150 rockets fired at Israel after IDF assassinates Gaza terror leader

[ChristineM]

My point two was to ask you whether you had looked at the bona fides of the leaders of each group. Compare Hillel Neuer's law degree and experience in actual world court settings with Dave Van Zandt's experience and background. He has none. You want to ignore this and instead rely on the self proclaimed expert instead of the one who has actual experience and the endorsement of people like the secretary general of the UN. Then you want to muddy the water by referencing the umbrella organization even though the people in that organization are not the actual heads of UN Watch.

You are confused, wrong and pitiful. Fess up and see that UN Watch's credibility has been established and affirmed time and time again and the website you referenced is a volunteer LLC run by someone with an undergraduate degree in communications. It is criticized by the CJR, it called Xinhua least biased and it fails when its methodology is parsed. But hey, hitch your horse to a guy who works in health care in North Carolina instead of to an organization with a proven track record and the approbation of international leaders. Whatever works for you.

So degrees make you honest. Damn i do wish they had a ROFLMAO frube button on here.

So what does Wikipedia say about Dave Van Zandt's site?

Media Bias/Fact Check is a web site that rates factual accuracy and political bias in news media. The site classifies media sources on a political bias spectrum, as well as on the accuracy of their factual reporting. The site is run by founder and editor Dave Van Zandt​

I have provided a link to show UN watch bias. And what do you do? Throw degrees at me.
Get over yourself.

 

[rosends]

So degrees make you honest. Damn i do wish they had a ROFLMAO frube button on here.

So what does Wikipedia say about Dave Van Zandt's site?

Media Bias/Fact Check is a web site that rates factual accuracy and political bias in news media. The site classifies media sources on a political bias spectrum, as well as on the accuracy of their factual reporting. The site is run by founder and editor Dave Van Zandt​

I have provided a link to show UN watch bias. And what do you do? Throw degrees at me.
Get over yourself.

No genius, degrees show experience and training of which this guy has none by his own admission. Would you rather go to a doctor with a degree in medicine, or a guy on the internet who is a self proclaimed "armchair diagnostician"?

You sent me a site which claims that it can spot bias and I threw back sites that show that it has no actual and reputable track record for doing that, nor does its owner have any known skill in the area. Have fun getting your car inspected by a guy who is a self-proclaimed armchair mechanic. I'll trust the guy with the certificates.

 

[ChristineM]

No genius, degrees show experience and training of which this guy has none by his own admission. Would you rather go to a doctor with a degree in medicine, or a guy on the internet who is a self proclaimed "armchair diagnostician"?

You sent me a site which claims that it can spot bias and I threw back sites that show that it has no actual and reputable track record for doing that, nor does its owner have any known skill in the area. Have fun getting your car inspected by a guy who is a self-proclaimed armchair mechanic. I'll trust the guy with the certificates.

Ahh getting sarky now are you... and talking bullpoop

Dave Van Zandt also has degree(s) (at least one possibly also a higher degree) and has over 20 years experience researching media bias and its role in political influence.

Reputable organisations, including universities use its data to pinpoint and track fake news. But i dont suppose you bothered reading the wiki article on Dave Van Zandt.

 

[rosends]

Ahh getting sarky now are you... and talking bullpoop

Dave Van Zandt also has degree(s) (at least one possibly also a higher degree) and has over 20 years experience researching media bias and its role in political influence.

Reputable organisations, including universities use its data to pinpoint and track fake news. But i dont suppose you bothered reading the wiki article on Dave Van Zandt.

He has a higher degree in the sciences and an undergraduate in communications. That's what he lists. He has 20 years experience "as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence" -- I notice that you forgot to include the "armchair researcher" in your lifting of his claim to experience.

I read a wiki article also...one that cited this quote, " Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific." This goes along with the site's own statement " The methodology used by Media Bias Fact Check is our own. It is not a tested scientific method."

If you followed up on the links in that wiki article, you'd see that there are 2 universities listed. U of Michigan uses the site as part of its Iffy quotient which uses mentions on a couple of websites in cluding MBFC to help categorize URL's. It, using its sources rates Fox as OK, and yet you seemed to have a problem with Fox in post 256. So is the UMichigan system something you really want to endorse? MIT's AI system was trained by using the websites listed on MBFC, not the judgments of those sites. You really should read up more.

