Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22675
    13 Feb '19 17:571 edit
    Our American assets are just beginning to deliver results. The Intel Community is pissed and is out for blood. The United States is a very powerful nation and our enemies have become complacent. Expect more.
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    13 Feb '19 20:00
    @wolfe63 said
    Our American assets are just beginning to deliver results. The Intel Community is pissed and is out for blood. The United States is a very powerful nation and our enemies have become complacent. Expect more.
    Wolfe63's headline is misleading. Monica Witt has been charged, not convicted.
    Here's a more objective headline:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47231777
    "Ex-US Air Force officer Monica Witt charged with spying for Iran"

    "Monica Witt, who allegedly defected to Iran in 2013, had previously worked as a US counterintelligence officer."

    "Prosecutors say Ms Witt had been granted the highest level of US security clearance
    and worked in the US Air Force from 1997 to 2008."

    "According to the FBI, Ms Witt was last seen in southwest Asia in July 2013."
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    13 Feb '19 20:02
    Marzieh Hashemi (nee Melanie Franklin) is an African American (born in the USA)
    who has become a citizen of Iran. She works as a journalist and television presenter.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marzieh_Hashemi
  4. SubscriberWOLFE63
    Tra il dire e il far
    C'e di mezzo il mar!
    Joined
    06 Nov '15
    Moves
    22675
    14 Feb '19 14:43
    @duchess64 said
    Wolfe63's headline is misleading. Monica Witt has been charged, not convicted.
    Here's a more objective headline:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47231777
    "Ex-US Air Force officer Monica Witt charged with spying for Iran"

    "Monica Witt, who allegedly defected to Iran in 2013, had previously worked as a US counterintelligence officer."

    "Prosecutors say Ms ...[text shortened]... from 1997 to 2008."

    "According to the FBI, Ms Witt was last seen in southwest Asia in July 2013."
    "Wolfe63's headline is misleading. Monica Witt has been charged, not convicted."
    -Duchess64

    Duchess64 keeps showing (at best) her abysmal reading comprehension or 'logic'. I do not recall mentioning the word "convicted".

    My headline is clear and succinct.
    What part of "Monica Witt: Caught spying for Iran" did Duchess64 not comprehend?

    I suspect the wee hamster in her head was just too busy spinning up some counter-propaganda. Naturally.
  5. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    14 Feb '19 19:424 edits
    @wolfe63 said
    "Wolfe63's headline is misleading. Monica Witt has been charged, not convicted."
    -Duchess64

    Duchess64 keeps showing (at best) her abysmal reading comprehension or 'logic'. I do not recall mentioning the word "convicted".

    My headline is clear and succinct.
    What part of "Monica Witt: Caught spying for Iran" did Duchess64 not comprehend?

    I suspect the wee hamster in her head was just too busy spinning up some counter-propaganda. Naturally.
    The jingoistic American Wolfe63 keeps being extremely dishonest.

    "Monica Witt: CAUGHT spying for Iran."
    --Wolfe63

    False or extremely misleading (at best).
    Monica Witt was NOT 'caught' in the act of 'spying for Iran'.
    She has been accused of spying long AFTER she allegedly did so.

    The troll Wolfe63 refuses to concede that the BBC's headline is much more accurate and objective.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47231777
    "Ex-US Air Force officer Monica Witt CHARGED with spying for Iran"

    Note the BBC wrote 'charged', NOT 'caught'.
    The BBC would not employ someone as obviously biased as the lying troll Wolfe63.
  6. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    11647
    14 Feb '19 19:54
    @duchess64 said
    The jingoistic American Wolfe63 keeps being extremely dishonest.

    "Monica Witt: CAUGHT spying for Iran."
    --Wolfe63

    False or extremely misleading (at best).
    Monica Witt was NOT 'caught' in the act of 'spying for Iran'.
    She has been accused of spying long after she allegedly did so.

    The troll Wolfe63 refuses to concede that the BBC's headline is much more accurate ...[text shortened]... ed', NOT 'caught'.
    The BBC would not employ someone as obviously biased as the lying troll Wolfe63.
    Wait, just a while back you were chastising the BBC for its bias reporting towards China.

    Is the BBC only credible when it reports things you agree with?
  7. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    14 Feb '19 20:085 edits
    @ghost-of-a-duke said
    Wait, just a while back you were chastising the BBC for its bias reporting towards China.

