An obstetrician's opinion

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Which tends to give credence to the probability that some translation issues exist, like maybe using Google Translate or something.
It's not at all unusual for you to use word that is "close", but doesn't say what you appear to be trying to say.

I either made a typo [something we all do] OR the predictive text on my tablet did not recognise censuring and changed it to censoring.

I generally employ the word I intend to use.

[Cow Poke]

I cited examples of behaviours that are deemed to be illustrations of trolling [including making reference to comments made by yourself previously on this thread suggesting I was inebriated and stupid] and posited that you might be deliberately engaging in such behaviours.

You replied in the affirmative.

Only a moron would take "to an extent" to be a total affirmative.

Well, either a moron or a pathological liar.

[Cow Poke]

Debate by proxy.

Happens when a poster (you) post up an article to be their proxy opinion in a thread. They handle challenges by pointing towards the article, the article put forth stands in for their actual opinion and arguments. The article they post is taken by them as gospel, and challenges to the poster are simply re-directed by the poster to the article.

That's different than other uses of articles.

You could put forth an article to spark a discussion about the topic of the article, and whether the article's opinion is worthwhile. But, the largest difference is that the article ISN'T the argument. It could be an opposing standpoint to your own, it could be one that agrees with you, but it is not your argument. Of course, the article could also be used as supporting evidence for your argument. For example, providing specific facts or figures, documenting incidents. Again though, the article doesn't stand in for your place in the argument.

You do debate by proxy.

bingo

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Really? Can you back up that claim?

I recommend you look through the threat titles on any of the secular boards here or indeed some of the boards to which you and I are not permitted to post.

Individuals post threads on topics of interest to them.

[Cow Poke]

I recommend you look through the threat titles on any of the secular boards here or indeed some of the boards to which you and I are not permitted to post.

Individuals post threads on topics of interest to them.

You have this bad habit of making a claim, then shifting the burden on others to back up your claim.

That's behavior. Seriously, either put up or shut up.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Only a moron would take "to an extent" to be a total affirmative.

Well, either a moron or a pathological liar.

Actually you wrote "To a degree" but perhaps you should not have written the word "Yes" after that phrase and included a "smug" emoticon. The "Yes" is affirmation you were intentionally employing behaviours that are generally considered to be examples of trolling.

[Cow Poke]

I either made a typo [something we all do]

I seriously doubt a typo would produce an alternate word correctly spelled.

OR the predictive text on my tablet did not recognise censuring and changed it to censoring.

That's possible.

I generally employ the word I intend to use.

In either case, the fact that we don't buy everything she says doesn't mean anybody is censoring OR censuring her.
Her use of "mercenary", among other things, indicates her bias.
The fact that you posted her article indicates your bias, and that she, apparently, confirmed your bias.

That's how "confirmation bias" works.

[Cow Poke]

Actually you wrote "To a degree"

Correct. Unlike you, I fess up to my biases and actions.

but perhaps you should not have written the word "Yes" after that phrase and included a "smug" emoticon. The "Yes" is affirmation you were intentionally employing behaviours that are generally considered to be examples of trolling.

For the purposes of mocking your continuous ing, yes.

I'm done with this little ing exercise of yours -- the readers will come to their own conclusions.

[CivilDiscourse]

I recommend you look through the threat titles on any of the secular boards here or indeed some of the boards to which you and I are not permitted to post.

Individuals post threads on topics of interest to them.

I asked you to back up your claim. That's not my claim, not my job.

[Cow Poke]

I asked you to back up your claim. That's not my claim, not my job.

In the past, she just doubles down. When pressed, she might actually give a post number for you to read "that post and following".

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You have this bad habit of making a claim, then shifting the burden on others to back up your claim.

That's behavior. Seriously, either put up or shut up.

Oh well here we are then - from a brief search on this website

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...than-a-vaccine

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...l-incompetence

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...-in-california

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...east-of-rev-17

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...oam-ii-s-reign

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...n-origin-story

Those threads have been posted by individuals who consider the topic to be of interest to them, and for some support their own opinions.

[Cow Poke]

Oh well here we are then - from a brief search on this website

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...than-a-vaccine

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...l-incompetence

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...-in-california

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...east-of-rev-17

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...oam-ii-s-reign

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...n-origin-story

Those threads have been posted by individuals who consider the topic to be of interest to them, and for some support their own opinions.

WOW, people start threads of interest to them!

But do they then deflect any criticism by saying dumb stuff like "don't ask me - that's what the author says!"

(and for the pedantically inclined, no, those are not your exact words, but they reflect your modus operandi)

[Cow Poke]

I am relying on what Dr Karkowsky wrote about some of the cases she has dealt with.

Do you believe she is totally void of bias?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

In either case, the fact that we don't buy everything she says doesn't mean anybody is censoring OR censuring her.

How would you describe these comments about Dr Karkowsky?

"She favors the slaughter of the innocents. That's REALLY bad moral character."

"I don't condemn her - her own choices condemn her."

You then compared her to a serial killer

"The "overall character" of a serial killer, for example, gets kinda lost in their particular or specific moral depravity."

I would contend those remarks actually go beyond censure [strong expression of disapproval] to denunciation [comparing her to a criminal]. You also employ the word "condemn" which suggests you have already found her guilty.

Her use of "mercenary", among other things, indicates her bias.

Encouraging people to bring civil actions in the hope of financial remuneration is a dangerous path to go down. Human nature being what it is such an incentive is bound to attract those with a mercenary [acting merely for financial reward] attitude. Such people are generally known as mercenaries.

[Cow Poke]

How would you describe these comments about Dr Karkowsky?

"She favors the slaughter of the innocents. That's REALLY bad moral character."

"I don't condemn her - her own choices condemn her."

You then compared her to a serial killer

"The "overall character" of a serial killer, for example, gets kinda lost in their particular or specific moral depravity."

Those are clearly my own opinions, but she - "the good Doctor" - isn't impacted by that at all. She's still free to spew forth her own weaponized language.

I would contend those remarks actually go beyond censure [strong expression of disapproval] to denunciation [comparing her to a criminal]. You also employ the word "condemn" which suggests you have already found her guilty.

I think she's obviously a very biased individual, with whom I very much disagree.
She's still free to express her opinion, even the nutty comparison to "mercenaries", and I'm free to express my opinion that she's very biased.

Encouraging people to bring civil actions in the hope of financial remuneration is a dangerous path to go down.

Welcome to politics. The fact is that, particularly in Texas, the liberals absolutely ignore the rule of law.
I had a meeting with the Attorney General of Texas last night, and he listed a number of laws the liberals just totally ignore because of their own agenda.

Human nature being what it is such an incentive is bound to attract those with a mercenary [acting merely for financial reward] attitude. Such people are generally known as mercenaries.

She (and obviously you, as well) don't understand the law at all.