renewi+(OP)
I'll give credit to the WHO for not deleting their tweets. It would be even better if they offered a mea culpa explaining how they came to this position that was incorrect in hindsight. But not just disappearing things already is better than some others do.

>>renewi+(OP)
> they disappear

https://help.archive.org/hc/en-us/articles/360001513491-Save...

:)

>>MrYell+I9
Haha I mean the people disappear after firing off their "Source" calls. They're not really interested in sources. It's a technique to get you to waste your time.

The sources remain. Editing for clarity.