    Is the BBC only credible when it reports things you agree with?
    Given the presumption of innocence (which Wolfe63 denies to Monica Witt), it's
    standard practice in journalism to write that a person has been accused or charged
    of a crime before there's any conviction for it. Wolfe63 would fail Journalism 101.

    Ghost of a Duke confuses (at best) the distinct issues of writing an objective headline
    and less overt bias in the content (including what's not written) in the content of a story.
    Ghost of a Duke also fails to comprehend (at best) that a news source may be
    more biased on some issues than on others.

    I don't have a problem with trusting Fox News Channel to report sports scores accurately.
    But I would NOT trust Fox News Channel to report many other stories accurately or fairly.
    Only a fool (like Ghost of a Duke?) would perceive any contradiction in that.
  8. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    11647
    14 Feb '19 20:181 edit
    @Duchess64

    You seem a little confused. (At best). In your post you stated:

    "The BBC would not employ someone as obviously biased as the lying troll Wolfe63." - How could this be possible when you have accused the BBC previously of being blatantly bias towards China?!

    Surely they HAVE already employed individuals prone to bias?


    Edit: You're 5 edits made your post progressively unhinged.
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    14 Feb '19 20:314 edits
    @ghost-of-a-duke said
    @Duchess64

    You seem a little confused. (At best). In your post you stated:

    "The BBC would not employ someone as obviously biased as the lying troll Wolfe63." - How could this be possible when you have accused the BBC previously of being blatantly bias towards China?!

    Surely they HAVE already employed individuals prone to bias?

    Edit: You're 5 edits made your post progressively unhinged.
    The lying troll Ghost of a Duke now shows that he's obviously trolling and lying as usual.
    Again, to be generous, let's assume that Ghost of a Duke's nearly illiterate rather than a pathological liar.
    (I have cited ample evidence to show Ghost of a Duke's persistent lying in other threads.)

    "Given the presumption of innocence (which Wolfe63 denies to Monica Witt), it's
    standard practice in journalism to write that a person has been accused or charged
    of a crime before there's any conviction for it."
    --Duchess64

    There's nothing controversial or in dispute about that at all.
    In contrast, there's much controversial or in dispute in many stories about China.
    There's much more room to disagree (reasonably) about how to cover stories about China.

    In order to preempt more lying by Ghost of a Duke, my position is NOT that ALL
    BBC stories on China are biased, only that SOME BBC stories evidently are biased.

    "Ghost of a Duke confuses (at best) the distinct issues of writing an objective headline
    and less overt bias in the content (including what's not written) in the content of a story."
    --Duchess64

    The troll Ghost of a Duke's still obstinately confused (at best).
    The extremely dishonest Ghost of a Duke sets up an absurd 'strawman'.
    Of course, the BBC cannot always employ perfectly unbiased journalists because
    no perfectly unbiased journalist exists. That's irrelevant to my point.
    My point is that the BBC would not employ a writer who's SO biased (and ignorant
    of standard journalistic practice) as to write Wolfe63's extremely biased HEADLINE:
    "Monica Witt: CAUGHT spying for Iran."

    "I don't have a problem with trusting Fox News Channel to report sports scores accurately.
    But I would NOT trust Fox News Channel to report many other stories accurately or fairly.
    --Duchess64

    Only a fatuous troll like Ghost of a Duke would argue there's any contradiction in that.

    The abusive troll Ghost of a Duke seems determined to turn this thread (like
    some others earlier) into one where he keeps hurling insults and lies at me.
    When will Ghost of a Duke add race-baiting to appeal to the many racists here?
  10. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    11647
    14 Feb '19 20:56
    @Duchess64

    I thought we had established in the other thread that you had an incorrect understanding of 'nearly illiterate'?

    Repetition of identified errors merely goes to highlight the absurdity of your previous claim that you had a richer repertoire of English than the majority of native speakers.
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    14 Feb '19 21:001 edit
    @ghost-of-a-duke said
    @Duchess64

    I thought we had established in the other thread that you had an incorrect understanding of 'nearly illiterate'?

