150 rockets fired at Israel after IDF assassinates Gaza terror leader

[rosends]

To paraphrase, you stated you cherry picked to omit the question.

You are very confused. I never said I cherry picked. I said I omitted material because it was an irrelevant question. You are now asking me why I would have thought it was a question when it lacked a question mark. To answer that I, again, ask you to explain how you knew that in post 477, I was asking a question.

 

[Shad]

Your point is off topic from the reality of this thread

Nope.

Fact

Nope

What mistake, the only mistakes i have made are spelling errors in phrases not relevant to the thread but relevant to @rosends posts

Read my post again

Dont talk rubbish (again), my post was a genuine and valid counter to @rosends link. Sorry if that confuses you

You are on a forum thread not a PM.

I countered the link

Which was an ad hom fallacies try again

Dont talk rubbish again my post was a genuine and valid counter to @rosends link

Nope. See if you want to counter the point you need to show the point is wrong instead of merely not liking the source. Try again.

So you are unable to state what they are... That is nothing new

Wrong. Read my post again

Fox is irrelevant.

You missed the point. Zoom right over you head.

 

[ChristineM]

You are very confused. I never said I cherry picked. I said I omitted material because it was an irrelevant question. You are now asking me why I would have thought it was a question when it lacked a question mark. To answer that I, again, ask you to explain how you knew that in post 477, I was asking a question.

And i showed it was not a question and considered that you cherry picked. I never mentioned post 477, thats your straw man, which maks a statement, it dies not ask a question. Although i answered it because what i want is evidence

 

[ChristineM]

Nope.




Nope



Read my post again



You are on a forum thread not a PM.




Which was an ad hom fallacies try again



Nope. See if you want to counter the point you need to show the point is wrong instead of merely not liking the source. Try again.



Wrong. Read my post again



You missed the point. Zoom right over you head.

Yes... Try again
Yes... Try again
Why bother? I have already responded.
Of course this is a forum, what difference does the make to the validity of my post?
Nope, it is a valid side providing valid information
I did counter the link with another link, and later provided indipendent verification.... Try again
Right, you have stated nothing except irrelevant opinion... As is usual so try again
Nope, fox weather is irrelevant to mediabiasfactchecks mission. Try again

 

[Shad]

Yes... Try again
Yes... Try again
Why bother? I have already responded.
Of course this is a forum, what difference does the make to the validity of my post?
Nope, it is a valid side providing valid information
I did counter the link with another link, and later provided indipendent verification.... Try again
Right, you have stated nothing except irrelevant opinion... As is usual so try again
Nope, fox weather is irrelevant to mediabiasfactchecks mission. Try again

You still made a fallacious argument. You are done. Next! Ask someone that does not have issues with reading to help you figure it out.

 

[ChristineM]

You still made a fallacious argument. You are done. Next! Ask someone that does not have issues with reading to help you figure it out.

I did not, i provided a valid link so it seems you are the one with the reading problems.

Just because you dont like it (or me) does not invalidate the link

 

[Shad]

I did not, i provided a valid link so it seems you are the one with the reading problems.

Just because you dont like it (or me) does not invalidate the link

Wrong. You admitted you attacked the source not the argument from the source. Try again.

I never said your source was invalid. I said your argument was fallacious. Try again.

 

[ChristineM]

Wrong. You admitted you attacked the source not the argument from the source. Try again.

I never said your source was invalid. I said your argument was fallacious. Try again.

Sheesh, here we go again, last time!

There was no argument, just a link to the UN Watch site.

I, likewise, provided a link and later several corroborating quotes.

End of story

 

[Shad]

Sheesh, here we go again, last time!

There was no argument, just a link to the UN Watch site.

The argument is within the source. Read it.

I, likewise, provided a link and later several corroborating quotes.

Which is about the source not the argument presented.

End of story

Still fallacious. Try again.

 

[ChristineM]

The argument is within the source. Read it.



Which is about the source not the argument presented.



Still fallacious. Try again.

