menesheh:



why this special attention on bias and celebs buying social media followers on this particular thread.

how many times have i seen you talking about this in other articles posted here, even the bible as a written book by men which is still open to cultural and personal bias.

If you have any issue or error in statistics you noticed with this NYtimes publication, constructively mail them about such bias or such erroneous article instead of criticizing and arguing blindly. i hope they are in a better position to address you.


KingEbukasBlog

Sorry , but you didn't make any point . Does this change the fact that celebs buy Facebook fans and reputable media organisations can be biased ?

You bringing up the bible in this argument is simply damage control

KingEbukasBlog:


Sorry , but you didn't make any point . Does this change the fact that celebs buy Facebook fans and reputable media organisations can be biased ?

You bringing up the bible in this argument is simply damage control

so what. yes celebs buy fans and reputable media organisations can be bias, so what?


Am beginning to see all these lame arguments as childish, insane and undeveloped-brain sort of argument.

menesheh:



so what. yes celebs buy fans and reputable media organisations can be bias, so what?


i beginning to see all these lame arguments as childish, insane and undeveloped-brain sort of argument.

Why so pained ?

KingEbukasBlog:


Why so pained ?

Am pained because, the people i expected they are gonna reason properly and intellectually are seriously assuming a position of absurdity.

menesheh:


Am pained because, the people i expected they are gonna reason properly and intellectually are seriously assuming a position of absurdity.

Menesheh

I came to this thread and noticed that you guys were still arguing after italo brilliantly refuted NY Times post by evidently pointing out that celebs by Facebook fans and that reputable media organisations can be biased .

My response was :

@italo

They failed to notice that the argument was lost when you evidently pointed out that celebs by Facebook fans and reputable media organisations can be biased especially when pushing a certain agenda . E.g AIT against Buhari during the election period .

You did hurt their "intellectual hubris" and they are shamelessly trying to "prove" that the facts are wrong

@menesheh: I guess atheists give special definitions to words - "I am here to learn "

Pffft

AIT's activities during the election period against Buhari was a clear example of a reputable media organisation being biased - this I pointed out .

So how do all these mount to absurdity ? To be fair , you are being absurd by continuing the argument and then bringing up the bible - a damage control to me - was clearly unnecessary .

You said the argument was childish but you continued even after your purpose of opening the thread was apparently reduced to derision giving the evidence provided by italo .

KingEbukasBlog:



Menesheh

I came to this thread and noticed that you guys were still arguing after italo brilliantly refuted NY Times post by evidently pointing out that celebs by Facebook fans and that reputable media organisations can be biased .

My response was :

So what?

AIT's activities during the election period against Buhari was a clear example of a reputable media organisation being biased - this I pointed out .

So how do all these mount to absurdity ? To be fair , you are being absurd by continuing the argument and then bringing up the bible - a damage control to me - was clearly unnecessary .

I pointed to the bible because you people continued pointing bias finger on this particular article by NYtimes forgetting that such can be used to evaluate other written books or articles which was also written by human with bias tendency.

You said the argument was childish but you continued even after your purpose of opening the thread was apparently reduced to derision giving the evidence provided by italo .

Reduced to derision in your illogical mind until we organize a vote for it.

I opened a thread and somebody brought up bias, i agreed that it maybe be a biased article until the time you write to NYtimes pinpointing those bias you discovered. Both of you will agree on such bias after cross-checking their datas and it source. I have no problem with that.


Ebuka, you becoming pretty much illogical than winner01. I thought you are better off. Worst of it all is that you are taking the position of an extremism in an arguments meant for learning.

menesheh:


So what?





I pointed to the bible because you people continued pointing bias finger on this particular article by NYtimes forgetting that such can be used to evaluate other written books or articles which was also written my human with bias tendency.




Reduced to derision in your illogical mind until we organize a vote about it.

I opened a thread and somebody brought up bias, i agreed that it maybe be a biased article until the time you write to NYtimes pinpointing those bias you discovered. Both of you will agree on such bias after cross-checking their datas and it source. I have no problem with that.


Ebuka, you becoming pretty much illogical than winner01. I thought you are better off. Worst of it all is that you are taking the position of an extremism in an arguments meant for learning.

Exactly that's my point . You were supposed to stop arguing after its been proven that celebs buy facebook fans and reputable media organisations can be biased . Simple !

You now brought up the bible - evidently you were trying to save your pride .

