Please cite from the article (not “inferences” or other unfounded “context”) the IMPERATIVE that you claim the article makes. As you claim: must, need. Because you are lying. And I am reporting your comments because you are lying about the article, saying that the original users claim about “without consequence” is somehow factually supported in the article itself.
Then, please cite from the article (not “inferences” or other unfounded “context”) how they believe Iran is not allowed to retaliate.
Both of these claims require sources, and since the claim is being made about the article itself, you should be able to quote it directly. Not twist words in the title to fit your personal opinion. Your inability to do that is all I need to know that your claims are without merit, and further regurgitation of the same personal opinions does not get you closer to the original point (which was talking about the source, btw).
Citation is not needed when you are aware of the subtext. But again, this has been explained to you MULTIPLE times now so what you’re engaging in now is a form of trolling called “Sea Lioning” and I’m sorely tempted to just nuke your whole thread.
If I were you, I would nuke it so users don’t see how poor of moderation this is receiving. Characterizing this as sea lioning when I’ve asked for the same evidence to support the same claim throughout this whole thread is a mark on you. You absolutely have given zero evidence towards your claim about what the article says, again, you have to CHANGE THE WORDS so it fits your point. That is lying. You are lying.
If only you could quote the article with a single iota of evidence to support your claim without changing the words (remember how you lied about the title? And everything that you claim it says?), then that would be productive. Instead, you draw conclusions from other sources that also don’t support the claims (imperative, right to respond), not even backing up the lies with quotes from the article.
This isn’t hard. If the article says something, you can quote it directly. If it doesn’t, I guess the alternative to facts is to lie.
Edit: also lol. “Subtext”… You meant to say, “things that don’t appear in the article” right?
I’m choosing to leave it for the express purpose of other people seeing the precise definition of sea lioning. You’re still getting a temp ban for report abuse.
Please cite from the article (not “inferences” or other unfounded “context”) the IMPERATIVE that you claim the article makes. As you claim: must, need. Because you are lying. And I am reporting your comments because you are lying about the article, saying that the original users claim about “without consequence” is somehow factually supported in the article itself.
Then, please cite from the article (not “inferences” or other unfounded “context”) how they believe Iran is not allowed to retaliate.
Both of these claims require sources, and since the claim is being made about the article itself, you should be able to quote it directly. Not twist words in the title to fit your personal opinion. Your inability to do that is all I need to know that your claims are without merit, and further regurgitation of the same personal opinions does not get you closer to the original point (which was talking about the source, btw).
Citation is not needed when you are aware of the subtext. But again, this has been explained to you MULTIPLE times now so what you’re engaging in now is a form of trolling called “Sea Lioning” and I’m sorely tempted to just nuke your whole thread.
If I were you, I would nuke it so users don’t see how poor of moderation this is receiving. Characterizing this as sea lioning when I’ve asked for the same evidence to support the same claim throughout this whole thread is a mark on you. You absolutely have given zero evidence towards your claim about what the article says, again, you have to CHANGE THE WORDS so it fits your point. That is lying. You are lying.
If only you could quote the article with a single iota of evidence to support your claim without changing the words (remember how you lied about the title? And everything that you claim it says?), then that would be productive. Instead, you draw conclusions from other sources that also don’t support the claims (imperative, right to respond), not even backing up the lies with quotes from the article.
This isn’t hard. If the article says something, you can quote it directly. If it doesn’t, I guess the alternative to facts is to lie.
Edit: also lol. “Subtext”… You meant to say, “things that don’t appear in the article” right?
I’m choosing to leave it for the express purpose of other people seeing the precise definition of sea lioning. You’re still getting a temp ban for report abuse.