So is mine. Just because you dont like it is not my problem

 

[Shad]

So is mine. Just because you dont like it is not my problem

It has nothing to do with liking or disliking. You point was fallacious.

 

[ChristineM]

It has nothing to do with liking or disliking. You point was fallacious.

Nope, it is accurate and indipendentely verified. You can check it yourself if you are up to trawling through all UN watch pages. Just point out one (just one) that is not right wing biassed

 

[Shad]

Nope, it is accurate and indipendentely verified. You can check it yourself if you are up to trawling through all UN watch pages. Just point out one (just one) that is not right wing biassed

I never disputed any bias. Thanks for more evidence you have reading comprehension issues that are debilitating. Now try to address what I actually said.

 

[ChristineM]

I never disputed any bias. Thanks for more evidence you have reading comprehension issues that are debilitating. Now try to address what I actually said.

You have said nothing of any merit, what you have done is repeatedly employed bullying tactics saying all sorts of bull without explanation.

My post linked to a valid criticism of UN watch. You have done nothing to counter that.

Which of course is typical for you.

 

[Shad]

You have said nothing of any merit, what you have done is repeatedly employed bullying tactics saying all sorts of bull without explanation.

Wrong. I pointed out the fallacy you used.

My post linked to a valid criticism of UN watch. You have done nothing to counter that.

I do not need to as I never challenged it. This is like the 4th time I have to point this out to you. Do you not get it yet?. Need me to say it for a 5th time? I am not challenging your link. I am pointing out your argument is fallacious.

Bias does not mean something is wrong. Try again.

Which of course is typical for you.

Read what I post not what is in your head and try again.

 

[ChristineM]

Wrong. I pointed out the fallacy you used.



I do not need to as I never challenged it. This is like the 4th time I have to point this out to you. Do you not get it yet?. Need me to say it for a 5th time? I am not challenging your link. I am pointing out your argument is fallacious.

Bias does not mean something is wrong. Try again.




Read what I post not what is in your head and try again.

Nope, you wrote an irrelevance in an attempt to pick argument

You are challenging my posts now, and have been for several days, continuing to derail the thread.

I have not said there was something wrong, i have said it was biassed

I do, you should read your own posts. Do you forgot so easily?

 

[rosends]

And i showed it was not a question and considered that you cherry picked.

Actually, you asked how I could think it WAS a question (a position I must have held, to defend only quoting one part of it). I explained that the wording, in that the second half begins "Is" which often introduces a question, pointed to its being a question.

I never mentioned post 477, thats your straw man, which maks a statement, it dies not ask a question. Although i answered it because what i want is evidence

You wrote post 478. Post 478 quotes my post 477, so "I never mentioned post 477" seems, well, wrong. I wrote in 477 "What more could you want" and you started 478 with "I want the truth about" so you seem to have treated 477 as a question. In fact, you now say "Although i answered it" while you still want to claim you didn't see it as a question. And yet you wonder why I viewed your "Is" section as a question. Your view of English sentences vs. questions seems capricious at best.

 

[ChristineM]

Actually, you asked how I could think it WAS a question (a position I must have held, to defend only quoting one part of it). I explained that the wording, in that the second half begins "Is" which often introduces a question, pointed to its being a question.

You wrote post 478. Post 478 quotes my post 477, so "I never mentioned post 477" seems, well, wrong. I wrote in 477 "What more could you want" and you started 478 with "I want the truth about" so you seem to have treated 477 as a question. In fact, you now say "Although i answered it" while you still want to claim you didn't see it as a question. And yet you wonder why I viewed your "Is" section as a question. Your view of English sentences vs. questions seems capricious at best.

 

[columbus]

@rosends
@ChristineM
@Shad

Are any of you going to discuss the issue, or are you going to keep discussing each other's posts?
Tom

 

[ChristineM]

@rosends
@ChristineM
@Shad

Are any of you going to discuss the issue, or are you going to keep discussing each other's posts?
Tom

I have asked, but the question is ignored.