And they said we were the illogical ones .


menesheh - being an atheist doesn't mean being logical , or smart , or mature in reasoning . It just means you have no belief in God/gods - a quick reminder

KingEbukasBlog:



Exactly that's my point . You were supposed to stop arguing after its been proven that celebs buy facebook fans and reputable media organisations can be biased . Simple !

You now brought up the bible - evidently you were trying to save your pride .

And they said we were the illogical ones .


menesheh - being an atheist doesn't mean being logical , or smart , or mature in reasoning . It just means you have no belief in God/gods - a quick reminder

Rigmarole

menesheh:


Rigmarole

Butt-hurt atheist

italo:


That is why weigraf has been keen on attacking my person since he cannot provide answers to my points...and he is too dishonest to admit what the whole world knows: that celebs buy social media followers; media houses can be biased (e.g AIT)and major organizations falsify/manipulate data (e.g Volkswagen).

You have points?

Don't project. You're attacking the reputation of various bodies because they don't tally with you slave-addled views then claim I'm the one attacking persons?

I'm merely stating facts. Claiming google would fake results, and just these results, is mo.ronic and deluded in the extreme.You might as well claim the illuminati is responsible. You actually think they find you that important? Satan is chasing you?

Consider this; if these results were in your favor, you would be singing them from rooftops. that should tell you who's biased here. Abi do you dispute google's data that states Jesus is still very popular in the 3rd world?

this is similar to, but please note quite different to as well, don't get it twisted, how you pick and choose which parts of science are valid. I suppose that's why you preemptively mention science in a topic with very little immediately related to it. those conclusions your slave mastahs at the vatican approve are true. the rest? no. It's "Cover your ears and LALALALALALA" at its finest.

So, once again, explain why google didn't doctor the results for third world nations? Not to mention, and once again, again, they in NO way commissioned this article. No. they just provide tools anyone, yourself included, can use to review their data. Data which covers just about everything (not just your jesus bros. he's not that important or special to google, trust me). Something I demonstrate but which you conveniently ignore.

And, like the scientific method, which again you have no peeve with when it agrees your slave mastahs in the vatican, these results can be confirmed to a reasonable degree by looking at trends from various sources. Sources I've already mentioned. Please also note your delusion may be even worse than I imagined if you think you can lecture me about anything tech related. You should have noticed that I never mentioned twitter, while all the "evidence" you seem to enjoy touting

http://boostlikes.com/blog/2013/10/10-celebrities-bought-twitter-followers
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/profit-minded/10-people-won-t-believe-fake-followers-twitter-215539518.html

http://www.webpronews.com/over-27-of-the-top-10-twitter-accounts-followers-are-fake-2012-08

is, surprise surprise, about twitter. I don't think even the op mentioned twitter. It's being easier to exploit is not exactly a state secret. Google and Facebook are well known to be more stringent. Not to say they are unexploitable, that's silly for obvious reasons, but they are well the best freely and publicly available tools we can use.

Oh, and let's not forget churches, pastors and whatnot do qualify as 'celebrities'. So, what Kim Kadashan can do.....

It skews all ways. And like, say, refereeing results over a season, these things tend to iron themselves out over time. Over the course of a season, a football club gets a lucky decision this match. Next week? Not so much. By the end though you'll find each team basically got what it deserved; the decisions even out. Similarly, when google, facebook et al are all pointing in one direction....

As for the rest of your conspiracy, oh once again, this is an OPINION piece. He does NOt represent NYtimes. His OPINIONS. Newspaper columnists are allowed to have opinions, no? He isn't even claiming his conclusions are decisive facts. He makes that clear. the fact that you're so very threatened by them makes one think there really is something there though.

You want opinions more in line with yours? Well, feel free to start your own blog. Or you know what, just head over to faux news, who do actually try their damnest with getting away with presenting their opinions as real news. Here though we have a blogger who has crunched the numbers, which you can well verify yourself, and drawn some rather interesting conclusions that are hard to counter. Hence your attack on his reputation.


Anyhoo, italo, I've never seen you this excited. I can understand why you'd be giddy over some imagined victory though. I do. I've whooped you a few times hence all the agitation and smilies. As far as you're concerned, this is justice. Finally you've dealt a blow to that pesky Lannisters. Finally a victory....

It isn't. It's another of your delusions...

KingEbuka cheering you on should give you a clue. Not sure if that guy knows north from south

It's quite simple, my dog should be able to grasp it, thus the last time I'll repeat the sooooo obvious. Even man-childs like me have our limits and obligations.

Kudos. I hope.....

wiegraf:


You have points?

Don't project. You're attacking the reputation of various bodies because they don't tally with you slave-addled views then claim I'm the one attacking persons?

