Zero Hedge loses whatever credibility it once had

I refer you back to this post:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=481064&p=1066758470#post1066758470

LOL at the poster trying to reject the OP on grammar grounds -- and being wrong even in that particular.

 

I refer you back to this post:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=481064&p=1066758470#post1066758470

LOL at the poster trying to reject the OP on grammar grounds -- and being wrong even in that particular.

 

In fact that is what you have done. Zero, by posting the WikiLeak email revealed the obvious truth. You are in denial.

 

No, I was never a corrupt, dishonest, disreputable person. I never worked in "journalism", now referred to as propaganda.

- - - Updated - - -

A few do.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/polls_and_the_media_disinformation_campaign.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/whats_going_on_with_the_polls.html

Non-partisan polls show significantly different results than the partisan polls.

 

Concession noted. How pathetic.

 

zerohedge pointed out that polls were mostly taken from minorities, so of course they will be voting democrat and make it appear republicans will lose.

this strategy is used by the media of the rich so that the voting public feels they have lost to the favorable President of the rich, and not come out to vote.

by the way, its ridiculous to assume zerohedge is partisan, they are probably the only media to get an honest view on the markets. every other media outlet is run by the rich so they are called hedge for a reason, they always speak critical of the establishment which includes the rich republican media outlets as well.

 

1. Quotation marks are typically used to signal, ummmm, what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yes: quotations. As in quoting the actual word that was used. I haven't seen the blog, but if "oversampling" was put in quotations, they could have been drawing attention to the fact that it was the actual word that was used in the original source.

2. Words also often have particular, specific technical meanings when used in a specific field of activity. Usage is precise. The people who work in that field immediately know what they are talking about. I have often asked someone to "blow the guy". But only when I'm sailing, where that phrase has a very different meaning than it would have in a lot of other contexts.

The OP gives a rational and comprehensive explanation of what oversampling is. The word seems strange, but the explanation renders the word innocuous.

 

you're leaving out the beginning of that sentence where he says "in recent years" which is everything this is about... you can attempt to exclude that all you want, its the critical hinging point and no matter how much you attempt to suggest I don't understand it, I notice you keep avoiding it and running away from that critical portion of the sentence... clearly he consumed the information source previously, to even describe the situation as "in recent years" to personally notice it has changed to the way he later said it did in the sentence... so my point has been made, it has been proven, and you're left using a sit-n-spin attempting to find an escape route... game set match...

 

What a ridiculous argument. What the OP said was

You interpret this as meaning that, in the past, ZH was OK (to the OP) but in recent years it has taken an ideological turn and now the OP doesn't like it.

At the very least, there are other ways (and frankly, more sensible / obvious / likely ways) of reading this:
- it has not existed for very long. It is only in recent years that it has begun operating
- it has always had the same content, but it has become increasingly popular so only "in recent years" has it become a source of ideological comfort for conservatives

I could go on, but your "killer" argument is at best flawed and actually ridiculous.

And by the way it does not address any of the actual CONTENT of the OP. Just sayin'.

 

lol at your response... "I can't defend anything said so I'll just dismiss and deny everything"... see what happens when you keep opening your trap and using logic on others, that we turn around and use on you, suddenly you're forced to either reject that logic of yours turned around, or you stick with it and have to be wrong... you've clearly chosen to just dismiss and deny... fact remains your logic defeats yourself, maybe next time learn something in your supposed 18 years of journalism, if you're going to make claims that the 18 years grants you some sort of ability to dismiss others, that clearly means someone else with 18 years and 1 day can dismiss everything you say... your logic, slapping you right back in the face... its almost like you're on a sit-n-spin getting dizzy and blaming someone else for you spinning yourself...

 

Just wondering, did you read the actual 39 page report attached to the email?

 

so now the website hasn't existed long enough to be anything but what he states it is? then why would he need to use the statement, in recent years, which infers there are years prior which it was not what he now accuses it of being... please stop trying to reinterpret his words to mean something they don't just so your little butt buddy has someones hand to hold while he plays with his sit-n-spin... he got caught, and now he is trying to weasel out with his little playmates...

to then further suggest its grown in popularity and now is some new source of comfort is equally ridiculous, it clearly would have been a comfort in previous years, now you're just stretching and trying to rewrite his entire opening paragraph... I mean your examples are almost defeating your other examples, so you're beating yourself without me even trying to make an effort to destroy your garbage... its quite clear you can't even justify what it means, and its quite clear the other guy arguing with me and his statement, would now invalid your own statements... so who's right, you, me, or him who disagrees with me but his disagreement would ruin your statements... so in this big circle jerk you're having with him, I'm the only one who has remained on a single point while you keep trying to throw everything at the all and see what sticks...

game set match... maybe next time bring a bigger racket because your attempt to create more garbage scenarios isn't sticking to anything, its dripping down the wall...

