150 rockets fired at Israel after IDF assassinates Gaza terror leader

[Shad]

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

Sure. Why is my point. You didn't refute the argument made by the user nor the source. Saying it's biased does not demonstrate a bias in anything provided to you is in fact biased. You referenced it as a smear, nothing more.

 

[ChristineM]

Sure. Why is my point. You didn't refute the argument made by the user nor the source. Saying it's biased does not demonstrate a bias in anything provided to you is in fact biased. You referenced it as a smear, nothing more.

I provided a link to discredit the source. End of story.

You call it what ever makes you happy, enjoy.

And now i guess you are going to spam me for 3 weeks and put forward sexist comments

 

[Shad]

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

This was an Ad Hominem against the source. You didn't refute the argument. There is no reason to mention bias unless you think it means something.

 

[ChristineM]

This was an Ad Hominem against the source. You didn't refute the argument.

Can you not read?

 

[Shad]

Can you not read?

Yup. I am talking about your intentions which are transparent

 

[Shad]

I provided a link to discredit the source. End of story.

I am talking about your transparent intentions and fallacious thinking.

You call it what ever makes you happy, enjoy.

I will

And now i guess you are going to spam me for 3 weeks and put forward sexist comments

I never made sexist comments to you. If you do not like people relying to your posts you can use the ignore function. Have fun as I will reply when I want to.

Do note you replied each time to that which you object to. Hilarious.

 

[rosends]

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

You refuse to show that I'm wrong. You have not substantiated your position. You have ignored what was proven and shifted your entire focus. As stated, pitiful.

 

[ChristineM]

You refuse to show that I'm wrong. You have not substantiated your position. You have ignored what was proven and shifted your entire focus. As stated, pitiful.

Wrong, i have provided a link that identifies UN Watch as biased right wing. Its content validates that.

You have tried every way possible to discredit that link and the sites owner and failed miserably?

I have not shifted anything, i have continually tried to drag you back from your various attemps to personally attack the sites owner, its honesty, its ethos.

I find those who need to speak untruthfully to justify their opinion to be far more pitiful!

 

[ChristineM]

I am talking about your transparent intentions and fallacious thinking.



I will



I never made sexist comments to you. If you do not like people relying to your posts you can use the ignore function. Have fun as I will reply when I want to.

Do note you replied each time to that which you object to. Hilarious.

So you are making up bullpoop again, how the **** do you know what i think? You nay consider yourself gods gift to Intelligence but i doubt even you can read minds.


You know well that you made sexist comments, disparaging comments that you would not consider making to a male, that makes them sexist?

I rarely use ignore, only for total idiots,. You have come close on a couple of occasions but you would only stick a feather in your cap and dance a jig of joy in the mistaken belief you had won a point. And where is the fun in that?

 

[rosends]

Wrong, i have provided a link that identifies UN Watch as biased right wing. Its content validates that.

You provided a link to a site that labels it "biased right wing". Its opinion (uninformed by any actual external measure, admittedly) is all that supports the label.

You have tried every way possible to discredit that link and the sites owner and failed miserably?

No, but thank you for asking. I have pointed out that the site it labels is considered reputable by significant and authoritative voices, that the methodology of the site you reference is innovated and implemented as a non-scientific and subjective judgment, and that the site you reference is administered by someone who has no skill, experience, reputation or validated knowledge in the field. I am not discrediting the link. I am contextualizing your citation of the link. Learn the difference.

I have not shifted anything, i have continually tried to drag you back from your various attemps to personally attack the sites owner, its honesty, its ethos.

I am not attacking the owner, just pointing out his lack of credentials (which was my point way back when -- remember when you were arguing that having degrees doesn't confer knowledge and I pointed out that relevant degrees indicate experience and expertise? You moved away from that...)

I find those who need to speak untruthfully to justify their opinion to be far more pitiful!

I reserve my pity for those who refuse to learn when shown the error of their ways. Wilfull ignorance is pitiful, and you are being wilfully ignorant.

 

[ChristineM]

You provided a link to a site that labels it "biased right wing". Its opinion (uninformed by any actual external measure, admittedly) is all that supports the label.


No, but thank you for asking. I have pointed out that the site it labels is considered reputable by significant and authoritative voices, that the methodology of the site you reference is innovated and implemented as a non-scientific and subjective judgment, and that the site you reference is administered by someone who has no skill, experience, reputation or validated knowledge in the field. I am not discrediting the link. I am contextualizing your citation of the link. Learn the difference.

