Its almost like we were discussing the Houthi, their attacks on shipping and the motivations for those attacks.
Look if you can’t follow a simple chain of comments lemmy isn’t for you. I suggest childrens books with the age range of 3 to 5 years old for someone of your obvious capabilities.
You provided a source to explain how the Houthi attacks were related to the Palestinian conflict and how they were purportedly helping the Palestinian people.
Your source said despite the Houthis’ claims, their attacks were on ships unrelated to Israeli.
You said, contrary to the article, that the ships were in fact related and they had been lying.
Unless I’m to understand, you’re trying to have it both ways here, and saying the BBC is correct when they support your claim but the BBC is incorrect when they don’t support your claim – in the exact same article.
When your grade school writing teachers told you that your arguments and evidence made no sense and that you were actually undermining them, did you also insult them? It would certainly explain a lot about your argumentative capabilities if you belittled them instead of thinking to improve.
Your insult didn’t even make sense, it would read better as: “I suggest childrens books with thea suggested age range of 3 to 5 years old for someone ofwith your obvious deficiency in capabilities.”
By all means though, feel free to continue picking a fight with a pedantic engineer who’s good with words. I haven’t had a good laugh like this in ages.
Its almost like we were discussing the Houthi, their attacks on shipping and the motivations for those attacks.
Look if you can’t follow a simple chain of comments lemmy isn’t for you. I suggest childrens books with the age range of 3 to 5 years old for someone of your obvious capabilities.
You provided a source to explain how the Houthi attacks were related to the Palestinian conflict and how they were purportedly helping the Palestinian people.
Your source said despite the Houthis’ claims, their attacks were on ships unrelated to Israeli.
You said, contrary to the article, that the ships were in fact related and they had been lying.
Unless I’m to understand, you’re trying to have it both ways here, and saying the BBC is correct when they support your claim but the BBC is incorrect when they don’t support your claim – in the exact same article.
When your grade school writing teachers told you that your arguments and evidence made no sense and that you were actually undermining them, did you also insult them? It would certainly explain a lot about your argumentative capabilities if you belittled them instead of thinking to improve.
Your insult didn’t even make sense, it would read better as: “I suggest childrens books with
thea suggested age range of 3 to 5 years old for someoneofwith your obvious deficiency in capabilities.”By all means though, feel free to continue picking a fight with a pedantic engineer who’s good with words. I haven’t had a good laugh like this in ages.