No, she doesn't. You can argue with her about interpretation of fact, or does a fact fit a particular situation, but few can match her indepth knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian situation, and she bases her analysis on fact.
Well, let me disagree with that, ever so slightly, Gina. As you may know, she and I have a rather contentious history on the thread. Someone in a PM last night described it as a series of "spats." I thought what we were doing was actually more dignified and important than that but, most likely, that's the illusion of ego. :-)
I've found that Nadine, and no doubt Nadine will wish to correct this, is rarely wrong on the ME facts--a couple of times but we should all be so accurate--but rather that she left out facts she knew about, facts that might have been the basis of strong counter arguments. (I need to, ever so hastily, add that this judgment is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict only. Much as she argues about Debka, the further she gets from that limited zone, the more she tends to reach. Again, something that is characteristic of all our posting. We have areas we know a rather great deal but, time and again, slip into using our credibility there as a basis of an argument in an area we are not so competent. Unfortunately. Been there, done that.)
...that does not alter the fact that the party responsible for the current mess is Israel.
That's not a fact either. That's your conclusion, and an opinion. Sorry.
Agreed completely. But my guess is that the poster simply used a conventional conversational reference to register an opinion. We all say "it's a fact that . . ." and then string an opinion. Not good.
So what do you say about Jersey politics now? |
