And I Hope Neil Young will remember....

If you define "old" strictly by a number - then I guess you might be short of wiggle-room. I'm 79. But I think old/middle/young is much more complex - it's more than half psychological vs. physical in my view. And good news in one of those areas helps the other. There are things you can do to help yourself be healthy - and things that will help your mind be less troubled and keep you more inclined to enjoy your pursuits. And if either area presents problems, we have better professional help than we used to have, to help set things right, or at least improve them, if at all possible.

I think "old" is when - finally, there are debilitating issues that cause mental or physical decline - and they can't be held at bay or fixed to any satisfactory degree. People are then "old" and often, their greatest need is to be comforted. Let's do that, whenever we get the chance.

 

Look here now, In another post Bill Huffman cited, and posted a link to an Article from Rolling Stone Magazine to support his remarks re: Joe Rogan. Upon review, I would not have cited this article. It's credibility is under question. Before we go there, this is in no way an attack on Mr. Huffman.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10418589/amp/Most-270-signed-anti-Joe-Rogan-letter-demanding-Spotify-action-not-actually-doctors.html&ved=2ahUKEwj4jY2Snuj1AhVDSTABHTTjBAYQFnoECDMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3U_IWU5IVfRS5gOcZEWMLE

 

To late to edit: Looks like Rich Douglas posted the Rolling Stone article. Apologies for erroneously stating it was Mr. Huffman. Again this retort is not intended as an attack upon anyone.

 

Attacking the source without substance is weak. Are you saying the article was false? What does it mean that "it's credibility is under question"?

 

I attached a link to an article from the UK Daily Mail.

 

In establishing your bona fides to attack me you state, correctly, you have been on and off this board since its inception. I have only been around since 2000 when I enrolled with American Military University I moved with most of us when we exiled to Gus's board. You have been at the center of contraversy for as long as I can remember. This board even retains the MIGs Forum as a reminder. I experience a miracle every single day. As I welcomed myself back to this board, I remembered, in hopes of being remembered as a past participant you launching a service to aid others enrol at a foreign university. I was incorrect in thinking it was UNISA. I think now it was CLMS at University of Leicester? Was it? Am I simply making this up in my brain damaged head? I remember asking the question - Why in this 'the earth is Flat' world would a foreign university need a USA representative. I remember another discussion we had- Whether it was appropriate for a retired military officer to call President Bush vulgar names.
Back to the bottom line- Rich Douglas making himself the center of contraversy has not a single thing to do with me being rude, or even me not being the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

Daily Mail is well-known as a British tabloid rag. It does sometimes publish good information, but most of what's on the site is sensationalist garbage with little basis in fact. On the other hand, if you read past the title on that Daily Mail article, you'll see that it clarifies "270 doctors and experts". One doesn't need to be a doctor to know that pieces of garbage are garbage. Like, I don't need a doctorate in physics to understand that flat earthers are full of boloney.

 

MediaBiasFactCheck.com rates Daily mail as "Low" accuracy. This is well below Fox News and Newsmax down in the depths of accuracy with OAN (One America News)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

 

Now now who is attacking cited sources?

How is Rolling a Stone magically the arbiter of facts?
I am not even posting a link this time. Use your own search engine if you don't know the story. Rolling Stone Magazine was forced to retract its story Rape on Campus.' Also cost the magazine$$$$$$ in lawsuits . I just wouldn't cite a thing from Rolling Stone if I were trying to make a point. What is the point of bashing news sources not previously mentioned?

 

You seem to be arguing that Ivermectin is a reasonable treatment for Covid19 and questioning the efficacy of covid19 vaccines. At least that is what the silly Daily Mail article summary seems to mean? (As Rachel said Daily Mail is a Low accuracy source.) Here's some info about Ivermectin use as a treatment for covid19. (Note: Ivermectin is good stuff if you're treating parasites in horses. Not so good for treating viruses in humans. Although there is also some limited use approved for humans FOR PARASITES. Note that parasites are little critters, millions of times larger than viruses. Viruses are not critters they can't eat, digest, expel waste, or reproduce on their own.)

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

Here's some reliable information about the vaccines.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fvaccines%2Fkeythingstoknow.html

 

Get your fact straight. Rolling Stone has an accuracy rating of HIGH!

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rolling-stone/

You citing Daily Mail which has an accuracy rating of LOW and then saying what you said in this last post seems very hypocritical and just plain wrong.

For your reference from Mediabiasfactcheck



You're referencing Daily Mail with a Low accuracy trying to attack Rolling Stone that has a HIGH accuracy. Then throwing around emotional nonsense like "magically arbiter of fact".

 

Do you deny the fact - Rolling Stone Magazine published the article 'Rape on Campus?' Do you deny people were hurt by the article? Do you deny allegations made in the article. We're false? Do you deny the retracted article cost the magazine dearly? I, by basis of common sense, give Rolling Stone Magazine a credit rating of ZERO.

 

Seems irrelevant to this thread.

Are you defending the use of Ivermectin as a treatment for covid19 in humans? Are you questioning the efficacy or safety of covid19 vaccines? If so then please respond to my post on those matters.

If not then please state what it is that you would like to discuss. If it is Rape then I suggest a new thread.

 

I have no argument at all in the scientific Controversy. My point from the beginning is that I celebrate Spotify's decision to retain Joe Rogan. You stated Mediabiasfactcheck gives Rolling Stone Magazine a HIGH Credibility rating. I retort - Given the abominable behavior of Rolling Stone Magazine in publishing the 'Rape on Campus' article, I give the magazine a credibility rating of ZERO. Do you deny the publishing of the 'Rape on Campus' article was abominable?

 

I never read that article. But, I will state that it's pretty much a given that no source will ever be 100% accurate no matter how much they try. There can be miscommunications. Someone might be rushing a deadline and cut corners, forgetting to fact check. Not that these are okay, but it happens. All you can do is go for the sources that try to attain the highest accuracy.

If we gave a 0 to every entity that ever published a single bad article, we'd have no news left. Some might argue that'd be a good thing...

 

I guess I'll retire now and go get my PhD in microbiology so I can comment on something spewed out by a comedian with a podcast. See you!

 

Wishing you peace. TTFN