Luna Bliss

searches for a bag...

There are lots of online articles giving instruction on how to critically read and evaluate scientific articles/studies. Here's one: https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/08/19/how-to-critically-read-and-evaluate-a-scientific-paper/ BTW, scientific abstracts are just summaries...they aren't detailed enough to base a firm opinion on...we can't see their methods clearly...many aren't peer-reviewed. The article you cited in technocracy.news used only abstracts as sources, and just like the article used these abstracts falsely to claim masks are dangerous, you did as well. * What I did was file that info about Co2 and masks away in my brain, awaiting further info before thinking it likely to be true. If I had time or inclination I'd research further and find better studies, and pay (if not an open study) to read the full articles the abstracts are based on.

To the contrary I do have some inkling that the actual science is way above my head and pay scale but in many cases it isn't the science that is being debated but the politics. How would you know that if you don't understand the science?

Overreliance on these sort of sites to shoot the messenger rather than the message, hints strongly at an inability to counter the message. It's very difficult to counter a pseudo-science message. To do so can take days or weeks. All the junk science message has to do is propose a theory on shoddy evidence, usually with the aim of confirming what they desire to be true (confirmation bias). That's why I say I know how stupid I am because I know science is so complex and what it takes to evaluate anything accurately. You don't know that and think finding some simple proposal put out by someone (usually alt-right nuts) has much more validity than it does.

@Arielle Popstar If you want to know what is accurate in science you're going to need to do a lot of studying. Science has rules to arrive at the best truth we can find, and if you know the rules you'll know which articles are more science-based. I know how stupid I am, but you don't know how stupid you are.

@Arielle Popstar https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-facts-daily/

@Arielle Popstar In case you didn't see it at the bottom of the long post I just made, here is a list of online pseudoscience-conspiracy websites to avoid: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/conspiracy/

@Arielle Popstar The article you cited (https://www.technocracy.news/masks-are-neither-effective-nor-safe-a-summary-of-the-science/) is from a far-right psuedoscience rag named technocracy.org. These types of websites typically cherry-pick scientific studies which fit their hypothesis (in this case, that masks are not effective or safe) and make no effort to research in an objective, unbiased manner. As Scylla pointed out, the science articles they chose doesn't even prove their thesis. Plus...they chose scientific abstracts. Please read about abstracts and why they should not be used to 'prove' anything. ~~~~~~~~~~ Mediabiasfactcheck says this about technocracy.org: Overall, we rate Technocracy.News a far-right tin foil hat Conspiracy site that promotes quackery level pseudoscience. We also rate them Very Low in factual reporting due to the routine publication of false information as evidenced by numerous failed fact checks. History Founded in 2015 by author Patrick Wood, Technocracy.News is a conspiracy and pseudoscience website that reports on technology and it’s supposed dangers that lead to government control. According to the about page Patrick Wood describes himself as “An economist by education, a financial analyst and writer by profession and an American Constitutionalist by choice, Wood maintains a Biblical world view and has deep historical insights into the modern attacks on sovereignty, property rights and personal freedom. Such attacks are epitomized by the implementation of U.N. policies such as Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, and in education, the widespread adoption of Common Core State Standards.” Funded by / Ownership Technocracy.News is owned by Patrick Wood and generates revenue through donations and the sale of books. Analysis / Bias In review, Technocracy.News frequently publishes conspiracy theories and promotes pseudoscience. Many articles are written by Patrick Wood with others republished from right-leaning sources such as the questionable Breitbart, and conspiracy website Zerohedge. They also republish from credible sources such as The Hill, however, they add biased commentary such as this: “Rice is a globalist of the first order and tightly connected with members of the Trilateral Commission. As a former Ambassador to the UN and then National Security Advisor to Obama, it is not surprising that she would be on Biden’s shortlist. ⁃ TN Editor” Story selection often favors the right with great concern over Globalism and the New World Order such as this IMF Reveals That Cryptocurrency Is The New World Order Endgame. This story comes from the conspiracy website Alt-Market. They also frequently promote conspiracy theories about 5G, and Agenda 21. Further, they routinely publish misinformation regarding the CoronaVirus such as this CDC Sent Useless Test Kits To States, Tainted With Coronavirus. The test kits were not tainted with coronavirus. This is a false claim. Finally, they routinely promote anti-vaccination propaganda and support the claim that Human Influenced Climate Change is a hoax Dr. Tim Ball: Why People Continue To Believe Global Warming Hoax. In general, this is a website that frequently publishes misleading or false information from a far-right perspective. Failed Fact Checks CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. – Inaccurate “New evidence shows wearing face mask can help coronavirus enter the brain and pose more health risk, warn expert” – Unsupported NASA Scientists: Lack Of Sunspots To Bring Record Cold – False 30,000 scientists have signed a petition arguing that there is no convincing scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change. – Mostly False CDC Sent Useless Test Kits To States, Tainted With Coronavirus – False A study of past climate invalidates human-caused climate change – False Overall, we rate Technocracy.News a far-right tin foil hat Conspiracy site that promotes quackery level pseudoscience. We also rate them Very Low in factual reporting due to the routine publication of false information as evidenced by numerous failed fact checks. (D. Van Zandt 7/10/2020) https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/technocracy-news/ Here are further pseudoscience-conspiracy rags which should be avoided: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/conspiracy/