But I guess the proprietary, non-scientific invention of a guy who works in health sciences is good enough for you to judge the media.

So get your ratings from a non-expert who went to William Paterson who writes on his own website, about his own website, "Results may vary based on the person performing the evaluation."

 

[Lyndon]

mean while people seem to be supporting the slaughter of innocent civilians in the latest conflict.

 

[Notanumber]

A well known tactic of the right, one you are guilty of on numerous occasions

However, when the messenger is owned and run by the people committing atrosities and griping when they are censured for it. Should it not be shown for what it is?

I would rather analyse what is being said than the person that says it.

 

[ChristineM]

He has a higher degree in the sciences and an undergraduate in communications. That's what he lists. He has 20 years experience "as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence" -- I notice that you forgot to include the "armchair researcher" in your lifting of his claim to experience.

I read a wiki article also...one that cited this quote, " Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific." This goes along with the site's own statement " The methodology used by Media Bias Fact Check is our own. It is not a tested scientific method."

If you followed up on the links in that wiki article, you'd see that there are 2 universities listed. U of Michigan uses the site as part of its Iffy quotient which uses mentions on a couple of websites in cluding MBFC to help categorize URL's. It, using its sources rates Fox as OK, and yet you seemed to have a problem with Fox in post 256. So is the UMichigan system something you really want to endorse? MIT's AI system was trained by using the websites listed on MBFC, not the judgments of those sites. You really should read up more.

But I guess the proprietary, non-scientific invention of a guy who works in health sciences is good enough for you to judge the media.

So get your ratings from a non-expert who went to William Paterson who writes on his own website, about his own website, "Results may vary based on the person performing the evaluation."

Still used by universities despite your foot stomping

And are honest about their methods. Honesty, a wonderful trait.

And results will be edited if contrary or new evidence emerges, you seem to have forgotten that part?

 

[ChristineM]

I would rather analyse what is being said than the person that says it.

So why post thousands of videos of people saying things and comment that ________ (fill in blank) knows what they are saying?

 

[rosends]

Still used by universities despite your foot stomping

And are honest about their methods. Honesty, a wonderful trait.

And results will be edited if contrary or new evidence emerges, you seem to have forgotten that part?

Yes, "used by" in a way which doesn't validate your point. If a PhD uses it as toilet paper, a PhD still "uses" it. Good for you.

They are honest in admitting a lack of expertise and a subjective, non-scientific method. When your arm chair physician is honest that he performs surgery with a rusty spoon, feel free to praise his honesty.

And, sure results are edited. They change their minds. Since they start off subjective, they end up subjective. Are you saying that others don't change their minds in light of new evidence? Care to provide any justification for that intimation?

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, "used by" in a way which doesn't validate your point. If a PhD uses it as toilet paper, a PhD still "uses" it. Good for you.

They are honest in admitting a lack of expertise and a subjective, non-scientific method. When your arm chair physician is honest that he performs surgery with a rusty spoon, feel free to praise his honesty.

And, sure results are edited. They change their minds. Since they start off subjective, they end up subjective. Are you saying that others don't change their minds in light of new evidence? Care to provide any justification for that intimation?

My point was that the site was used by universities. How does being used by universities invalid that? Only in the mind of ______ (fill in yhe blank)

So honest then, like i said from the start... Thanks but there is no need for for the rather childish straw man, surgery and websites are not the same thing and you know it.

Change as required by information. You have a problem with that honesty too.

And all because your linked website was called into question with honest criticism.

 

[rosends]

My point was that the site was used by universities. How does being used by universities invalid that? Only in the mind of ______ (fill in yhe blank)

So honest then, like i said from the start... Thanks but there is no need for for the rather childish straw man, surgery and websites are not the same thing and you know it.

Change as required by information. You have a problem with that honesty too.

And all because your linked website was called into question with honest criticism.

Your point was to invoke the use by universities as a method of validating the content. If it wasn't and you just like mentioning universities then, good for you.

Surgery and websites are the same on certain levels, but this isn;t about websites (thanks for misunderstanding the analogy). This is about local expertise; training and relevant practice are important. If you remember, the issue I raised was the CV of the people who run the sites. Sorry you forgot that.

Claiming I have a problem with something when you have no proof of that is specious at best. Offensive no matter what the justification. And all this because you are hanging your hat on the word of a self-declared critic because he doesn't like a website that international experts have praised. Got it.

