150 rockets fired at Israel after IDF assassinates Gaza terror leader

[rosends]

You refuse my offer

I'm not sure what offer you refer to. You wrote, "I am happy to put you on my ignore list"
What offer does that include?

 

[ChristineM]

I'm not sure what offer you refer to. You wrote, "I am happy to put you on my ignore list"
What offer does that include?

Cherry picking also does you no favours

 

[rosends]

Cherry picking also does you no favours

Good thing I didn't cherry pick. If you claim otherwise, why not substantiate your point? It shouldn't be tough, right?

 

[ChristineM]

Good thing I didn't cherry pick. If you claim otherwise, why not substantiate your point? It shouldn't be tough, right?

Post #408, you cherry picked half a sentence and you know it.

 

[Shad]

How can a dyslexic play someone like @rosends like a fish on a line?
Why would you?
Tom

She lost an argument so is flailing.

 

[ChristineM]

She lost an argument so is flailing.

Still wishful dreaming?

 

[Shad]

Still wishful dreaming?

Nope it is fact. You didn't refute the argument you attacked the source. Try again.

 

[ChristineM]

Nope it is fact. You didn't refute the argument you attacked the source. Try again.

I provided a link that identified the source a right wing biassed. Which it clearly is, i have also provided several quotes to back up the site i linked to. And links to the UN watch site when asked to prove my statements.

Mr condescension has provided nothing but incredulous opinion and has tried just about everything he could to discredit the site i linked to and failed. He then went about trying to discredit the site owners credentials and qualifications, again a futile grasp and failed.

He then chose to try to discredit and insult me. But what he doesnt realise, there are idiots everywhere who get peed off with people not falling to their knees to worship their opinion. It is typical of the type, you know it well and you know well that ir does not work.

What he hasn't done is show that his opinion is valid and that UN Watch is not a right wing biassed site.

So i suggest you try again or dont butt in to what you know nothing about

 

[Shad]

I provided a link that identified the source a right wing biassed. Which it clearly is, i have also provided several quotes to back up the site i linked to. And links to the UN watch site when asked to prove my statements.

That does not refuted the linked argument.

Mr condescension has provided nothing but incredulous opinion and has tried just about everything he could to discredit the site i linked to and failed. He then went about trying to discredit the site owners credentials and qualifications, again a futile grasp and failed.

No Rosends pointed out a lack of expertise.

He then chose to try to discredit and insult me.

You did that fine on your own.

But what he doesnt realise, there are idiots everywhere who get peed off with people not falling to their knees to worship their opinion. It is typical of the type, you know it well and you know well that ir does not work.

You are just flailing as you couldn't refute the argument itself and people wouldn't roll over for your fallacious point.

What he hasn't done is show that his opinion is valid and that UN Watch is not a right wing biassed site.

Rosends does not need to. You never refuted the arguement Rosends linked. You attacked the source via the ad hom fallacy.

So i suggest you try again or dont butt in to what you know nothing about

I've read your whole exchange. You didn't refute Rosends argument then you whined.

 

[rosends]

Post #408, you cherry picked half a sentence and you know it.

No, I quoted the first half in which you said what you will do.
I omitted the second half in which you asked whether I would ignore you as well.
Your second half began with the word "is" which introduces a question, not an offer.
Did you mean something different from what you wrote? "is you will agree to the same." I tried make sense of it as written instead of insulting you by pointing out the flaws in the English.

So I answered that I have no problem with your ignoring me but, no I am not planning on putting anyone on ignore.

I don't see any offer here so I'm not sure what you are talking about.

 

[ChristineM]

No, I quoted the first half in which you said what you will do.
I omitted the second half in which you asked whether I would ignore you as well.
Your second half began with the word "is" which introduces a question, not an offer.
Did you mean something different from what you wrote? "is you will agree to the same." I tried make sense of it as written instead of insulting you by pointing out the flaws in the English.

So I answered that I have no problem with your ignoring me but, no I am not planning on putting anyone on ignore.

I don't see any offer here so I'm not sure what you are talking about.

That is called cherry picking. To pick a section of a piece of writing that massages your ego, which is clearly what you did!

