150 rockets fired at Israel after IDF assassinates Gaza terror leader

[rosends]

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

No, I just pointed out HOW and WHY the universities use it. You want the absolute value? That's meaningless.

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

Yes, and that an undergraduate degree in communications doesn't confer the kind of authority he is claiming, or you are giving him. Heck, I have a Masters in Communication. If I started a website in which I, subjectively, judged other websites and labeled them (I have over 25 years of reading and analyzing political news and sources - a higher degree and more years than Van Zandt) would that be persuasive to anyone? It shouldn't be.

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

When you reword in English, I'll try to respond.

I made no claim about the accuracy of Media Bias/Fact Check other than they are honest

Already an unproven assertion.

and used by (at least 2) universities.

But not for anything which would validate their "honesty." Got it.

So far you have done nothing to persuade me otherwise. You have provided bucket loads of (oft repeated) opinion though.

And yet the opinion of Van Zandt is persuasive to you.

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

I have no idea what you intended. I believe I wrote "not intended" and I was referring to the use of quotes as listed here.

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.

Did you actually read those? They include facts and figuress, along with "gripes" by other countries' representatives. How does any of this support the claim you made? Hint: it doesn't.

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)

No. Where do you get that from? The data does exist. UN Watch has used information from many websites. But the data doesn't include WHAT was used. It simply labels UN Watch based on the websites sourced from.

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

No, the attitude that reflects a child stamping feet and closing her eyes and ears when shown contrary information.

 

[Lyndon]

All this trouble so you can defend an anti Palestinian, hatred website.

 

[rosends]

All this trouble so you can defend an anti Palestinian, hatred website.

No trouble, and I have no problem defending a website which watches to make sure that human rights are championed. Or do you have no problem with the fact that the Congo and Angola were elected to the UNHRC?

 

[ChristineM]

No, I just pointed out HOW and WHY the universities use it. You want the absolute value? That's meaningless.

Yes, and that an undergraduate degree in communications doesn't confer the kind of authority he is claiming, or you are giving him. Heck, I have a Masters in Communication. If I started a website in which I, subjectively, judged other websites and labeled them (I have over 25 years of reading and analyzing political news and sources - a higher degree and more years than Van Zandt) would that be persuasive to anyone? It shouldn't be.

When you reword in English, I'll try to respond.

Already an unproven assertion.

But not for anything which would validate their "honesty." Got it.

And yet the opinion of Van Zandt is persuasive to you.

I have no idea what you intended. I believe I wrote "not intended" and I was referring to the use of quotes as listed here.

Did you actually read those? They include facts and figuress, along with "gripes" by other countries' representatives. How does any of this support the claim you made? Hint: it doesn't.

No. Where do you get that from? The data does exist. UN Watch has used information from many websites. But the data doesn't include WHAT was used. It simply labels UN Watch based on the websites sourced from.

No, the attitude that reflects a child stamping feet and closing her eyes and ears when shown contrary information.

The absolute value is that the site is used by universities and you only consider that meaningless because thats precisely what i said.

Who is claiming or inferring authority? The site admits what its bona fides are. And i have made no claim of authority. You are making invalid claims here.

Every word is in English so we can assume you are coping out

Already what? That is a downright misrepresentation.

If a university choses to use data publicity one must consider that they are happy with the validity of that data.

You have no idea? Well that at least was honest

And the majority are griping because Israel was censured for human rights violations

The mediabiasfactcheck page comprises of around 75% data (rough estimate)
FYI data : facts and/or statistics collected together for reference or analysis.

What contrary information? All you have done is rant that mediabiasfactcheck is wrong and you are right. Sorry pal, your opinion is not worth squat to me. I have an aversion people praising those who gripe at UN censure for human rights violations.

 

[rosends]

The absolute value is that the site is used by universities and you only consider that meaningless because thats precisely what i said.

Then yes, I consider it useless to cite that universities use a website when you don't consider (or care about) how and why they use it. If absolute value means something to you then you must also respect that the same websites use facebook and twitter so they must have the same value.

Who is claiming or inferring authority? The site admits what its bona fides are. And i have made no claim of authority. You are making invalid claims here.

Great and I'll happily concede this point. If there is no claim of authority being made then why rely on the site's opinion? Do you generally reference sites which claim no authority about their content?

Every word is in English so we can assume you are coping out

So you can neither read, nor write? Is English a third language for you? I'm curious because you seem to have trouble with it, which compounds your issues with logic and inference (just because every word is English, the sentence must have meaning?).

Already what? That is a downright misrepresentation.

Pay attention: I quoted your assertion. Your assertion (that the site is "honest") is unproven. Therefore, it is an unproven assertion. What is being misrepresented? Try to keep up.

If a university choses to use data publicity one must consider that they are happy with the validity of that data.

And when a university uses statistical data to prove a hypothesis then that's great. But since all we have here is the absoluet value of the mention, that isn't the case.

And the majority are griping because Israel was censured for human rights violations

Well, that's only part of the problem. UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon has a slightly different take. But what would he know?

The mediabiasfactcheck page comprises of around 75% data (rough estimate)
FYI data : facts and/or statistics collected together for reference or analysis.

Then you didn't read what I wrote. Big shock.

What contrary information? All you have done is rant that mediabiasfactcheck is wrong and you are right.

If you think so, then you have no idea what I have been writing and I can't help you.

Sorry pal, your opinion is not worth squat to me. I have an aversion people praising those who gripe at UN censure for human rights violations.

You have an aversion to people who call out double standards and human rights violations. You prefer the opinion of a random guy on the web who has no particular expertise. You also have trouble with basic reading comprehension. That's clear.

