You are getting very tedious.
You would make a horrible safety officer. Your insistence that there is something wrong with pointing out the victim’s role in an accident makes no sense whatsoever. I guess you’re part of the culture that believes that no matter what happens, the person who caused it is not responsible.
You can’t even explain *why* my word choice is supposedly poor, choosing instead to start quoting from my previous posts over and over. What is the purpose of that? Are you trying to illustrate some contradiction that exists only in your own mind? I’ve explained the exact same thing every time, but explained it in different ways so as to try to break through your wall of incomprehension. It has become clear that your inability to understand is based purely on emotion, not on any logic. You apparently want to believe that the nurses who got sick were doing absolutely everything correctly, but this supernatural entity got them anyway, and you just don’t want to see anything contradict that belief.
If you know that conditions A, B, and C have to be met in order to prevent X, and X happens, it is a logical conclusion that one or more of those conditions were not met. You don’t have to know why or how they were not met in order to make that conclusion. The investigation will determine the why and how.
If you can’t tell me exactly *why* you think I am wrong, then I have to conclude that you do not, in fact, think I’m wrong.
Hint: Quoting me explaining the same thing over and over in different ways does NOT tell me how I am supposedly wrong.
You are getting very tedious.
**************************************************
LOL. Sorry you think so, but are you reading your responses that I have quoted? If you don’t like tedium, quit responding.
I have never said that the nurses actions should not be investigated, but have indicated that other contributing factors should also be considered.
So once again you accuse and guess incorrectly. Tsk Tsk Very unscientific. Sort of emotional.LOL
*******************************************************
Already answered that several times. Go back and reread my other posts-wouldn’t want to overload you with yet more of my tedium.
If you know that conditions A, B, and C have to be met in order to prevent X, and X happens, it is a logical conclusion that one or more of those conditions were not met. You don’t have to know why or how they were not met in order to make that conclusion. The investigation will determine the why and how.
**********************************************************
The investigation will determine the why and how-agreed. Do you have a link to the investigation and evidence? Did the investigation reveal that the “nurses infected themselves” as you asserted? If so, how did they do it?
If you can’t tell me exactly *why* you think I am wrong, then I have to conclude that you do not, in fact, think I’m wrong.
Hint: Quoting me explaining the same thing over and over in different ways does NOT tell me how I am supposedly wrong.
********************************************************
I have tried to explain why “two nurses infected themselves” was a poor choice of words, and I am sorry that you don’t understand it, but I am beginning to wonder whether you would admit it even if you did. It seems obvious to me even without an explanation.
I have quoted you, to point out the contradictions in your posts, as well as to demonstrate the assumptions and inaccuracies in your responses.
You claim to post only scientific information based on evidence, but once again you fill your post with emotion, accusations, assumptions, and inaccuracies.
Congratulations on yet another unscientific post undermining your credibility.LOL