I am having difficulty understanding what kind of 'honeypot' you are trying to create on your Twitter profile. I'm sure the readers would appreciate if you would explain what you mean here.
It would also be interesting to understand why you posted about VEHMT, since even if it is a strange 'in joke' that only your personal friends understand, it's probably not the best signal to be presenting the world of investors who are looking for a Hive 'team' to assess before investing and are left mostly only with top 20 witnesses. There's a reason why most top 20 witnesses don't post or say much and I presume it is partially because they don't want to generate negative press for themselves or Hive.
I'm not sure if you are referring to me, Kenny or both of us as 'pool milking nutcases' - but since it's pretty clear that neither of us posts excessively or breaks any rules - with many accounts posting as much or more than we do, regularly getting paid way more than we ever have done, but yet not ever getting downvoted - your claim seems somewhat unfounded. 'Nutcases' is subjective and I do prefer to try to stick to what can be evidenced when it comes to scientific conversations or health topics that science tries to weigh in on (especially where public policy is being set and lives affected).
Ad hominem attack has never been part of the scientific method.
I have had virtually all my posts zeroed by Curangel Since October 2020 and the only comment I have received is 'You don't know shit about science' (from yourself). Since I have directly asked for you guys to provide some comments on what exactly about the scientific nature of my posts it is that you reject, yet you have not even attempted to do so - it sure looks to most people like you don't have any substance to backup your claim and are acting based on something other than what you project through your surface level words.
I specifically said that if you guys can show me where I have significantly been wrong on COVID or even dangerous, then I will never post on COVID again - yet you didn't even try to and instead waste all your downvote credit on something that you could end simply by proving you are right with real world insights.
This suggests a lack of integrity and honesty on your part. The maths tells a story and the scientific method is intended to provide a way of addressing the debate without the need for any malicious actions or anti-social behaviours (including attempts to suppress the spread of information). It is quite sad to be accused of being unscientific when my actions are massively closer to the honourable scientific process than Curangel's has been.
Let me open with acknowledging that during our last interaction, I was not kind to you. I took out frustrations on you and directly charged you with enabling deaths and the general ongoing state of the world. I still view vaccine/COVID skepticism with a lot of frustration, and I still believe that a lot of people have died due to the misinformation that is available.
But attacks and accusations are not constructive discourse. I told you that you should be ashamed of yourself, which I believed at the time, however, looking back on that day it is I who is ashamed, for giving in to what felt good, instead of what is constructive. I hope that you share my desire to set this aside.
That said, I need to address this passage:
I take issue with a couple of items here. First of all, VHEMT's goals and antinatalism in general are legitimate and harmless personal views to espouse. If anyone declines to invest in Hive because of one witness's personal views on having children, my stake doesn't want their money and I hope yours doesn't either.
What's more, and this is key: witnesses are not the "Hive team." To the extent that any "Hive team" exists, any such entity may have some significant overlap with the set of 20 witnesses, but the truth is that we are all the "Hive team." Witnesses can be voted out. The Hive community abandoned one "official team" already who did not align with our goals. They were called "Steemit Inc.," under the leadership of Justin Sun. Given a similar situation, we would succeed in doing it again.
Personally I find this sad. On a platform where we claim to value, above all, freedom of expression and a rejection of censorship (though none of us quite seem to agree what censorship is), are you celebrating self-censorship? Sure, market forces may encourage witnesses to stay silent, but I'm not going to celebrate it. The fact that we can all have different ideas is, most of the time, a beautiful thing. I generally want to see more self-expression from our public figures, not less. Tight-lipped, double-speaking politicians are boring.
💩
Downvoted to give the comment of @jacobtothe more visibility than your annoying wall of text full of half-truths. I don't look at your posts, I don't reply your comments, I don't even think about you until you try to talk to me again. Stop stalking me.