I'm merely stating facts. Claiming google would fake results, and just these results, is mo.ronic and deluded in the extreme.You might as well claim the illuminati is responsible. You actually think they find you that important? Satan is chasing you?

Consider this; if these results were in your favor, you would be singing them from rooftops. that should tell you who's biased here. Abi do you dispute google's data that states Jesus is still very popular in the 3rd world?

this is similar to, but please note quite different to as well, don't get it twisted, how you pick and choose which parts of science are valid. I suppose that's why you preemptively mention science in a topic with very little immediately related to it. those conclusions your slave mastahs at the vatican approve are true. the rest? no. It's "Cover your ears and LALALALALALA" at its finest.

So, once again, explain why google didn't doctor the results for third world nations? Not to mention, and once again, again, they in NO way commissioned this article. No. they just provide tools anyone, yourself included, can use to review their data. Data which covers just about everything (not just your jesus bros. he's not that important or special to google, trust me). Something I demonstrate but which you conveniently ignore.

And, like the scientific method, which again you have no peeve with when it agrees your slave mastahs in the vatican, these results can be confirmed to a reasonable degree by looking at trends from various sources. Sources I've already mentioned. Please also note your delusion may be even worse than I imagined if you think you can lecture me about anything tech related. You should have noticed that I never mentioned twitter, while all the "evidence" you seem to enjoy touting

http://boostlikes.com/blog/2013/10/10-celebrities-bought-twitter-followers
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/profit-minded/10-people-won-t-believe-fake-followers-twitter-215539518.html

http://www.webpronews.com/over-27-of-the-top-10-twitter-accounts-followers-are-fake-2012-08

is, surprise surprise, about twitter. I don't think even the op mentioned twitter. It's being easier to exploit is not exactly a state secret. Google and Facebook are well known to be more stringent. Not to say they are unexploitable, that's silly for obvious reasons, but they are well the best freely and publicly available tools we can use.

Oh, and let's not forget churches, pastors and whatnot do qualify as 'celebrities'. So, what Kim Kadashan can do.....

It skews all ways. And like, say, refereeing results over a season, these things tend to iron themselves out over time. Over the course of a season, a football club gets a lucky decision this match. Next week? Not so much. By the end though you'll find each team basically got what it deserved; the decisions even out. Similarly, when google, facebook et al are all pointing in one direction....

As for the rest of your conspiracy, oh once again, this is an OPINION piece. He does NOt represent NYtimes. His OPINIONS. Newspaper columnists are allowed to have opinions, no? He isn't even claiming his conclusions are decisive facts. He makes that clear. the fact that you're so very threatened by them makes one think there really is something there though.

You want opinions more in line with yours? Well, feel free to start your own blog. Or you know what, just head over to faux news, who do actually try their damnest with getting away with presenting their opinions as real news. Here though we have a blogger who has crunched the numbers, which you can well verify yourself, and drawn some rather interesting conclusions that are hard to counter. Hence your attack on his reputation.


Anyhoo, italo, I've never seen you this excited. I can understand why you'd be giddy over some imagined victory though. I do. I've whooped you a few times hence all the agitation and smilies. As far as you're concerned, this is justice. Finally you've dealt a blow to that pesky Lannisters. Finally a victory....

It isn't. It's another of your delusions...

KingEbuka cheering you on should give you a clue. Not sure if that guy knows north from south

It's quite simple, my dog should be able to grasp it, thus the last time I'll repeat the sooooo obvious. Even man-childs like me have our limits and obligations.

Kudos. I hope.....

There's no need for an essay.

I put it to you that Media houses and other big organizations can lie/manipulate/ falsify data...

...and celebs can manipulate the number of their social media followership.

If you disagree, I will prove you wrong again.

If you agree, you have no grounds to expect us to have blind faith in what Google, NYTimes and/or the author said.



But you are too dishonest to say whether you agree or disagree.

menesheh:


Am pained because, the people i expected they are gonna reason properly and intellectually are seriously assuming a position of absurdity.

What is the absurdity?

That we cannot have blind faith in the author, NYTimes and google because Journalists, media houses and other organizations can lie?

To you what is normal is that we should believe everything that every writer, media house and internet-based organization say?

@ wiegraf, first you claimed that the social media followers can easily be seen by anyone. You thought you were making sense...then I told you how people manipulate twitter followers.

You now claim that you knew twitter is easier to manipulate but the OP was talking about Facebook...you think you're making sense...

But I'm about to show you how Facebook likes are also bought. Here:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4544800

Continue to live in delusion.