 

[ChristineM]

No trouble, and I have no problem defending a website which watches to make sure that human rights are championed. Or do you have no problem with the fact that the Congo and Angola were elected to the UNHRC?

Except the human rights of Palestinians

UN Watch is an organisation whose main purpose is to attack the United Nations in general, and its human rights council in particular, for alleged bias against Israel.​

If the organisation [UN Watch] could point to a single occasion when it had condemned manifest Israeli transgressions of the human rights of Palestinians, it would give itself a secure platform from which to criticize the human rights council.
​

Ian Williams - Ian Williams, a journalist covering the UN for many years and former president of the United Nations Correspondents Association and advisor to the UK labour party during the 1987 UK election

 

[rosends]

Except the human rights of Palestinians

UN Watch is an organisation whose main purpose is to attack the United Nations in general, and its human rights council in particular, for alleged bias against Israel.​

If the organisation [UN Watch] could point to a single occasion when it had condemned manifest Israeli transgressions of the human rights of Palestinians, it would give itself a secure platform from which to criticize the human rights council.
​

Ian Williams - Ian Williams, a journalist covering the UN for many years and former president of the United Nations Correspondents Association and advisor to the UK labour party during the 1987 UK election

Except that the role of UN Watch isn't to condemn transgressions of countries. It criticizes the UN and its selective attention to violations. That you think this quote is meaningful is just another example of your not understanding what is going on here. That Angola and the Congo are on the HRC is a problem related to the UN, so UN Watch speaks against that. Notice the name is "UN Watch. Not "country watch." Try to keep up.

 

[ChristineM]

Then yes, I consider it useless to cite that universities use a website when you don't consider (or care about) how and why they use it. If absolute value means something to you then you must also respect that the same websites use facebook and twitter so they must have the same value.


Great and I'll happily concede this point. If there is no claim of authority being made then why rely on the site's opinion? Do you generally reference sites which claim no authority about their content?

So you can neither read, nor write? Is English a third language for you? I'm curious because you seem to have trouble with it, which compounds your issues with logic and inference (just because every word is English, the sentence must have meaning?).

Pay attention: I quoted your assertion. Your assertion (that the site is "honest") is unproven. Therefore, it is an unproven assertion. What is being misrepresented? Try to keep up.

And when a university uses statistical data to prove a hypothesis then that's great. But since all we have here is the absoluet value of the mention, that isn't the case.

Well, that's only part of the problem. UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon has a slightly different take. But what would he know?

Then you didn't read what I wrote. Big shock.

If you think so, then you have no idea what I have been writing and I can't help you.

You have an aversion to people who call out double standards and human rights violations. You prefer the opinion of a random guy on the web who has no particular expertise. You also have trouble with basic reading comprehension. That's clear.

Round and round you go, getting boring.

Your opinion is noted

Jolly good

More personal insults, how pathetic?? Cite one word that was not written in English... Just one

You cannot be civil the **** you, we are done

 

[rosends]

More personal insults, how pathetic?? Cite one word that was not written in English... Just one

More you just don't get. Shocking that you can claim to have advanced degrees. I assume they aren't from a school that requires knowledge of English. You wrote, "As ask you to prove your claim, to now say it us a negative, I'll accept that, thanks."
If you want to continue to contend that this a valid sentence in English just because each of the words can be found in a dictionary then the only thing I have to say is "peanut bitter wants monkey turn, so that their while launch."

 

[ChristineM]

More you just don't get. Shocking that you can claim to have advanced degrees. I assume they aren't from a school that requires knowledge of English. You wrote, "As ask you to prove your claim, to now say it us a negative, I'll accept that, thanks."
If you want to continue to contend that this a valid sentence in English just because each of the words can be found in a dictionary then the only thing I have to say is "peanut bitter wants monkey turn, so that their while launch."

Cant you read English l

 

[rosends]

Cant you read English l

Um...have you ever studied "irony"?

 

[ChristineM]

Um...have you ever studied "irony"?

Can you not read?

 

[ChristineM]

All this trouble so you can defend an anti Palestinian, hatred website.

Dont you think its funny when someone can't railroad their opinion through a message they turn on the messenger? A sure sign they have lost it!

 

[rosends]

Can you not read?

I can read fairly well. Can you comprehend? So far you haven't shown that you can.

 

[ChristineM]

I can read fairly well. Can you comprehend? So far you haven't shown that you can.

Oh the irony

What dont you comprehend about

**** you, we are done

 

[rosends]

Oh the irony

What dont you comprehend about

**** you, we are done

I surprised you are done as it doesn;t seem that you have even started.
Native speakers of English will see the errors you have made and wonder how you got this far.

 

[columbus]

Except that the role of UN Watch isn't to condemn transgressions of countries. It criticizes the UN and its selective attention to violations. That you think this quote is meaningful is just another example of your not understanding what is going on here. That Angola and the Congo are on the HRC is a problem related to the UN, so UN Watch speaks against that. Notice the name is "UN Watch. Not "country watch." Try to keep up.

I'm still looking for a response to this.
Tom

 

[ChristineM]

I surprised you are done as it doesn;t seem that you have even started.
Native speakers of English will see the errors you have made and wonder how you got this far.

I see you are still having comprehension problems.

I asked you to show one word that was not english, you failed.

Your profile identifies you as a teacher. Is ignorance of the english language the way you teach?

 

[Lyndon]

So I guess only native English speakers are allowed to contribute to this forum????

 

[rosends]

So I guess only native English speakers are allowed to contribute to this forum????

You would guess wrong, as is your prerogative.