I am not attacking the owner, just pointing out his lack of credentials (which was my point way back when -- remember when you were arguing that having degrees doesn't confer knowledge and I pointed out that relevant degrees indicate experience and expertise? You moved away from that...)

I reserve my pity for those who refuse to learn when shown the error of their ways. Wilfull ignorance is pitiful, and you are being wilfully ignorant.

Yes, and? Respected opinion, even if you don't respect it?

And the site you linked is scientific in what way? You are still attempting to dis a reputable site with irrelevant bull, 20 years experience is 20 years skill.

But i have show and you admitted his credentials. Nope i didn't move away from that, i ignored it as totally irrelevant.

What error? All you have shown is your opinion, quite obviously biassed, it is pathetic and childish to stomp your foot and break RF rules by penning personal abuse. Disagreement with you is not willful ignorance, but wider knowledge of the world.

 

[rosends]

Yes, and? Respected opinion, even if you don't respect it?

Yes, respected by you apparently. Not by any universities. Unless that's why you cited universities. You still haven't cleared that up.

And the site you linked is scientific in what way? You are still attempting to dis a reputable site with irrelevant bull, 20 years experience is 20 years skill.

I don't recall making that claim. I pointed out that their method for labeling is, by their own admission, not scientific but is subjective. That seems to be good enough for you. As the site I referenced doesn't perform the same function, there is no reason to apply the same standard. Try to keep up. And "20 years experience is 20 years skill"? Really? Twenty years watching football shouting at the coach about how I would coach differently is equivalent to 20 years coaching football? Wow. Just wow.

But i have show and you admitted his credentials. Nope i didn't move away from that, i ignored it as totally irrelevant.

You showed and I agreed that he has an undergraduate degree in communications and an advanced degree in science. Neither is relevant to the function of the website and the skill you claim he has. If that's something you want to shout from the rooftops as your expert, have at it. And if you ignore things, then you lose the position to argue them later on.

What error? All you have shown is your opinion, quite obviously biassed, it is pathetic and childish to stomp your foot and break RF rules by penning personal abuse. Disagreement with you is not willful ignorance, but wider knowledge of the world.

Willful ignorance is the refusal to accept when relevant information is presented. That the owner and author of a site claiming authority to judge political slant and bias has no background or sanctioned expertise is a black and white fact which should inform anyone about the utility of his judgments. You still hang on them as if they are on par with others'. That his knowledge is not validated by any external measure while the opinions of others, such as Neuer, have been validated by external measures and given approval explicitly by other experts in the area is also black and white fact. That you want to ignore what doesn't work for you is willful ignorance.

If you feel I have broken any rules, then you should take that up with a proper authority. Telling me seems like so much wasted breath.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, respected by you apparently. Not by any universities. Unless that's why you cited universities. You still haven't cleared that up.

I don't recall making that claim. I pointed out that their method for labeling is, by their own admission, not scientific but is subjective. That seems to be good enough for you. As the site I referenced doesn't perform the same function, there is no reason to apply the same standard. Try to keep up. And "20 years experience is 20 years skill"? Really? Twenty years watching football shouting at the coach about how I would coach differently is equivalent to 20 years coaching football? Wow. Just wow.

You showed and I agreed that he has an undergraduate degree in communications and an advanced degree in science. Neither is relevant to the function of the website and the skill you claim he has. If that's something you want to shout from the rooftops as your expert, have at it. And if you ignore things, then you lose the position to argue them later on.

Willful ignorance is the refusal to accept when relevant information is presented. That the owner and author of a site claiming authority to judge political slant and bias has no background or sanctioned expertise is a black and white fact which should inform anyone about the utility of his judgments. You still hang on them as if they are on par with others'. That his knowledge is not validated by any external measure while the opinions of others, such as Neuer, have been validated by external measures and given approval explicitly by other experts in the area is also black and white fact. That you want to ignore what doesn't work for you is willful ignorance.

If you feel I have broken any rules, then you should take that up with a proper authority. Telling me seems like so much wasted breath.

Cleared up what, you agreed with the universities thing although you tried to dis it

Who cares what function it performs, its a right wing biassed site. Yoy cited scientific, your site also is not scientific. Are you going to get pedantic every time you fail?

