TheReader @TheFileReader

Joined January 2023

Tweets

18
Followers

3
Following

321
Likes

39

TheReader @TheFileReader

3 years ago

@MIGO_Offiziell @KaiserCut @__SoP__ Wo sind eigentlich die Daten hierfür? Ist das nicht sogar die Darstellung ,die das Gegenteil zeigt?

1 0 0 39 0

View Details

FOCUS online @focusonline

3 years ago

„Das Ende von Deutschland“: US-Medien prophezeien uns eine düstere Zukunft focus.de/256293082?poc=…

651 436 2K 299K 144

View Details

Physics In History @PhysInHistory

3 years ago

Dr. Carl Sagan explains global warming in simple words in this 1985 video:

249 4K 15K 2.1M 4K

View Details

TheReader @TheFileReader

3 years ago

@stagerbn Und da bin ich bei meiner Ursprungsfrage. Wie wird es ausgesprochen? eX Und das Verfassen der Nachrichten? eXen? Und nicht mehr twittern?

0 0 0 14 0

View Details

@stagerbn Das ist keine Antwort. Konzernname und Brandlogo = 2 paar Schuhe. Facebook gehört zu Meta. Google zu Alphabet. PizzaHut zu Yum! Brands Wie heisst das Ding hier nun? eX ist wirklich kein glücklicher Name.

1 0 0 25 0

View Details

TheReader @TheFileReader

3 years ago

@AtomsksSanakan @Arfness @AlastairMcA30 You are so far the worst thing I could experience here. Stupid personal accusations, then pointing to an answer that was not available at the time of my question & your first reproach. Also, this does not change the fact that the person who devalues something must have the answer

2 0 0 42 0

View Details

TheReader @TheFileReader

3 years ago

@AlastairMcA30 @AtomsksSanakan I was really on your side and open to objective opinions and positions. Now I see that from your side only contentless insinuations and personal attacks. Also, it makes no sense that the reasonable argumentation comes later from another account. Anything but serious. Too bad!

2 0 0 30 0

View Details

TheReader @TheFileReader

3 years ago

@AtomsksSanakan @AlastairMcA30 You're not making an actual argument based on the study. Instead, you're using circular reasoning: "It's terrible because it was deleted because it's terrible." But what are the objective reasons? If it is so terrible, you can quote the relevant parts from the study.

3 0 1 142 0

View Details

TheReader @TheFileReader

3 years ago

@AtomsksSanakan @AlastairMcA30 You're going around in circles. Why did Lancet delete the study? Is the criticism against Lancet unjustified? And again. I'm not in a position to judge. But the reasons must be given by those who criticize and evaluate something. It should be easy to give an objective reason.

4 0 0 87 0

View Details

TheReader @TheFileReader

3 years ago

@AlastairMcA30 Should you have not really checked the study yourself, you cannot afford to say it is terrible. So you should know easily the answer in detail. I cannot judge it, would simply like to know on what basis this statement was made. The reaction to a legitimate request amazes me.

7 0 0 416 0

View Details

TheReader @TheFileReader

3 years ago

@AtomsksSanakan @AlastairMcA30 A troll is someone who rants about other topics sttat answer the core question. I have not read the study and I would honestly be interested to know why this study is so terrible. I think this is a valid question.

2 0 0 101 0

View Details

TheReader @TheFileReader

3 years ago

@tomdabassman @AndreasSchm1 @FrankfurtZack Doch das funktioniert wirklich. Man muss nur lang genug bauen, immer schön auf einem Breitengrad bleiben...