Corona virus, China major city lockdowns, etc.

[FunkyDexter]

Maybe give us a little heads up that your having some fun.

Now here I disagree. I used to occasionally post on BoardGameGeek and the political sub forum used to have rule where you used green text if you were being sarcastic. Honestly, it just lead to really boring and overly earnest discussion. I kinda like that can stick our tongues on our cheeks without having to telegraph it and, if we get the occasional miss-understanding as a result, it's easily cleared up after the event.

To me, neither the cut version which was commented on the OAN-site,
nor the original, longer video (without any "biased interpretation by OAN"),
was fullfilling any criteria which made me think, that the whole thing was a "plandemic"

Then you clearly didn't actually bother to watch the OAN article. I agree with you about the Milken Institute talk. It's a scientific discussion laying out how pandemics are inevitable, that sooner or later we'd experience one on the current scale and, for that reason, we should be developing a general purpose influenza vaccine (because they thought an influenza variant would be most likely) - it's an even handed scientific article.

OAN, on the other hand, spun it such that the opening line of was "Newly uncovered video shows Anthony Fauci and other HHA officials discussing how a new virus from China could be used to enforce universal vaccination back in October 2019". This is dripping with implication of a "plandemic" and is exactly demonstrative of how miss-representative OAN is. It carries on in kind with constant insinuation. You also might notice the subtlety that the never refer to "Doctor Fauci", only "Anthony Fauci", because heaven forbid they acknowledge that he's, you know, an medical doctor and therefore a source actually worthy of your attention. Those of us who are familiar with OAN knew exactly what we were dealing with and were right to dismiss it.

But here's the thing, we did check the sources. We already knew what OAN is. I personally checked Dr David Martin and the story behind the Vor Der Leyens. So your objection is not that we're dismissing source that we know or have verified to be unreliable. Your objection is that we're not blindly accepting them