I personally don't accept random Twitter posts from humans with zero association to be a credible source - since any of the billions of humans on social media can make the claim with impunity.  

I believe I said, perhaps the initial reports were wrong, but I will wait a little longer to find out what the truth is. Say what you want about Twitter but, it is more right than wrong plenty of times, so let’s slow down on the “ I don’t accept random Twitter post”. Every hectic event is followed by a period of reporting that turns out to be corrected later.

I believe I said, perhaps the initial reports were wrong, but I will wait a little longer to find out what the truth is. Say what you want about Twitter but, it is more right than wrong plenty of times, so let’s slow down on the “ I don’t accept random Twitter post”. Every hectic event is followed by a period of reporting that turns out to be corrected later.


 Fair enough.  I believe I said with zero association.  It's not like I just read a few articles and decided, I had thousands of posts read, traced and verified.  I had two teams and AI read every single post we could find, over 3000, from every known family member going back to 2009.  I personally read through her conservator paperwork filed by multiple family members and all of her responses.  Not one mention of trans activity of any kind.  

 We looked through every criminal report we could find, not one mention of trans.  A schizophrenic using a male alias is not by my assessment a declaration of being trans.  The shooter has always claimed to be female and so has every official record and family posting that we could find.

 The claim that this shooter is trans came from a human that had zero contact with the shooter and has claimed multiple shooters in multiple crimes are trans.

 If I had Twitter posting from a connected source like family, friends, victims, a clinic etc. that had any indication of trans claims, then sure Twitter would be a reliable source.

 Some random human with zero connection = not a reliable source.

 Why would you accept a Twitter post from a human that never knew the shooter in any way as a reliable source?  

Eegore wrote on 02/15/24 at 08:51:51:


Kinna like all the reporters, 'reporting', on the recent Kansas shooting ?

Best I can read about, 3 people in custody.

WOW, what if, they were ILEA-GELS ???


LOLOLOOOLOOLOL

Kinna like all the reporters, 'reporting', on the recent Kansas shooting ?


 Only if the reporters are taking statements from humans that were never there claiming the information is from witnesses that have first hand accurate information.  

 Reporters by definition report, but do not require personal attendance of events in order to do so.  They should take witness statements from people that were witness, instead of witness statements from humans that were never there but instead claiming they have accurate information when they could not possibly have any at all.

95% of people guessed correctly what had happened at the parade immediately. Was there a chance it was something other than it was? Sure, there was a chance. Small but a chance.

 Ok great.  Those, to me, are guesses, not credible sources.  

 If a man in Florida claimed on Twitter that the 3 shooters were trans, would that be a reliable source?  Or would that be a random guy in FL making a guess? (in this case a "guess' he makes all the time btw)

 When I say I do not use random statements on Twitter as a credible source, it is because anyone can make guesses online.  Guesses aren't credible sources, I won't go around thinking a human is probably trans because one guy in another State said so and "the media" repeated it.  He's not a credible source.  

 People that "live there" are more credible because they are connected to the event.

Eegore wrote on 02/15/24 at 10:45:42:


Whatever but 95% of the people knew exactly what happened. Pretty credible guessing. I think I’ve read that, and who wants to be a millionaire, polling the audience was the most accurate of the three helps.

Whatever but 95% of the people knew exactly what happened. Pretty credible guessing. I think I’ve read that, and who wants to be a millionaire, polling the audience was the most accurate of the three helps.

 I'd agree here, with the exception of calling guessing "credible" when the guess comes from a human with absolutely no knowledge of the event, and always guesses the same way.  That's called bias, not educated guessing.

 You bring up a good point so I brought in another company to assist with researching Twitter and Facebook posts.  A preliminary evaluation on Twitter posts specific to gender reference regarding the Lakewood shooter trends towards 92.432% believing the shooter is not trans.  Most people would guess a human female with a child shooting in a church is not a trans human.  That's what the data I have says anyway.  Yours may be different, I will look at it if you can provide reference.

 A third branch that specializes in website comments sections has similar but not verified results.  They have a 94% "not trans" assessment at this time.

 Would the Lakewood shooter be an exception to the guessing method?  Or is this a case where the guessing is wrong and the one guy who never knew the shooter, that claimed she was trans, is more correct than the larger majority?

 This one post can be tracked forward and the amplification, can literally be seen.  Websites simply copied, didn't "guess" just copied the trans claim and of course social media spread it because all you have to do is hit one button to do it.

 So, if most humans are guessing the Lakewood shooter is not trans, research shows she is not trans, her family, friends, criminal and medical records show she is not trans, but one guy in Florida says she is - should we go with that one guy because websites, politicians and followers copied his post?  If so, why?  He's in the minority by far.
 

MnSpring wrote on 02/16/24 at 06:21:57:

Does Mn know he's arguing my point?
I don't think so