150 rockets fired at Israel after IDF assassinates Gaza terror leader

[ChristineM]

I had not seen the word racist -- I did a search for the image and just copied the URL of the one that came up first for my search.
Separately, when someone's meaning is lost because of those typos then calling the typos out in order to ascertain meaning seems reasonable. There have been plenty of typos I haven't mentioned but the ones that are so egregious as to make deciphering meaning impossible need to be pointed out or else their points, whatever they are, cannot be addressed. There is very little about this forum that approaches debate in any formal sense, but in a debate, questioning the precision of language and usage is fair game.

Fair game? It usually means you have lost, have nothing more to say and so choose to abuse the messenger.

 

[rosends]

Hey, i will write how i like, no one else has trouble with my writing so perhaps the problem is at your end. Anyway, if you dont like it tough.

And if you don't like being told that meaning is lacking, then tough for you.

You posted the image, are you saying you are clueless about what you post?

In this case, I made an error. I searched for the image and didn't check to see that the text on it was what the original image is related to. That's my error. I have been told and I admit the error.

Actually my response was directly driven by your hypocrisy

What hypocrisy precisely. I was asked a question and I answered it honestly and accurately.

You dont even know when you are insulting people. Maybe its a problem to discuss with your doctor

You might want to look up the current slang word "snowflake."

Try what? Massaging your ego? Doubtful

No, try making a cogent point.

 

[rosends]

Fair game? It usually means you have lost, have nothing more to say and so choose to abuse the messenger.

I don't see pointing out that someone else's meaning is non-existent as "lost." You can feel free to see it that way as it absolves you of any responsibility of fixing your error or responding to actual claims properly.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I had not seen the word racist -- I did a search for the image and just copied the URL of the one that came up first for my search.

That's what I assumed.

Separately, when someone's meaning is lost because of those typos then calling the typos out in order to ascertain meaning seems reasonable.

Then all you need to do is ask them to re-write it because you're having difficulty understanding what they have written. You don't have to go an extended and quite patronizing rant about how they're not "writing in English" for multiple posts. It just comes off as bullying.

 

[ChristineM]

If I have to show you how something is not written in English then you are parading a lack of knowledge of English. I pointed it out and isolated the offending non-English collection of words. You could have reworded it at the moment but you chose not to. That was your call.

You seem insulted by statements of fact and are in need of many things unrelated to the structure of English explained to you. Let's start with the basics of the English sentence and work from there.

Some teachers actually pride themselves in showing where someone went wrong.

What you did was throw verbal abuse, only after several times of asking did you copy and paste the sentence and provide more verbal abuse.

So you think a dyslexic is fair game for your abuse? I dont know about where you were trained but in Europe teachers are trained to spot such disability.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't see pointing out that someone else's meaning is non-existent as "lost." You can feel free to see it that way as it absolves you of any responsibility of fixing your error or responding to actual claims properly.

Pointing out is not a problem, deliberate verbal insults are..

 

[rosends]

Then all you need to do is ask them to re-write it because you're having difficulty understanding what they have written. You don't have to go an extended and quite patronizing rant about how they're not "writing in English" for multiple posts. It just comes off as bullying.

My response was to a single sentece, commenting that when it was rewritten in English, I could respond. On a more recent post, I pointed out that the lack of a subject makes it impossible to decipher. The other person's response that my claim of something not being written in English because English words were used took the discussion in another direction so the rant was not mine -- mine was the explanation of why using words with no semantic structure does nto qualify as writing in English. But my initial point was precise. Had the sentence been written in English, I might have been able to address whatever point it wanted to make.

 

[ChristineM]

My response was to a single sentece, commenting that when it was rewritten in English, I could respond. On a more recent post, I pointed out that the lack of a subject makes it impossible to decipher. The other person's response that my claim of something not being written in English because English words were used took the discussion in another direction so the rant was not mine -- mine was the explanation of why using words with no semantic structure does nto qualify as writing in English. But my initial point was precise. Had the sentence been written in English, I might have been able to address whatever point it wanted to make.

Please go back to your post and examine what you actually wrote. Insult us not request

 

[Stevicus]

A great question and I'm not trained in all the subtleties of the UN to say anything with the authority of anything other than my opinion, but I would say that the US's presence gives it standing to make public objection to the inanity of the body as a whole. But quitting it and kicking it out of NYC would free up a lot of real estate.

I think the original purpose of the UN was honorable and well-intentioned, at least on its face. Considering what the world had just gone through, an international body comprised of representatives from all the world governments seemed to make practical sense.

At least as far as keeping the lines of communication open, it seems to serve that purpose. And they also help in humanitarian causes, so the UN isn't all bad.

But politics is politics, so there will always be those who might misuse it for some nefarious purpose. Just like we have a lot of bad apples in our own political system.

 

[rosends]

Some teachers actually pride themselves in showing where someone went wrong.

I do that, for my students. I don't view you as my student.

What you did was throw verbal abuse, only after several times of asking did you copy and paste the sentence and provide more verbal abuse.

Actually, I responded directly to the initial quote in my post 341. I wrote "When you reword in English, I'll try to respond." That is neither unclear nor verbal abuse.

So you think a dyslexic is fair game for your abuse? I dont know about where you were trained but in Europe teachers are trained to spot such disability.

Now you have created a strawman. That's a fallacy. Shall I teach you about those now that you want to be treated like my student?

 

[rosends]

Pointing out is not a problem, deliberate verbal insults are..