May I suggest you find links then that you will be happy with? There is certainly enough hits on the term Mask mouth that one of them will be suitable. I'd be wary of New York Post: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/ These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources. Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks. Detailed Report Factual Reporting: MIXED Country: USA World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180 History Founded in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton (One of the Founding Fathers of the United States), the New York Post (NY Post) is a daily tabloid newspaper from New York City. According to an article published by the NY Times, titled “THE NEW YORK POST HAS A LONG HISTORY”, they describe how under Hamilton’s ownership the paper-covered “shipping news, engaged in political crusades even if it meant the loss of advertising revenue.” Later owners were Poet William Cullen Bryant who kept the NY Post for 50 years, followed by railroad magnate Henry Villard (1878), Oswald Garrison Villard (1917), Thomas W. Lamond, and Cyrus H. K. Curtis (1920). Under Curtis’ ownership, the NY Post followed a conservative editorial policy until 1936. When David J.Stern acquired the paper in 1936, they became editorially more liberal. Dorothy Schiff bought the New York Post in 1939, which she controlled until 1976, and under her ownership, The Post was liberal as it supported the civil rights movement and opposed the Vietnam War. In 1942, Theodore Thackrey became editor and The Post switched from a broadsheet paper to a tabloid. In 1976, Rupert Murdoch, the owner of News Corp, acquired The New York Post and in 1988, Murdoch sold the paper to Real estate developer Peter S. Kalikow. When Kalikow lost the paper to bankruptcy in 1993, Rupert Murdoch once again purchased the paper and continues to own it today. Since Murdoch took over the paper, The Post has been known for its over-the-top sensational headlines. Read our profile on United States government and media. Funded by / Ownership The New York Post is currently owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which owns many conservative/sensational media outlets around the world. The paper is funded through advertising, subscriptions, and newsstand sales. Analysis / Bias In review, the New York Post tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wording such as “Cop cold-cocks unarmed man ‘acting irate’ at restaurant”, and “It’s time for Bill Clinton to take a walk in the Chappaqua woods.” The New York Post also republishes news from other sources such as the least biased Associated Press. In general, more stories favor the right, but the NY Post does not shy away from reporting negative coverage of the right, if it is a big story. They also tend to source their information properly, however many times the headline misleadingly exaggerates the actual story they are reporting. Editorially, The Post has endorsed the Republican Presidential Candidate in every race since 1980. However, in 2016 they did not offer an endorsement for the Presidential election to either candidate. According to an LA Times article, the New York Post was reported to be the preferred newspaper of U.S. President Donald Trump, who maintains frequent contact with its owner, Rupert Murdoch. The Post, According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York. Further, The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch’s ownership for “sensationalism, blatant advocacy, and conservative bias.” A factual search reveals several failed checks. Mostly False: Ted Cruz ‘same senator who once supported a ban on sex toys’ – Mostly False Newly Discovered Planet Could Destroy Earth Any Day Now – False Hillary Clinton Regularly Had Her Maid Print Classified Documents – Unproven PS 169 Pledge of Allegiance and Holiday Ban Controversy – Mostly False ‘New York Post’ op-ed rebuts starving children claim that was never made – Pants on Fire Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks. (7/16/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 7/13/2019)

People in past times were much more connected to nature, and it was scary to see nature die. Starvation was possible and people worried if they'd make it through the long, cold winters (in parts of the world where the Xmas party developed). This makes the perfect time for a celebration, to encourage hope. Not sure how Christ came to be involved in it....need to read more History. I could easily get depressed this Holiday season, with all the people dying from Covid, and not being able to safely visit my family. But I think instead I'll drink warm tea and listen to some of the most beautiful Xmas songs, and feel glad there is hope for the future and even for appreciation in this very moment.

Agree, I don't believe that new people who don't understand the rules of SL should be called "morons". But I've heard a lot of people through the years, some even on this forum, and especially in the Bellisseria threads, complain of numerous people invading their space and bothering them on purpose. Because of the above, and experiences in my own park/rentals, I don't believe it's "more than likely just new people to SL".

True, griefers are different, but enough to fill 500 slots in your ban list? Really?? He also referred to people just entering and not respecting the holy fence. lol...."the holy fence" Oh for sure...he's got some work to do so others will know the spaces are private. I just sympathize with his desire to make his area realistic and/or keep to a theme -- it's the artists vision. What I personally had to learn though, was that in SL other people were living in my art and so I needed to make concessions for them -- it was not an easy lesson believe me. Creators of themed areas have needs, renters have needs, and explorers have needs. It's never easy to sort all this out, and all will need to make compromises. I just don't want to see all the blame placed on the OP... even if he did, out of frustration, call some people morons.

I would think that such a smart and competent researcher as yourself would know to search for scientific research on Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/

It's a great excuse for a party!

I agree, new people exploring shouldn't be called "morons". I walked into private homes when new as well and wouldn't want that label applied to me. What about the griefers though? I think it's these people the OP is mostly referring to -- people who just enjoy bothering others. I encountered a lot of these types of people when I had my park/rental area.