Do you have a degree? Do you understand the discipline and determination required to earn one?? Very few people with degrees work in the fields of their degree.

What information? A provided a link to a site that "honestly" rates UN watch as right wing biassed. I dont think most people who honestly examine the site would disagree that their reporting generally shows the right favourably and the left unfavourably.

Bullpoop, the "judgement" of Media Bias/Fact Check on UN Watch is echoed by other sources, that you deny this is a complete contradiction of facts

Rather than telling tails can i suggest you acquaint yourself with the rules Rules & Guidelines | Religious Forums paying particular attention to rule 1

 

[rosends]

Cleared up what, you agreed with the universities thing although you tried to dis it

Um, no. I tried to clarify WHY universities used it. You just like the idea that universities use it.

Who cares what function it performs, its a right wing biassed site.

And there you have it folks.Confirmation bias at its best.

Yoy cited scientific, your site also is not scientific. Are you going to get pedantic every time you fail?

I pointed out that their methodology for labeling sites biased is, by their own admission, not scientific. That that doesn't bother you speaks volumes.

Do you have a degree? Do you understand the discipline and determination required to earn one?? Very few people with degrees work in the fields of their degree.

Um...yes, I have a variety of degrees and I work in a field that uses some of them. Shall we compare CVs?

What information? A provided a link to a site that "honestly" rates UN watch as right wing biassed.

I'm glad you put "honestly" in quotes. It is the first proper statement you have made.

I dont think most people who honestly examine the site would disagree that their reporting generally shows the right favourably and the left unfavourably.

That's nice. I don't think that people who honestly examine UN Watch would disagree that they champion human rights and show the UN's bias at every turn. If that's "right wing" to you then, well, that also speaks volumes. The website you referenced decided that they were "biased" in part because they got information from OTHER sites that your website already considers biased. This says nothing about WHAT they got. Your website simply judged their source URLs and labeled.

Bullpoop, the "judgement" of Media Bias/Fact Check on UN Watch is echoed by other sources, that you deny this is a complete contradiction of facts

And it is contradicted by many more (which you don't like to hear). Additionally, the issue is a non-starter because MBFC makes no comment about the accuracy of statements. If you want to dismiss a website because someone tells you that, based on where they got their info, they are biased, without looking at the particular data, then go ahead and be a sheep.

Rather than telling tails can i suggest you acquaint yourself with the rules Rules & Guidelines | Religious Forums paying particular attention to rule 1

If you really care, do something about it and report rather than trying to be a den mother.

 

[Lyndon]

you don't need a PhD to recognize obvious right wing bias

 

[Shad]

So you are making up bullpoop again, how the **** do you know what i think? You nay consider yourself gods gift to Intelligence but i doubt even you can read minds.

Rant

You know well that you made sexist comments, disparaging comments that you would not consider making to a male, that makes them sexist?

I made no such comments. You are playing the victim. I tell males to stop whining just like I am going to tell you to stop whining. Stop whining.

I would say prove it but you just run away when asked for evidence like you do all the time. Yawn

I rarely use ignore, only for total idiots,. You have come close on a couple of occasions but you would only stick a feather in your cap and dance a jig of joy in the mistaken belief you had won a point. And where is the fun in that?

Rant.

Try again

 

[ChristineM]

Um, no. I tried to clarify WHY universities used it. You just like the idea that universities use it.

And there you have it folks.Confirmation bias at its best.

I pointed out that their methodology for labeling sites biased is, by their own admission, not scientific. That that doesn't bother you speaks volumes.

Um...yes, I have a variety of degrees and I work in a field that uses some of them. Shall we compare CVs?

I'm glad you put "honestly" in quotes. It is the first proper statement you have made.

That's nice. I don't think that people who honestly examine UN Watch would disagree that they champion human rights and show the UN's bias at every turn. If that's "right wing" to you then, well, that also speaks volumes. The website you referenced decided that they were "biased" in part because they got information from OTHER sites that your website already considers biased. This says nothing about WHAT they got. Your website simply judged their source URLs and labeled.

And it is contradicted by many more (which you don't like to hear). Additionally, the issue is a non-starter because MBFC makes no comment about the accuracy of statements. If you want to dismiss a website because someone tells you that, based on where they got their info, they are biased, without looking at the particular data, then go ahead and be a sheep.