 

You have not used any logic. You are imparting a bizarre meaning to what I wrote, even after I made clear what I was saying. And you accuse me of dismissing another poster by simply asserting my experience, when actually I explained how reporting works, then answered their three pieces of evidence in detail. In short, your posts don't describe the real world.

 

FFS the website only started in 2009! So yes, it is completely fair to say "in recent years" because it has only existed in recent years!

You need to go and retreat to one of your safe spaces before you hurt yourself.

And by the way you still haven't responded to the substance of the OP.

 

in short, you continue to deflect and deny even your own logic, because you can't explain it away when its applied back onto yourself, you beat yourself with your big mouth...

 

If you had read the post of mine that you quoted, you will see that I did not leave out or skip "in recent years" at all. It is included in my post. I just pointed out what portion of the sentence it served to modify. Again, this is grade school grammar. I don't understand how this is so difficult to grasp. The thing which the sentence says has happened in recent years is that Zero Hedge has become a source of ideological comfort of conservatives. "In recent years" is an adverbial phrase. It modifies a verb in the sentence. That verb is "has become."

Basic junior high language arts question: What, according to the sentence has happened in recent years? Answer: Zero Hedge has become a source of ideological comfort food for conservatives.

Since you have completely neglected to actually read or attempt to comprehend the clause which you are fallaciously trying to straw man, I'll repeat: In recent years, Zero Hedge has become a source of ideological comfort food for conservatives.

Desperate sophistry isn't going to work here.

 

so now you are the timekeeper who dictates what others meant by "in recent years" yet your own defenses and lack of quoting my entire message demonstrate you can't address everything else, you just keep deflecting and denying, sorry your tired old game isn't working anymore, take off the bubble wrap and come out of your safe space, and deal with the fact, he got caught in the cookie jar, and now you're attempting to spin and deflect in ways that conflict with his own deflections and spinning, I mean either you're right and he's wrong, or you're wrong and he's right, but both of you can't be right in your logic because it defeats the others... you both lose!

 

you did leave it out in the proper context that it served... you attempted to reinterpret and reframe it in a way that he did not use it, all to deflect and dismiss his true statement... sorry I'm not having it... he clearly said in recent years its changed, at the beginning, to suggest he's aware of how it was prior to those years, just because you don't like it, doesn't change it, he clearly like I said, is upset the information source he once liked because it agreed with him, is now bad because he disagrees... its quite simple and short, there is no need to go to such great lengths to make it into something its not, he doesn't like them anymore, thats okay if he doesn't...

 

I legitimately can't tell if you are trolling or your don't understand adverbial phrases.

 

deflect and deny rather than address anything... check... maybe next time just don't pick a fight...

 

You've seriously done nothing else but deflect and avoid addressing anything since this "conversation" started. If you don't poses the basic literacy skills required to read a simple sentence, then maybe don't pick a "debate."

On the off chance that you aren't a troll and genuinely don't understand adverbial phrases, here are some resources to get you started:

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/phrases.htm
http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/adverbial_phrases.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverbial_phrase
http://study.com/academy/lesson/how-to-identify-use-adjectival-adverbial-phrases.html

If you'd like to pick this up again once you are actually able to read and comprehend the sentence that you are criticizing, let me know.

 

You realize that everybody else reading this thread can tell you are full of (*)(*)(*)(*), right?

Jeebus. Trump supporters.

 

accusing me of what you're doing isn't going to help your deflection and denial... and linking to websites about grammar certainly won't either... you have nothing left to stand on, you're just upset you're defending someone who put his foot in his mouth, maybe next time just tell him not to put his foot in his mouth, its that easy...

- - - Updated - - -

attempting to insult me by calling me a Trump supporter isn't helping you any, all it does is demonstrate the same old tired rhetoric you spew in every posting you make...

 

When all they have to offer in way of "debate" is rewriting your posts, you know they are getting desperate.

 

...exactly what I posted, and you didn't refute in the least. They were talking about Podesta Emails, but were also talking about the meaning of a word with MANY meanings, hence the quotes. Rest is not worthy of response.