Your point was that I only post from a single perspective, was it not?
No. Pay attention, I'm not going to repeat myself.
If you are claiming that naturalnews.com and counterpunch.org are not the same
That is not what I said and has nothing to do with anything I said.
These two sites are diverse from each other, therefore, they contain "some variety.
When you say "diverse" do you mean "different"?
There's not much "diversity" in sites being repeated 15 times, or all posts being to extremely biased politics.
None at all. Just you playing the same game over and over, with no variety.
There is more than one source, you know. Like this one
That's not a source, it's an entertainment article. A source would be a dictionary, wikipedia, or the like. None of which include your made up phrase.
I can make up a fallacy also, that doesn't make it a common expression. You can't just invent a word and then pretend it's valid.
What are you doing here? Is this your idea of discussion, or debate? Are you trying to win? I was curious about your motives, you've made it clear that they are malicious, and you are not open to discussion.
A source would be a dictionary, wikipedia, or the like
Does that change anything about what I said, or are you just playing the "red herring" card here, trying to get involved with discussing what are valid sources rather than the fact that ANY repsonse is greater than zero, thereby making your point invalid. Sorry, it just is. You could change it to "very few responses" and we'd be golden. But you want to play the attack game, the diversion game, and the deflection game rather than admit a simple mistake that really shouldn't be the end all, be all of your existence, but for some odd reason, you refuse to make. Why is that? What is so important about being 100% correct? I fuck up all the time. So what? Just admit it, and move on with your life. Seriously, I can't keep giving out these free lessons! (Name the movie for 100 free internet points!)
What are you doing here?
Posting articles that interest me. Is that against a by-law I am unaware of?
Is this your idea of discussion, or debate?
I am just responding to your queries and your comments.
Are you trying to win?
Win what?
I was curious about your motives, you've made it clear that they are malicious,
Malicious to whom or what? So, posting articles is malicious behavior? In what way, pray tell? Let's say, for rhetorical sakes, I am a raving mad lefty. How is that "malicious"? Is having a differing viewpoint "malicious" to you? Or is this an echo chamber site, where only one viewpoint is allowed? If so, than we probably should have that on the sidebars.
you are not open to discussion
Open is discussion. We have been communicating. Communicating doesn't mean that I must swallow and accept everything you say as gospel truth. Discussion means
the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas
We re talking about something, and exchanging ideas. Therefore this is a discussion. Not the most interesting or informative discussion, but it is still a discussion.
Care to explain why I am "malicious" and why you care so much?
this is a discussion
If this is your idea of discussion, then I feed bad for you.
Let's say, for rhetorical sakes
You don't know what the word rhetorical means, but you still tried to use it. Did you think I wouldn't notice, and I'd be impressed?
Well, unlike you, I know what the word means. So it just exposes your retardation even more.
Also 'sakes' is not a word. The word 'sake' is a plurale tantum (means it is the same when plural or singular).
Care to explain why I am "malicious"
I have no idea. I could take a guess at a bad upbringing, or maybe a mental disorder.
why you care so much?
I think I've made it clear that I don't.
Sorry.
Your point was that I only post from a single perspective, was it not? Let's see, you said "You post this site, and similar viewpoints exclusively."
You then followed up with "If you were interested in discussion and learning there would be some variety". If you are claiming that naturalnews.com and counterpunch.org are not the same. Since you like the definition game, the definition of variety is "the quality or state of being different or diverse; the absence of uniformity, sameness, or monotony." These two sites are diverse from each other, therefore, they contain "some variety."
Secondly, you state that discussion can only be had if "some variety" of posts are made. I refute that claim. Discussion can be had from a single viewpoint. I can hold a single viewpoint, and entertain ideas from others' comments. The OP does not have to be from diverse viewpoints to garner discussion. It is the comments PLUS the OP that generate the variety of POV.
I guess I'll keep trying until the level of discussion satisfies your definition. This post alone geneated a discussion between two or three other posters. My post on Fukishima water issue brought out some repsones that helped educate me.My post on race brought out a couple of points. It didn't get more than 2-3 responses deep, but it still is more than zero.
There is more than one source, you know.
Like this one
I don't have to accept them to appreciate them. Thanks again!