SectionC3

The last sentence could be ripped from The Onion.

Thanks for chiming in. I was going to add something about 1 million cases being a lot worse than, say 15 soon to be zero cases, and that 62,000 deaths is pretty surprising given the statement that we were to have zero cases of this thing about six weeks ago. Those statements, of course, reflect a lack of seriousness in the federal response. I'm sure that the reply will be something to the effect of "China! The WHO didn't have a bead on this for a few weeks! Obama! Cuomo! Governors! Lamestream media! OAN says you're wrong! Actually, the Easter Bunny spread a lot of coronavirus on April 12! And Trump said he's not accountable!" The bottom line is that a lot of people dropped the ball here. Including and especially the White House. This isn't to say that there wouldn't have been a pandemic with better federal leadership. It's just to say that the casual, inconsistent response almost certainly exacerbated the horror of this situation.

Hoax. I don't use disparagement as a substitute for a merits-based response.

You just won the Internet. I laughed out loud. Really loud.

You can sue anyone you want for whatever you want. The big issue is whether you can win the lawsuit. (And, of course, don't conflate "culpable" with "liable.") The thumbnail sketch is that in his instance you would lose because the state acted in a governmental capacity, not a proprietary capacity, and you would need to show that the state owed you a special duty of care. Here that's not happening. So if you want to sue, go nuts. Just don't harbor any delusion that you might actually win. Third and very short is back. Good to see you! I guess she doesn't like it when someone exposes her hoaxes. Sad!

Indeed. One unlikeable person who's actually accomplished something on his own and an equally unlikable person who hasn't done anything notable on his own.

Maybe you're right about that. But let's not pass the buck here. There's a principle in the law that there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident or event. Even assuming (probably very safely), for the sake of argument, the the Chinese government bears responsibility for part of this mess, I struggle to see how it's unfair to say that the ineptitude of our own federal administration has not also contributed to the current predicament. Bottom line: fault here isn't an either or proposition. Surely the Chinese government bears responsibility for what has happened. But the fact that one government or one actor bears responsibility doesn't mean that another actor cannot also be culpable.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/29/coronavirus-testing-chief-says-no-way-on-earth-us-can-test-5-million-a-day.html From the fake (presidential) news file. I'll fill in the blanks for 5G and his ilk here: "But soon is a relative concept! Dinosaurs were on the planet millions of years ago, so soon could be 10 or 20 or even 100 years from now! And Trump is right again! He never misspeaks! You're lazy & intellectually dishonest!" My lip-reading skills are bad, but I wonder if Pence mouthed, "It's his fault" to Birx. (Relax, it's a joke.)

In my business name-calling and personal disparagement are signs of defeat.

Speak for yourself. Toddlers without naps can be pretty scary.

What's the drivel? Trump said something profoundly stupid, then tried to pass it off as sarcasm, and then canceled a briefing (almost certainly on the advice of his aides and other members of the Republican Party who rightly recognized the damaging nature of the misstep) before holding the briefing in a different location where he controlled seating assignments and the prominence of positions given to reporters. To my understanding, that control allowed Trump to relegate CNN to the back of the seating area. I did. Then I started again. Now I'm going to stop again for awhile. Don't fret; you will have a chance to redeem yourself and get off of the "hoax" and "suspected 'prog facist'' " lists soon enough.

And yet you failed to state that point earlier. Unfortunately I have no choice but to take this step following this exchange. You're on the hoax list.

Fake logic. You said something to the effect that the NYPD doesn't erect barriers and block off a significant number of streets for gatherings not to exceed 50 people. Underlying that statement was your theory that the NYPD knew that the funeral was going the extremely large, and that deBlaz should have blamed the NYPD for permitting the gathering. I responded that those measures did not imply consent for the resulting gathering. (Unstated, but obvious in that point, are the facts that the streets may have been closed to allow for a gathering of a large number of cars, and that a large number of barricades may have been used to permit adequate spread of mourners and maintenance of social distancing.) I also asked how the measures taken established that the NYPD knew that the gathering would exceed social distancing guidelines. The simple way to prove your point would have been through reference to an operative section of the NYPD P&P manual; to the extent your theory has credence, the manual might say something to the effect of "crowd control barriers are to be used only where gatherings are to exceed 500 people in a one-block span." (For your theory to have credence, any such provision must not be overridden by alternate procedures allowed for in time of crisis or pandemic, but I digress.) Instead of supporting your point, you resorted to distortion (citations to the NY Post and an irrelevant page from the NYCLU website) and, eventually, name-calling. That, sir, is lazy and intellectually dishonest.

In my experience name-calling cedes any claim to the intellectual high ground. But perhaps such is to be expected from a suspected "prog facist" like GG.

Fake logic, bro. You suggested that the erection of barriers implied consent for the gathering in question by the NYPD. The link you provided directs the user to an NYCLU website that speaks generally to rights and responsibilities associated with public gatherings. It does not in any way suggest that the erection of barriers reflected authorization for the gathering in question.

No luck on the NYPD P&P manual, eh?

Actually the forum works however its users decide that it works. In any event, you brought up a point about the NYPD providing implied consent for the Williamsburg gathering in question. When asked to "defend" your "point," you responded with a link to a NY Post article that is not responsive to the issue. That leaves us in a couple of bad places. First, it could be that you're "lazy" and "intellectually dishonest." I'm working hard to give you a pass on that one. Second, based on insinuations in your prior comments, it also could be that you're a closeted version of the "prog facists" of whom you complain. Getting a pass on the latter point is going to be a little dicier for you. It pains me to say it, but I think there's no other option than to put you on the "suspect 'prog facist' " list. You are a lazy daisy today, GG. Still no link to the NYPD P&P manual. Could have been that you were talking out of your rear end before? EDIT: This is from that Rob guy. Looks like you might fit within his definition of "prog facist." Sad! "They're a cult like group that seeks to forcibly impose their will on others for the purpose of curing social ills they believe are rampant in society despite a dearth of supporting evidence, and tend to rely upon sanctimonious indignation, emotional pleas, and misrepresentation in lieu of facts and reason" (emphasis added).

Yet another clue in the mystery of why deBlasio was (rightfully) furious with the gathering.

Tickety tockety goes the clockety. You linked to a NY Post story. That's not the NYPD P&P manual. And the Post story does not support your implied consent theory. Be better. I know you can. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your laziness and intellectual dishonesty here is aberrative.

Stay on topic. Where's the link to the relevant part of the NYPD policy and procedure guidelines? Don't get lazy on me. You have time to respond to others, so surely there is time to defend your assertion that the erection of barriers over a five-block span provided implied consent for the Williamsburg gathering in question.

Also, I think you meant "too lazy." Just trying to be intellectually honest.

Link?

Who are the "prog facists?" And what makes those people "lazy and intellectually dishonest?" Frankly, the bias in your scolding yesterday reflects an intellectual dishonesty on your part. Keep it up and I may have to put you on the newly-created intellectually dishonest list. FYI - I checked with someone who has a handy copy of Strunk & White. It looks like the proper construction in your prior comment was "reserved for," not "reserved to." A little self-flagellation on your end may been order. Still misleading. The placement of barriers over "5 city blocks" does not mean that the NYPD sanctioned a gathering in excess of existing distancing guidelines and rules. More intellectual dishonesty like your prior comment could get you on that list.

Misleading. That the NYPD and a community affairs organization or organizations knew of the event does not mean that those groups sanctioned the violation of social distancing rules.

Once again your scolding seems to be biased along certain divides. Perhaps it is you have a bacon bias; was it that I was scolded because I do not consume bacon, but others who partake in the delicacy have escaped your asperity?