And yes, it was a typo, should have been if. My spell checker identified it as a correctly spelt word so i did not see it as an error. Its what happens, if you are unsure then just ask, without condescension or insult and i will correct my errors.

 

[ChristineM]

That does not refuted the linked argument.



No Rosends pointed out a lack of expertise.




You did that fine on your own.




You are just flailing as you couldn't refute the argument itself and people wouldn't roll over for your fallacious point.



Rosends does not need to. You never refuted the arguement Rosends linked. You attacked the source via the ad hom fallacy.



I've read your whole exchange. You didn't refute Rosends argument then you whined.

It identifies UN Watch as a right wing biassed website. You may not like it but tough

And 20: years experience with a degree in communication does not indicate lack of experience.

It was not me who deleted at least one of his posts

Bullpoop

See above, he posted a link that he is not willing to defend but instead shoots messengers. If he will not defend his opinion and the site he linked to justify his opinion then he lost. End of story

Again for the hard if thinking, i provided evidence, backed up indipendentely. You want different? Of course you do because what i provided pops your bubble

 

[rosends]

That is called cherry picking. To pick a section of a piece of writing that massages your ego, which is clearly what you did!

And yes, it was a typo, should have been if. My spell checker identified it as a correctly spelt word so i did not see it as an error. Its what happens, if you are unsure then just ask, without condescension or insult and i will correct my errors.

It isn't cherry picking because I didn't omit a section in order to influence the meaning. I omited the section which asked a separate question. I wasn't unsure of anything. I answered the question. If you can recognize that there was an error which led to the misunderstanding, you should address it without trying to stick labels on the response.

Now, I see your offer. You make your decision to ignore me contingent on my decision to ignore you. This is counter logical as you deprive yourself of what you see as a prudent and desirable course of action because I do not see the same course of action as useful to me. Why you would deprive yourself of a recourse which is to your liking because of the decision of anyone else who might have different priorities and preferences escapes me.

 

[rosends]

It identifies UN Watch as a right wing biassed website. You may not like it but tough

Actually, it labels. It does not identify.

And 20: years experience with a degree in communication does not indicate lack of experience.

And yet my MA and 25 years experience is dismissed by you. By your thinking, my position should be even more persuasive.

 

[ChristineM]

It isn't cherry picking because I didn't omit a section in order to influence the meaning. I omited the section which asked a separate question. I wasn't unsure of anything. I answered the question. If you can recognize that there was an error which led to the misunderstanding, you should address it without trying to stick labels on the response.

Now, I see your offer. You make your decision to ignore me contingent on my decision to ignore you. This is counter logical as you deprive yourself of what you see as a prudent and desirable course of action because I do not see the same course of action as useful to me. Why you would deprive yourself of a recourse which is to your liking because of the decision of anyone else who might have different priorities and preferences escapes me.

You did. It was a single sentence.

I will re-quote because you obviously misunderstood my post "My spell checker identified it as a correctly spelt word so i did not see it as an error.

I was offering you a way out, you refused it, who is being country productive?

You dont see it as useful, that is fair enough, decision made, you want to argue about it or think you can mindread, go-ahead

 

[rosends]

You did. It was a single sentence.

I will re-quote because you obviously misunderstood my post "My spell checker identified it as a correctly spelt word so i did not see it as an error.

I was offering you a way out, you refused it, who is being country productive?

You dont see it as useful, that is fair enough, decision made, you want to argue about it or think you can mindread, go-ahead

You did not see it as an error, but have subsequently indicated that it was an error and it led to a different meaning. So my response to that other meaning was logical and proper and my quoting the relevant part, predicated on exactly what you wrote was equally proper. You want me to mindread and deny that you wrote one word but instead guess that you wrote another and presume your meaning? Or do you want me to point out that what you wrote doesn't make sense as written? Just let me know -- so far, each alternative has led to an angry reply by you so I'm a bit confused.

Meanwhile, ignoring someone is, as I have stated, not a course of action I choose to pursue. Why you would let that stop you from a course that you desire and is, in your eyes, a way out, makes no sense to me.

 

[Shad]

It identifies UN Watch as a right wing biassed website. You may not like it but tough

I never disputed any bias. I said a bias does not establish the argument is wrong.

