Ok, but you can also use "thanks" as a goodbye. Consider ending a phone call, maybe "thanks" is for whatever they called about, but it's effectively "goodbye" before hanging up.
you can use it in place of goodbye, but you would be using it with different meaning. this is illustrated by the fact that there are certain situations in which you would never end an interaction with "thanks", but you might "goodbye". for example ending a call with a lover
That's correct. I normally just read but thought I'd comment today. (I might have commented before on an old account but if so I've forgotten the details.)
You can clearly see that the BBC edited this headline. I've seen them do this a lot, but whether you believe me or want to investigate further yourself is entirely up to you.
> You can clearly see that the BBC edited this headline.
Well, sure, but people also commonly believe that they are pressured to do so and eventually relent to the pressure. That they changed something is not strictly evidence that the old version was "factually incorrect".
> I normally just read but thought I'd comment today. (I might have commented before on an old account but if so I've forgotten the details.)
Since we're already on the topic of worthless throwaway accounts, I feel the need to comment on this. This reads like a bit like a "regular internet citizen" phrase of someone who is not that attached to their accounts, which is, of course, a reasonable perspective, but it also reads a lot like someone who's literally paid to read popular discussion sites ("I normally just read") and make accounts they don't care about ("I might have commented before on an old account but if so I've forgotten the details") for the sake of voicing an opinion that benefits their employer if widely believed ("thought I'd comment today"). Just food for thought for the person who is presumably commenting with their genuine opinions. And, of course, readers who are interested in observing sneaky phrases that could potentially cause their thinking to be misdirected.
It provides context. The post was a bare claim without context or evidence, But a poster without any history.
I'd say if you post an accusative claim on a controversial topic as your first post with a new account, it should probably include far more information.
I agree that the context is important. However, there is still a problem here:
- The user name already shows in green, which means a new account. Thus, your comment does not give any additional context.
- If your goal is to provide context, I'm sure you do not fail to provide it when an account with a long history and a tons of karma makes a comment that goes contrary to what you want to believe, right?
I didn't know that. The shade is so slight I couldn't tell.
> I'm sure you do not fail to provide it when an account with a long history and a tons of karma makes a comment that goes contrary to what you want to believe
Why would that be necessary? They wouldn't be "throwaway" in that case.
So? I've seen BBC do this before. Not to mention posting much much worse things and just quietly taking it down without offering some apology or article to try to set the record straight.
What a surprise… a UK lawyer who lives in Jerusalem and is a member of the Israeli Bar, founded an organisation named BBCWatch to “analyse BBC media coverage of the Middle East” wrote a report that was critical of the BBC
If anything Israel gets pretty much a free ride in the UK press and particularly on the BBC
> The research, led by British lawyer Trevor Asserson, also found that Israel was associated with genocide more than 14 times more than Hamas in the corporation’s coverage of the conflict.
That hardly seems surprising, given the way the war is going.
> It cites several examples, including a podcast last November in which Mr Bowen stated “Hamas ...an Islamic resistance movement...we’ve seen in the past few weeks has a military strategy” and a News at Ten report last October in which he said: “Hamas will try to use hit-and-run guerrilla tactics against a much more powerful army.”
Every word in that last sentence is accurate. Where's the bias?
> It claims Mr Bowen has also compared Israel’s offensive in Gaza to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including in a BBC article in November last year in which he stated: “Israel is on course to have killed as many Palestinian civilians in just over a month as Russia has killed in Ukraine since February 2022.”
Again, entirely accurate?
> In one example, the report cites Ms Doucet stating in a radio dispatch in February this year: “And from the beginning of this Israel Gaza War, which erupted on October 7, it has been clear that both the United States and Iran do not want to be dragged into a direct confrontation”
Israel is condemned in the UN for "human rights abuses" more than Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, Rwanda. Combined.
The BBC reporting is the same. "Starving children" with a picture of a child with an disease that made that child look starved before the war. I saw that same false picture in the news just today!
The bias against Israel is striking if you open your eyes.
Trump is one of the least likely people to side with Palestinians on this sort of issue. That even he's able to notice it (along with other Israeli allies, a former Israeli prime minister, and plenty of Israeli intelligence folks) is telling.
The same way I evaluate my doctor to be doing a good job - trust.
Your experience in life will always represent a tiny tiny fraction of one percent of all experiences. If you require a "see it to believe it" approach, you will live and die closed-minded.
That does not mean I need to blindly trust feminists, however.
I don't trust my doctor, or any doctor. I do my own research and if anything seems fishy I get a second opinion.
but then, maybe I can trust a statistically relevant sample of doctor on the basis they are objectively and scientifically trained, regulated and liable?
ASOF now, your comment is no longer flagged, and I just upvoted it, so maybe it will recover.
I wouldn't underestimate the role of bots, or bot assisted socks, rather than the HN community. You last sentence just sounds like sour grapes in this context.
reply