Like "When you reword in English, I'll try to respond."?
If you are insulted by that then there is nothing I can do to help you.

 

[rosends]

Please go back to your post and examine what you actually wrote. Insult us not request

"When you reword in English, I'll try to respond."
Again, if that insults you, then have a nice life. I can't help you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My response was to a single sentece, commenting that when it was rewritten in English, I could respond. On a more recent post, I pointed out that the lack of a subject makes it impossible to decipher. The other person's response that my claim of something not being written in English because English words were used took the discussion in another direction so the rant was not mine -- mine was the explanation of why using words with no semantic structure does nto qualify as writing in English. But my initial point was precise. Had the sentence been written in English, I might have been able to address whatever point it wanted to make.

I repeat:

If they wrote something that you didn't understand because of the grammatical structure, all you needed to do was say that and then ask them if they could re-write it for you.

That's not what you did.

Instead, you went on for several pages in a very patronizing way, essentially talking down to them, telling them that they can't write and insulting the quality of their writing in order to make them feel and look stupid.

That's not okay, and these dire rationalizations of it aren't okay either. I'll make it clear for you:

You can't justify bullying someone.

 

[rosends]

I think the original purpose of the UN was honorable and well-intentioned, at least on its face. Considering what the world had just gone through, an international body comprised of representatives from all the world governments seemed to make practical sense.

Yes, true, as the League of Nations was.

At least as far as keeping the lines of communication open, it seems to serve that purpose. And they also help in humanitarian causes, so the UN isn't all bad.

The UN is a complex body with many moving parts. Many of these parts serve honorable purposes. Some do not. The question is one of cost/benefit and that's a computation I am in no ways equipped to make. I can see the warts and the positives but my own bias might cloud any decision I made. Fortunately, these decisions are not up to me.

But politics is politics, so there will always be those who might misuse it for some nefarious purpose. Just like we have a lot of bad apples in our own political system.

Very true. I am reminded of the quote from Churchill, "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." I find that true about many institutions.

 

[ChristineM]

"When you reword in English, I'll try to respond."
Again, if that insults you, then have a nice life. I can't help you.

To which i replied " Every word is in English so we can assume you are coping out"

 

[rosends]

I repeat:

If they wrote something that you didn't understand because of the grammatical structure, all you needed to do was say that and then ask them if they could re-write it for you.

That's not what you did.

Instead, you went on for several pages in a very patronizing way, essentially talking down to them, telling them that they can't write and insulting the quality of their writing in order to make them feel and look stupid.

That's not okay, and these dire rationalizations of it aren't okay either. I'll make it clear for you:

You can't justify bullying someone.

As I stated, I made a single sentence statement. Only when that was challenged was there any response; only then did I respond. If you see my defending my original statement as bullying then that's fine. I can't help that. But I stand by my singular statement in 341. I stand by my explanation that writing in English (which the other person claimed to be doing) requires more than just using English words. When I am accused, I will defend myself. An explanation comes in response, not in a vacuum.

 

[rosends]

To which i replied " Every word is in English so we can assume you are coping out"

And I stated that simply using English words does not mean that a sentence is in English. I explained that, as well, giving an example to illustrate my point. If your original statement is in English then its semantic structure should conform and its meaning should be decipherable. These are features that your words lacked. I can parse it for you and diagram what it lacks. If you would prefer, I can say that it is written in extremely poor English which does not communcate any sense or meaning instead of not in English. Would that make you feel better? Or would that be more bullying and talking down? I just want to communicate to you that I am unable to respond and address whatever you were getting at because your collection of words failed to express any coherent message. I hope that I have made that clear so you can go back, and express your intent so that I can respond accordingly.

 

[ChristineM]

I do that, for my students. I don't view you as my student.

Actually, I responded directly to the initial quote in my post 341. I wrote "When you reword in English, I'll try to respond." That is neither unclear nor verbal abuse.


Now you have created a strawman. That's a fallacy. Shall I teach you about those now that you want to be treated like my student?

You do? It does not show

And i stated, factually that every word was in english.

What is fallacy, the first sentence is a question, did you not notice the question mark?

The second is a statement of fact.

And i see you never bothered answering the question

 

[rosends]

You do? It does not show

Why would it show? You are not in my classroom.

And i stated, factually that every word was in english.

Peanut butter.

What is fallacy, the first sentence is a question, did you not notice the question mark?

Are you asking what a fallacy is, or what the relevant fallacy is in this case? I believe I stated that you set up a straw man by imputing a position to me in your question that is easy to rebut even though that isn't my position. This site may help you. What Is a Straw Man Argument? If you need a larger explanation of what a fallacy is, please let me know. A straw man can be set up by a question. For example, "Are you saying that all right handed people worship the devil?"

Once the question is labeled a straw man, expecting an answer to it simply shows a lack of understanding that the question is a fallacy.

 

[ChristineM]

And I stated that simply using English words does not mean that a sentence is in English. I explained that, as well, giving an example to illustrate my point. If your original statement is in English then its semantic structure should conform and its meaning should be decipherable. These are features that your words lacked. I can parse it for you and diagram what it lacks. If you would prefer, I can say that it is written in extremely poor English which does not communcate any sense or meaning instead of not in English. Would that make you feel better? Or would that be more bullying and talking down? I just want to communicate to you that I am unable to respond and address whatever you were getting at because your collection of words failed to express any coherent message. I hope that I have made that clear so you can go back, and express your intent so that I can respond accordingly.

Explained?

Quote

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?).

That is not explanation, that is repeated insult