Again, the number of people doing something does not make it right or true.

italo:


There's no need for an essay.

Err, you demonstrate there is with such silliness.

Lemme explain, if you weren't foolish/delusional, there wouldn't be a need to spell every.single.detail out.

I tried, but failed and thus had to bring out the crayons....

I hope you aren't too foolish/delusional get my drift....

I hope....

italo:

I put it to you that Media houses and other big organizations can lie/manipulate/ falsify data...

...and celebs can manipulate the number of their social media followership.

If you disagree, I will prove you wrong again.

Where did I disagree you dolt?! So when did you prove me wrong?

italo:

If you agree, you have no grounds to expect us to have blind faith in what Google, NYTimes and/or the author said.



But you are too dishonest to say whether you agree or disagree.

As the whole thing seems to have completely blown over your head, here: the whole point of the 'essay' was to show WHY you should have 'faith' in the data

na wa......

italo:
@ wiegraf, first you claimed that the social media followers can easily be seen by anyone.

By all means, do show where.

Waiting.....

italo:

You thought you were making sense...then I told you how people manipulate twitter followers.

You now claim that you knew twitter is easier to manipulate but the OP was talking about Facebook...you think you're making sense...

this is rather tiring.

What in the universe gives you the impression that I did not know about ghost "likes" and such??

I am making sense because it is WELL KNOWN that twitter is more lax than google and facebook. G+ policy didn't even allow you to use aliases at one point. Not sure if they've changed that. Facebook is similar.

Really, what in the world gives you the impression you know more about tech in general than I do? I'm genuinely bemused....

italo:

But I'm about to show you how Facebook likes are also bought. Here:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4544800

Continue to live in delusion.

........

me just now:

I don't think even the op mentioned twitter. It's being easier to exploit is not exactly a state secret. Google and Facebook are well known to be more stringent. Not to say they are unexploitable, that's silly for obvious reasons, but they are well the best freely and publicly available tools we can use.

Later on you'll make noise about essays. If you cannot digest simple statements like this what do you expect? I do not have crayons here.....

Once again, as for the validity of the results -

italo:

Oh, and let's not forget churches, pastors and whatnot do qualify as 'celebrities'. So, what Kim Kadashan can do.....

It skews all ways. And like, say, refereeing results over a season, these things tend to iron themselves out over time. Over the course of a season, a football club gets a lucky decision this match. Next week? Not so much. By the end though you'll find each team basically got what it deserved; the decisions even out. Similarly, when google, facebook et al are all pointing in one direction....

But feel free to try and dumb $hit down to (I hope disingenuous, and not genuinely foolish) pablum you and your zombies can assimilate. Clearly, even something as simple as this is too much for you....

A lot of your nonsense borders on being red herrings/strawman's to begin with. For instance, why google's integrity is being called into question when they've no bone to contend escapes me....

I can hear the whoosh as the simple escapes you yet again....

Read the 'essay' slowly before making any more silly replies. Abeg.....

wiegraf:


Err, you demonstrate there is with such silliness.

Lemme explain, if you weren't foolish/delusional, there wouldn't be a need to spell every.single.detail out.

I tried, but failed and thus had to bring out the crayons....

I hope you aren't too foolish/delusional get my drift....

I hope....




Where did I disagree you dolt?! So when did you prove me wrong?




As the whole thing seems to have completely blown over your head, here: the whole point of the 'essay' was to show WHY you should have 'faith' in the data

na wa......

I put it to you that Media houses and other big organizations can lie/manipulate/ falsify data...

...and celebs can manipulate the number of their social media followership.

If you disagree, I will prove you wrong again.

If you agree, you have no grounds to expect us to have blind faith in what Google, NYTimes and/or the author said.

But you are too dishonest to say whether you agree or disagree.

You've finally agreed that Facebook likes can and are being bought by celebs.

Do you agree with the bold or not? That will settle it. We don't need essays.

Also why do you expect me to believe blindly that the Facebook statistics in the article are a genuine measure of interest when you've admitted that they can be manipulated?

Thanks for your marvelous posting! I seriously enjoyed reading it, you can be a great author. I will be sure to bookmark your blog and will come back in the foreseeable future. I want to encourage that you continue your great job, have a nice afternoon! buy followers on twitter intended for facebook marketing and advertising you can actually gain twitter followers, Facebook or myspace fans/likes along with Dailymotion landscapes along with remarks. If you would like to help buy followers on twitter, we could enable you to! i am All Social Service provider . I am selling those service on, please take a look https://buyfastlike.com

I can buy fast mass looking at this webpage