Quote:
Originally Posted by jfuh  So presenting Reuters is thus partisan?Presenting a news article unless I present both sides of the court case is then partisan?
Sorry like any topic here in this forum, if you're going to debate it or wish to debate it you better bring in some knowledge about it. It's not my job to educate you on the matter. If you don't know the relevant material, either 1) already know something about it; or
2) do your homework on the topic |
No. Its counter-productive. There is nothing to debate. Did Taiwan uphold a verdict or not? Really now, how can anyone debate that? I'm only asking your provide the WHY. WHY did the court make that decision. And, no, it wasn't because the "Pan Green sucks"
Quote:
|
It's quite simple DW, you either are going to debate the topic with what you know, do your homework and bring something to discuss, or shut up, sit on the side and learn something. If that's not your thing and you must bring in this UScentric rant about this forum or how you don't care, then don't care quite simple.
|
Ok.
I affirm that some taiwan court upholded Ma's innocent verdict. Aha! The link says so! I win.
I'm not saying reuters is partisan. I'm saying its useless, and your little remarks in the beginning did nothing to spur honest debate.