 

[ChristineM]

Your point was to invoke the use by universities as a method of validating the content. If it wasn't and you just like mentioning universities then, good for you.

Surgery and websites are the same on certain levels, but this isn;t about websites (thanks for misunderstanding the analogy). This is about local expertise; training and relevant practice are important. If you remember, the issue I raised was the CV of the people who run the sites. Sorry you forgot that.

Claiming I have a problem with something when you have no proof of that is specious at best. Offensive no matter what the justification. And all this because you are hanging your hat on the word of a self-declared critic because he doesn't like a website that international experts have praised. Got it.

So you make crap up to massage your ego? I am not you, you have no idea what my point was. But suppose it makes you feel better to invent scenarios that agree with you.

Say what? This is about the Media Bias/Fact Check report on UN Watch (that you used as justification for your claim). Both are websites. You can take you pet for a walk wherever you want. It does not change fact.

Specious? I am not the one griping about a website that brands your Iink as biased right wing (an subjective assesment based on evidence)

If you have nothing of any relevance to say that adds to the argument then i think we are done?

 

[Notanumber]

So why post thousands of videos of people saying things and comment that ________ (fill in blank) knows what they are saying?

Because they are educational for those willing to learn.

 

[Shad]

This is about the Media Bias/Fact Check report on UN Watch (that you used as justification for your claim). Both are websites. You can take you pet for a walk wherever you want. It does not change fact.

You used the reference to smear a source without addressing what the source said. Try again

 

[ChristineM]

You used the reference to smear a source without addressing what the source said. Try again

I used a reference to show the sources bias. It seems to really upset some people to have their sources criticised.

If you have a valid point the present it. If you are just making argument for argument sake (which seems typical of your methods) then sorry bud, i am not playing any more of your childish games

 

[ChristineM]

Because they are educational for those willing to learn.

And contradict your statement. Cool eh?

 

[Shad]

I used a reference to show the sources bias. It seems to really upset some people to have their sources criticised.

Sure.

If you have a valid point the present it.

I already made it. You didn't refuted the source's work you just threw shade.

 

[rosends]

So you make crap up to massage your ego? I am not you, you have no idea what my point was. But suppose it makes you feel better to invent scenarios that agree with you.

Say what? This is about the Media Bias/Fact Check report on UN Watch (that you used as justification for your claim). Both are websites. You can take you pet for a walk wherever you want. It does not change fact.

Specious? I am not the one griping about a website that brands your Iink as biased right wing (an subjective assesment based on evidence)

If you have nothing of any relevance to say that adds to the argument then i think we are done?

I neither make crap up, nor massage my ego. If my assumption of your point (that you were invoking to lend credence) is wrong then explain otherwise. Show how useful your point was if it WASN'T to lend credence. Go ahead -- proclaim to the world how you mentioned universities NOT to validate your position. present another useful reason to do so. I'm waiting.

And "both are websites"? So are a lot of things. This is a website. But what is being compared isn't the fact that the two are websites -- it is sad that you can't understand that. If you can't see that I made an explicit connection between the people BEHIND the website and their experience, expertise and training to present an authoritative position ON their website then you are too far gone.

No, you aren't griping. You are flailing, latching on to a website with no expertise behind it because you like how it labels something in its admittedly non-scientific, subjective way.

 

[ChristineM]

Sure.



I already made it. You didn't refuted the source's work you just threw shade.

I provided a link that identifies UN watch as right wing biased. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[ChristineM]

I neither make crap up, nor massage my ego. If my assumption of your point (that you were invoking to lend credence) is wrong then explain otherwise. Show how useful your point was if it WASN'T to lend credence. Go ahead -- proclaim to the world how you mentioned universities NOT to validate your position. present another useful reason to do so. I'm waiting.

And "both are websites"? So are a lot of things. This is a website. But what is being compared isn't the fact that the two are websites -- it is sad that you can't understand that. If you can't see that I made an explicit connection between the people BEHIND the website and their experience, expertise and training to present an authoritative position ON their website then you are too far gone.

No, you aren't griping. You are flailing, latching on to a website with no expertise behind it because you like how it labels something in its admittedly non-scientific, subjective way.

You are making crap up about my reasoning

And i see it as you continually moving the goalposts.

And of course nothing new to add. Expected