News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering e... by pmachinery on Monday August 10, 2020 @04:30AM (#24106885)
I'm not mixing anything up, and you aren't fooling anyone any more.

You are using that "serious caveat" because it's the go to trope for anti-maskers seeking to pollute absolutely every fucking discussion on this subject.

I asked you to explain why you're posting anti-masker arguments if you are, as you claim, "all for masks" and all you've done is repeat the same anti-mask bullshit.

Next time I won't bother assuming possible good faith on the part of anyone spouting textbook anti-masker noise.

Re:Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering e... by Kiro on Monday August 10, 2020 @06:00AM (#24107441)
You know, it's possible to be for masks and still acknowledge it's not the perfect solution. You are the one pushing me into a corner of "either you're with us or against us".

The ECDC guidelines recommend face coverings but still recognise the caveats, but in your eyes they are heretics and anti-maskers for even mentioning it. You appear like a religious fanatic. Very sad to see and it completely kills any serious discussion about the topic.

Re:Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering e... by pmachinery on Monday August 10, 2020 @07:30AM (#24108088)
The ECDC is not here, hammering on the same anti-mask arguments over and over again in every post, ignoring whatever anyone else says that counters it, you are.
Re:Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering e... by Kiro on Monday August 10, 2020 @08:46AM (#24108650)
Yeah, what a fool I am for discussing the topic at hand. You are the one polluting this thread with ad hominem attacks and overly defensive windmill fighting against imaginary anti-maskers. Again, read the thread before you decide to jump into a conversation next time.
Re:Low-cost measurement of facemask efficacy for filtering e... by pmachinery on Monday August 10, 2020 @11:05AM (#24110015)
It's not up to you who jumps into a thread or why or when, and when you jumped in it was not to discuss the topic, but to spout anti-mask noise that wearing a mask "may be a net negative", under the guise of 'Hey, I'm just innocently saying what "Scandinavian countries" are saying'.

When you were informed that Scandinavian countries are not taking an anti-mask stance, instead of holding your hands up that your argument was based on something false, you simply carried on making the same anti-mask point by fixating on something else (three sentences from a six page PDF) instead.

Like I said, you are not fooling anyone.