    Repetition of identified errors merely goes to highlight the absurdity of your previous claim that you had a richer repertoire of English than the majority of native speakers.
    "In order to preempt more lying by Ghost of a Duke, my position is NOT that ALL
    BBC stories on China are biased, only that SOME BBC stories evidently are biased."
    --Duchess64

    "I don't have a problem with trusting Fox News Channel to report sports scores accurately.
    But I would NOT trust Fox News Channel to report many other stories accurately or fairly.
    Only a fatuous troll like Ghost of a Duke would argue there's any contradiction in that."
    --Duchess64

    The abusive troll Ghost of a Duke seems determined to turn this thread (like
    some others earlier) into one where he keeps hurling insults and lies at me.
    When will Ghost of a Duke add race-baiting to appeal to the many racists here?
  12. SubscriberGhost of a Duke
    A Spirited Misfit
    in London
    Joined
    14 Mar '15
    Moves
    11647
    14 Feb '19 21:04
    @duchess64 said
    "In order to preempt more lying by Ghost of a Duke, my position is NOT that ALL
    BBC stories on China are biased, only that SOME BBC stories evidently are biased."
    --Duchess64

    "I don't have a problem with trusting Fox News Channel to report sports scores accurately.
    But I would NOT trust Fox News Channel to report many other stories accurately or fairly.
    Only a fa ...[text shortened]... lts and lies at me.
    When will Ghost of a Duke add race-baiting to appeal to the many racists here?
    Why have you invaded the thread about cannabis with irrelevant statements about white supremacists?

    Could it be that 'race-baiting' is, in fact, your bag?!
  13. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    14 Feb '19 21:131 edit
    @ghost-of-a-duke said
    Why have you invaded the thread about cannabis with irrelevant statements about white supremacists?

    Could it be that 'race-baiting' is, in fact, your bag?!
    The lying troll Ghost of a Duke keeps dishonestly distorting or lying about what I wrote.

    In fact, this was my first post--where I 'invaded' (to quote Ghost of a Duke)
    the 'thread about cannabis":
    "Was it the same voice that told Ghost of a Duke that Brexit's so absolutely wonderful
    that it's worthwhile for him to keep lying about its motives and consequences?"
    --Duchess64

    Note that (in my supposed 'invasion'😉 I wrote nothing about 'white supremacists'.

    Later in that thread, I wrote:
    ""In the SF? - Karoly and some other strange chap." [allegedly extol cannabis]
    --Ghost of a Duke

    Would the troll Ghost of a Duke likewise act as though the opinions of some
    white racial supremacists here represent many, if not most, other white people?"
    --Duchess64

    I was pointing out Ghost of a Duke's hypocrisy in exaggerating the supposed opinions
    of two writers at RHP into implying that they represent what many more people
    believe about cannabis. I already know that Ghost of a Duke never would have
    done the same with the more numerous white racial supremacists in RHP forums
    because Ghost of a Duke typically prefers to downplay white racism.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52865
    17 Feb '19 16:59
    @Duchess64
    Is there ANYONE here not a lying jingoistic pandering self centered racist in your eyes? Using terms like that does not help your cause, I have said it before and I say it again.
    I can only assume just MENTIONING this will be considered an insult and not a critique.
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    17 Feb '19 18:542 edits
    @sonhouse said
    @Duchess64
    Is there ANYONE here not a lying jingoistic pandering self centered racist in your eyes? Using terms like that does not help your cause, I have said it before and I say it again.
    I can only assume just MENTIONING this will be considered an insult and not a critique.
    The hateful lying troll Sonhouse has been jumping into many threads in various forums
    to hurl more abuse and blatant lies at me. Sonhouse (who's an obstinate fool at best)
    feels hurt after I (again) cited more evidence confirming his racism and tireless lying.

    In fact, Sonhouse recently has condoned or approved of the USA's nearly genocidal
    war of conquest in the Philippines killing hundreds of thousands of Filipino civilians.
    Sonhouse has argued that this historical event should be ignored or forgotten
    (Americans presumably should not be blamed at all) because he believes that China's
    occupation of a few disputed islands is morally much worse than near genocide.

    "Is there ANYONE here not a lying jingoistic pandering self centered racist in your eyes?"
    --Sonhouse

    Sonhouse's rhetorical question refers to an obvious LIE.
    In many post, Sonhouse has shown that he's a pathological liar.

    I regard Sonhouse as one of the most morally reprehensible people whom I have ever known.
    I have no reason to believe that most people here approve of racist genocide,
    at least when it's not committed by their favorite countries.
Back to Top