As I sit here preparing to go to work I am reminded of various movie scenes where a dozen soldiers are being transported by airplane to be dropped somewhere behind enemy lines. A few that I can't name off the top of my head, showed scenes of how each of them dealt with the fear and anxiety they had to go through at the thought they were about to be faced with a potential life and death situation. One over in the corner quietly throwing up on himself, another making light of it with humour, a third fervently praying, another checking and rechecking weapons that they are all functional and working, while a couple of others sit quietly and stoically with grim looks on their faces as the battle hardened veterans matter of factly discuss the upcoming mission. And then there is another gibbering and freaking out as fear gets the better of him. The commanding officer has to deal with that one going into hysterics because if he doesn't, the negativity and pessimism that is at the root of the fear could infect others who in spite of their calm exterior, are also on an emotional razors edge, barely keeping their own fear at bay. That is how I see this. Each of us has a different way of dealing with this covid threat. If you want to do empathy, then maybe try to identify with each one of those soldiers and how they are coping rather then just your particular way. What an utterly ridiculous comparison you've made. Of course, we all have differing ways of coping with our fear, and normally this should be respected as frequently our initial defenses are the only means we have to cope at that moment. But the way the Trumpies and conservatives such as yourself are coping with the fears surrounding Covid is killing people, and they should be confronted! You have praised Alcoholics Anonymous and touted their methods for confronting those using the defense of denial in hopes they will stop drinking and harming themselves and their loved ones, yet you can't recognize what is happening here with Covid deniers as a need for the intervention/confrontation so primary to AA methods!!?? You stated earlier that because you don't personally see a lot of Covid cases in your neighborhood that Covid cases and dangers are overblown by the media -- you are so encased in denial you can't even recognize that your personal living environment is not representative of every other place on earth. You've made jokes about mask-wearing despite a consensus by reputable health organizations that they do indeed save lives. You constantly source your beliefs from alt-right rags and have no idea how to locate reputable scientific research. Nobody should approve of, respect, or have empathy for the way you are coping with the dangers we all face now with Covid -- over 2,600 people died in the US yesterday, and this number continues to climb because idiots deny the dangers and kill not only themselves but others around them. Hospitals are becoming overwhelmed due to increasing cases, and some will die do to lack of hospital space/personnel to take care of them. Your beliefs/defenses are murdering people... and now you're telling others not to get emotional about it??!! JFC! Yes, I'm emotional about it -- somebody I love might die because of people like you.

That sounds like a good plan -- brainstorming with your construction team to come up with something that minimizes disturbing the realistic ambience you've so painstakingly created. I imagine some homes in Austria have security systems, so that wouldn't break the realistic theme you have going. But teleportation away from the home is another matter! Too bad you can't have an Austrian cop (bot) appear if there is a breach to the house, and then the criminal is teleported to a jail in the town...lol (in a way that makes it appear like the cop took them). But then....I fear this would be so much fun you'd increase your 'break-ins' by 300%

There's been lots of good advice here you can try out to see if it makes any difference. From what I've experienced via creating environments that are highly detailed and beautiful, and meant as a public park with private rentals within, there's one more piece of advice I can give. Sometimes renters expect too much -- they love the beautiful park experience open so all can enjoy, yet don't realize they simply can't have as much privacy in their own homes living in such areas. At times I succeeded in getting them to tone down their need for so much privacy, explaining it as a price they need to pay to live in such areas. But if privacy has become more important than a scenic sim they need to seek a living space more private that is less likely to be as beautiful. Let them see this choice instead of continuing to complain to you about the lack of privacy.

Thank you, Drakon, for entering the thread with your cheery Holiday message

https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/gomer/87806

OMG. You are too lazy to scroll up? Studies please....that claim masks are dangerous....actual scientific studies..

In many things we do lack 100% certainty and lack facts, either because we can't find them or they don't exist. And we still have to make a decision. At that point we go with opinion. You got that wrong, which is why I suspect you think you are following the science. Well if you want to call it 'opinion' then okay, but where is your 'opinion' (backed up by scientific tests) that claims masks are dangerous?

I'm kind of slow today so I guess you'll have to provide those studies again so we can continue this debate on whether masks are dangerous.

@Nalates Urriah Please answer this. Can you find any scientific articles or studies claiming that wearing a mask is dangerous? If so, it could be fun to evaluate how good their experiment is. * We can also learn about the scientific method by doing this.

What? You are too lazy to type it in a search engine? DuckDuckGo or Google Both engines provide a mix of "masks are good" and "masks are bad" articles. You can cherry pick them get the opinion of various 'reputable' authors. It is also interesting to compare Google and Ducks results. It is also interesting to notice which camps are Pro and Anti mask and their likely affiliations. It doesn't matter that there are equal numbers of 'masks are good or bad' articles -- which ones are using the scientific method to arrive at truth? Again, can you find any scientific articles or studies claiming that wearing a mask is dangerous? If so, it could be fun to evaluate how good their experiment is. * We can also learn about the scientific method by doing this.