If you really care, do something about it and report rather than trying to be a den mother.

Yes, as i said, universities use it. Your clarification is not required

So you are saying UN watch is not right biassed? Evidence please

If you want, i have 5, 3 Bachelor's 2 Masters.

Honesty was in quotes so you would notice it. It seems you did and then try to dis the word.

Of course they champion human rights, such as Israel's right to withhold medicine and medical aid to Palestinian children

I dont mind hearing facts but once again you use your magic mind-reading technique to tall me my mind. I have looked it UN watch, so i can draw conclusions based on their content. But once again massaging your ego with made up bullpoop only shows you in a bad light. Shall we stick to actual facts and not your imagination?

It is not my will to report, i prefer to educate even if that education falls on stony ground, so what, i have tried. But i suggest you refrain from person attacks because i may change my will. And as a mind reader you should know that

 

[ChristineM]

I made no such comments. You are playing the victim. I tell males to stop whining just like I am going to tell you to stop whining. Stop whining.

I would say prove it but you just run away when asked for evidence like you do all the time. Yawn

Rant

The rest ignored

 

[rosends]

Yes, as i said, universities use it. Your clarification is not required

No, but yours is as you insist that my restatement of it is incorrect. You can either clarify or leave your meaning unknown.

So you are saying UN watch is not right biassed? Evidence please

Evidence that something is NOT the case? Wow, swing in a miss on so many levels. One, you ask me to prove a negative. Second, you ignore that the website you prefer makes the claim and doesn't prove it. Next, you forget that THEIR judgment is not only subjective but mired in their judgment of websites that are used as sources, not the content of those sources.

If you want, i have 5, 3 Bachelor's 2 Masters.

That's nice. I have 3 masters (plus a bunch of other stuff).

Honesty was in quotes so you would notice it. It seems you did and then try to dis the word.

I'm not "dissing" a word. I'm pointing out that its use in quotes was appropriate, just for reasons you didn't intend.

Of course they champion human rights, such as Israel's right to withhold medicine and medical aid to Palestinian children

Show me where they champion that.

I dont mind hearing facts but once again you use your magic mind-reading technique to tall me my mind. I have looked it UN watch, so i can draw conclusions based on their content.

But you haven't. You have relied on an unproven and sibjective website. So which is it?

It is not my will to report, i prefer to educate even if that education falls on stony ground, so what, i have tried. But i suggest you refrain from person attacks because i may change my will. And as a mind reader you should know that

I hope that what you change is your attitude (among other things. Your will is of no interest to me.[/QUOTE]

 

[ChristineM]

No, but yours is as you insist that my restatement of it is incorrect. You can either clarify or leave your meaning unknown.


Evidence that something is NOT the case? Wow, swing in a miss on so many levels. One, you ask me to prove a negative. Second, you ignore that the website you prefer makes the claim and doesn't prove it. Next, you forget that THEIR judgment is not only subjective but mired in their judgment of websites that are used as sources, not the content of those sources.

That's nice. I have 3 masters (plus a bunch of other stuff).

I'm not "dissing" a word. I'm pointing out that its use in quotes was appropriate, just for reasons you didn't intend.

Show me where they champion that.

But you haven't. You have relied on an unproven and sibjective website. So which is it?

I hope that what you change is your attitude (among other things. Your will is of no interest to me.

My point was that Media Bias/Fact Check data is used by (at least 2) universities. You attempted to dis that.

Very good. So you know what is required to earn a uni qualifications.

As ask you to prove your claim, to now say it us a negative, I'll accept that, thanks.

I made no claim about the accuracy of Media Bias/Fact Check other than they are honest and used by (at least 2) universities. So far you have done nothing to persuade me otherwise. You have provided bucket loads of (oft repeated) opinion though.

Ahh, mind reading again. So tell me, what reason for using quotes do you actually believe you think i intended?

2019 UN Fourth Committee Resolutions Against Israel - UN Watch
Anti-Israel Resolutions at the HRC - UN Watch
Remembering that these are all UN watch (right biassed, Israel centric) gripes about UN resolutions.

Are you saying the data on Media Bias/Fact Check doesn't exist, or is not factual (on which case you need to prove that)

Ahh you mean the attitude that does not agree with you? Works both ways