And 20: years experience with a degree in communication does not indicate lack of experience.

I was pointing out an argument made by another poster. It is not my argument.

It was not me who deleted at least one of his posts

I have no idea what this is a reference to.

See above, he posted a link that he is not willing to defend but instead shoots messengers.

You never attacked the argument you only attacked the source. Rosend has no need to defend anything at this time as you have no counter-point to address. You didn't show the work was wrong. You smeared the source, nothing more.

If he will not defend his opinion and the site he linked to justify his opinion then he lost. End of story

You never attacked the argument you merely attacked the source. Rosends does not need to defend against a fallacious point.

Again for the hard if thinking, i provided evidence, backed up indipendentely. You want different? Of course you do because what i provided pops your bubble

You still didn't attack the argument only the source. You didn't refute anything.

Fox News is biased. Fox News said today the weather will be 56F. Does Fox's bias make their report wrong?

 

[ChristineM]

I never disputed any bias. I said a bias does not establish the argument is wrong.



I was pointing out an argument made by another poster. It is not my argument.



I have no idea what this is a reference to.



You never attacked the argument you only attacked the source. Rosend has no need to defend anything at this time as you have no counter-point to address. You didn't show the work was wrong. You smeared the source, nothing more.



You never attacked the argument you merely attacked the source. Rosends does not need to defend against a fallacious point.




You still didn't attack the argument only the source. You didn't refute anything.

Fox News is biased. Fox News said today the weather will be 56F. Does Fox's bias make their report wrong?

Ahh, depends which side of the wall you are doing on, depends if you are being denied humanitarian aid or not, depends whether you are having your land stolen or if you are stealing land. Depends if you are the one getting shot for crossing the road or the one doing the shooting, depends if you are the child in school or the one bombing that school.

Jolly good, so you thought you'd railroad your way in with your two-penneth?

You wouldn't, you jumped in after the fact, non the less it is a fact

Yes, that was my intention, to invalidate the source. I am not here to play your games but my own

He made a post, #194 with no argument but a comment with a link to un watch. I posted a link to show the UN watch site is right wing and biassed in favour of Israel. So what argument?

See previous paragraph,

Yes we know faux news is right wing biassed, got any more straw men?

 

[ChristineM]

You did not see it as an error, but have subsequently indicated that it was an error and it led to a different meaning. So my response to that other meaning was logical and proper and my quoting the relevant part, predicated on exactly what you wrote was equally proper. You want me to mindread and deny that you wrote one word but instead guess that you wrote another and presume your meaning? Or do you want me to point out that what you wrote doesn't make sense as written? Just let me know -- so far, each alternative has led to an angry reply by you so I'm a bit confused.

Meanwhile, ignoring someone is, as I have stated, not a course of action I choose to pursue. Why you would let that stop you from a course that you desire and is, in your eyes, a way out, makes no sense to me.

It makes little difference to the fact that you cherry picked a part of a sentence

Again you seem to have reading problems.

 

[Shad]

Ahh, depends which side of the wall you are doing on, depends if you are being denied humanitarian aid or not, depends whether you are having your land stolen or if you are stealing land. Depends if you are the one getting shot for crossing the road or the one doing the shooting, depends if you are the child in school or the one bombing that school.

This is off-topic from my point.

Jolly good, so you thought you'd railroad your way in with your two-penneth?

Deflection.

You wouldn't, you jumped in after the fact, non the less it is a fact

Wrong. You made a mistake that is easy to spot.

Yes, that was my intention, to invalidate the source. I am not here to play your games but my own

That is by defination an ad hom fallacy. Hilarious.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself"

Try again.

He made a post, #194 with no argument but a comment with a link to un watch.

The link was the argument.

I posted a link to show the UN watch site is right wing and biassed in favour of Israel. So what argument?

That is an ad hom fallacy.

See previous paragraph,

Same mistake you have made for days. Try again

Yes we know faux news is right wing biassed, got any more straw men?

I never made a strawman as I am not modifying your argument. Look up the meaning of the terms you use and try again. I am making a similar argument you made. One which you refuse to answer as it would refute your own objections to Rosends' source. You are transparent.

Does Fox New's bias make the weather report wrong? Yes or no?