Liam_snorkel
كافر
- Joined
- 16/9/08
- Messages
- 5,800
- Reaction score
- 2,875
Where in the article does it say that? I must have missed it.bum said:Does anyone truly believe that alcohol is the only, or even best, way to get these benefits?
Where in the article does it say that? I must have missed it.bum said:Does anyone truly believe that alcohol is the only, or even best, way to get these benefits?
That's what he said.bum said:Also, I hate it when people make arguments like that following "Well, if you don’t drink, you miss out on the health benefits of alcohol, particularly if you’re older: as the NHMRC explains in its guidelines, light to moderate drinking (up to two standard drinks) has been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk, improve bone density and..." (cut off the last bit because it is atrocious and hypocritical writing). Does anyone truly believe that alcohol is the only, or even best, way to get these benefits?
Poorly written or factually incorrect?bum said:What a hideously biased pile **** that is. I couldn't even finish reading it. It supports some of my life choices and it was so poorly written that I want to argue with him.
Sure he did. Right in the bit I bolded. That's what those words mean.Liam_snorkel said:he was cherry picking sources, sure, but nowhere did he say or imply that it was the only or best way to get said benefits..
One would hope that if I stated an opinion that Bolt is a terrible writer and I didn't want to read the bile that leaks out of the ends of his fingers that you wouldn't jump into such a spirited defense.manticle said:Most (all) opinion based writing is biased and backed up with 'facts' and statistics to support the writer's argument - read any Andrew Bolt article for example.
I'm not sure I was trying to be objective - I'm not even sure what may have given you that impression. The word "****" rarely appears in critical analysis. Plus no I don't have to do that at all. I can just say the stuff that I think and that because I'm not a journalist - editorial or no.manticle said:I didn't see the article as particularly better or worse than many others from either perspective but if you're going to pull it apart objectively, you need to take the presented 'facts' and dispute them.
I don't think I said anything was incorrect. I just said stuff was **** and that I hated it.manticle said:What is incorrect within the article (or noticeably absent that is factual and in direct conflict )?