Greta gives us advice regarding covid 19

[Agnostico]

Okay, I think you have a point there, that Greta wasn't exactly relevant to the issue, since she's just an activist signal boosting the current medical consensus on COVID. That said, you were too focused on posting ROFL emojis to actually make that clear. Given that you added it to lines like:

• Teen activist Greta Thunberg is urging the world to listen to scientists
  
• Thunberg self-isolated anyway because, she said, it was "the right thing to do."
  
• "We're talking about washing our hands and staying home
  
• People are starting to realize that we are actually depending on science and that we need to listen to scientists and experts. And I really hope that stays," she said, adding that she hopes it will apply to other crises "such as the climate crisis and the environmental crisis."
  
  

And not pointing out the absurdity of CNN treating a climate change activists as an expert (an impression that even that CNN article you linked to points out is a strawman,)  it's hard to come away with a different impression. And no, adding the emoji to "Appearing on a CNN Town Hall" does not make it clear.

The issue isn't sarcasm being prohibited. It's sarcasm that's so poorly done that it's not even recognisable as such. If, say, we were talking about a known crackpot spreading bullshit theories about COVID (or a misinformed celebrity doing the same), and people in positions of power are latching onto it like, well, this:
Then it would be valid. Putting "medical expert" might help things. Meanwhile, you called it "medical expert gives alternative opinion on COVID." Thunberg is not a medical expert, a position that even Greta Thunberg AND the CNN article you linked to both acknowledge. Plus, her opinion isn't really all that alternative, since it, as I have stated, is just signal-boosting the experts who actually know what they're talking about, therefore, the thread title is irrelevant. If anything, here's an article that would be a proper use of such a sarcastic title.

Fair enough... Point taken

---

Nothing is revealed .Your definition and my definition of a while ago are very different apparently. And it was relevant as it was theme with BrianS and Rye point you were denigrating Greta for not being a expert , And i was pointing out the hypocrisy of you not being an expert but spewing opinions that were very wrong . Now you have clarified your objection with more baseless twaddle .But you can't say it wasn't on topic. Nor do i have to directly respond to do so

Wrong

And a bunch of  biased opinions with no basis, And i don't need to address you directly  to be on topic.
Old by your standards and it's only a sign i remember something you did or wrote from my perspective a brief  time ago 

No

Nope it shows i remember something you wrote that sounded incredibly hypocritical and from my perspective was a brief time ago. So again nice try .
Nope it shows i remember something you wrote that sounded incredibly hypocritical at the time and from my perspective was a brief time ago

Delusion

Feelings you have asserted by some unknown means and measured by some unknown metric.
Frankly it really getting to point were nothing to respond to here accept your random opinions based on  ........???????
Yes there is as explained above 

False

Old by your standards and it's only a sign i remember something you did or wrote from my perspective a brief  time ago . Seriously talk about beating on a single point , And one that doesn't even come close to establishing what you trying to accuse me of

Negative

Yup and you used him as an authority which makes you accountable for using it and what it says . Quote or no quote
Except i didn't lie. You choose to cite that quote as a valid opinion and as a valid authority  . Thus it becomes your opinion and you can be criticized for it .So i was not lying .
No i listen to expert consensus rather then fucking shills and quacks as i pointed out later in that very thread  . That's not selective that's reasonable.

Fantasy

Because Right Wing news sources are fucking dishonest propaganda rags . There is no two sides between bullshit and not bullshit . I know that upsets you that i don't buy the centrists nonesense of all sides are equally valid because they are not .And i read more Right Wing bullshit to come to that conclusion then you will ever know

Incorrect

Massive distortion.And hilariously wrong  But i'm not treading over that corpse again. Right your friend who is a psychiatrist .........I totally believe you ............Yup totally
Yes i'm sure he was. In you head were you invented him 
Do you often have vivid hallucinations of psychiatrists?

Mistaken

No that would be the person who wrote this "evaluation " Because it's only explanation for it . Your imaginary friend needs to go back to imaginary university
Yes it was . It's not everyday someone makes a total fool of themselves for my amusement

Imagination