Europe braces itself against Former President Trump's possible/probable return.

[Diogenes]

I asked a question.

Did you?

[rogue06]

Huh?
Have you seen photos of Gaza lately?
Actually, I take you with a truck load of salt, rogue.

Not questioning the fact that there has been a lot of death and destruction. What I'm questioning are the numbers.

I thought that was obvious.

[rogue06]

My emphasis

Given that there is no evidence on which to base this "opinion" it is therefore entirely unfounded, appearing to be little more than fevered imagination

Even if that is indeed the case you are still wrong about it not acting as a qualifier.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Even if that is indeed the case you are still wrong about it not acting as a qualifier.

it is indeed the case, no "[e]ven if" about it as I have never expressed the sentiments CD has ascribed to me.

Nor is the phrase I'm guessing a qualifier.

https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-a...ls/qualifiers/

Introduction


Qualifiers and intensifiers are words or phrases that are added to another word to modify its meaning, either by limiting it (He was somewhat busy) or by enhancing it (The dog was very cute). Qualifiers can play an important role in your writing, giving your reader clues about how confident you feel about the information you’re presenting. In fact, “hedging” (as it is sometimes called) is an important feature of academic writing, because academic writers need to clearly indicate whether they think claims are certain, likely, unlikely, or just false. But excessive use of qualifiers can make you sound unsure of your facts; it can also make your writing too informal.[...]

Qualifiers express doubt; they leave your reader wondering if you know what you’re talking about. Constructions like it appears that and it seems likely that diminish the strength of your claims. Sometimes that’s exactly what you want, when you don’t want to overstate your case and cannot justify making a stronger, more direct claim. But if you are confident of your evidence, using strong qualifiers like these can lead your reader to doubt whether you know what you are talking about or to think that you are not willing to take responsibility for your ideas.

Consider the two examples below. Does the writer sound confident in her understanding of the theories of Freud and Weber?

It appears that Freud believed the unconscious played a significant role in behavior.

Max Weber seems to argue that capitalism arises partly out of Protestant values.

Does Freud in fact think that the unconscious affects people’s behavior? Does Weber really think capitalism arises from Protestant values? If so, the writer should probably just make those claims, without the qualifiers.

[rogue06]

it is indeed the case, no "[e]ven if" about it as I have never expressed the sentiments CD has ascribed to me.

Nor is the phrase I'm guessing a qualifier.

https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-a...ls/qualifiers/

Introduction


Qualifiers and intensifiers are words or phrases that are added to another word to modify its meaning, either by limiting it (He was somewhat busy) or by enhancing it (The dog was very cute). Qualifiers can play an important role in your writing, giving your reader clues about how confident you feel about the information you’re presenting. In fact, “hedging” (as it is sometimes called) is an important feature of academic writing, because academic writers need to clearly indicate whether they think claims are certain, likely, unlikely, or just false. But excessive use of qualifiers can make you sound unsure of your facts; it can also make your writing too informal.[...]

Qualifiers express doubt; they leave your reader wondering if you know what you’re talking about. Constructions like it appears that and it seems likely that diminish the strength of your claims. Sometimes that’s exactly what you want, when you don’t want to overstate your case and cannot justify making a stronger, more direct claim. But if you are confident of your evidence, using strong qualifiers like these can lead your reader to doubt whether you know what you are talking about or to think that you are not willing to take responsibility for your ideas.

Consider the two examples below. Does the writer sound confident in her understanding of the theories of Freud and Weber?

It appears that Freud believed the unconscious played a significant role in behavior.

Max Weber seems to argue that capitalism arises partly out of Protestant values.

Does Freud in fact think that the unconscious affects people’s behavior? Does Weber really think capitalism arises from Protestant values? If so, the writer should probably just make those claims, without the qualifiers.

It literally qualifies his statement as an expression of opinion rather than stating a fact.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It literally qualifies his statement as an expression of opinion rather than stating a fact.

Well we know that grammar is not your forte. Hence your repeated misuse of the plural of a word instead of the singular.

The phrase "I'm guessing" is not a qualifier. The definition of which is given in what I cited.

Qualifiers and intensifiers are words or phrases that are added to another word to modify its meaning, either by limiting it (He was somewhat busy) or by enhancing it (The dog was very cute). Qualifiers can play an important role in your writing, giving your reader clues about how confident you feel about the information you’re presenting. In fact, “hedging” (as it is sometimes called) is an important feature of academic writing, because academic writers need to clearly indicate whether they think claims are certain, likely, unlikely, or just false.

[Cow Poke]

Are you blaming Hamas for nearly 30000 Palestinian deaths? .........Including children ?

No wonder you refused to answer from whence those numbers came...

UN Blames 'Fog of War' for Overcounting of Gazan Child Deaths

The United Nations now claims that "the fog of war" is to blame for a major overstatement of the number of Gazan children who have been killed in the war.

In mid-March, the U.N. Children's Fund stated that 13,450 children had been killed in Gaza, citing figures from the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry. Catherine Russell, the director of UNICEF, said in a television interview on March 17 that those numbers were "staggering" and "really shocking."

"We haven't seen that rate of death among children in almost any other conflict in the world," Russell claimed at the time.

The statistic was cited frequently in the international press, leading to accusations that Israel had committed war crimes, including targeting babies and children intentionally.

Even Hamas has since admitted that those numbers turn out to be off by at least 40%. The United Nations revised its numbers last week, without providing an explanation.

"When it comes to Israel, it's clear that the U.N.'s goal is not accuracy, but rather to immediately seize on any report, no matter how unsubstantiated or even manifestly false, in order to portray Israel as malevolent," Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, told JNS.

"The right thing for the U.N. to do now would be to admit that their casualty count in Gaza is a complete failure," Neuer added.

Last Wednesday, the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) released updated casualty figures. Some 7,797 Gazan children had died in the war as of April 30, it said — a roughly 42% drop from the mid-March numbers.

It also revised its casualty figures for women by nearly a half — from more than 9,500 to fewer than 5,000.

Stop swallowing crap, eider.

[seer]

No wonder you refused to answer from whence those numbers came...

In mid-March, the U.N. Children's Fund stated that 13,450 children had been killed in Gaza, citing figures from the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry


Why would the UN trust Hamas sources? Oh right - they hate Jews...

[Starlight]

All the numbers are estimates. Changing the estimates from one set to the other, doesn't really prove which one is right, if either one is.

Due to Israel's actions, neither the UN nor Hamas are in any position to take any detailed census.

[eider]

No wonder you refused to answer from whence those numbers came...

UN Blames 'Fog of War' for Overcounting of Gazan Child Deaths

The United Nations now claims that "the fog of war" is to blame for a major overstatement of the number of Gazan children who have been killed in the war.

In mid-March, the U.N. Children's Fund stated that 13,450 children had been killed in Gaza, citing figures from the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry. Catherine Russell, the director of UNICEF, said in a television interview on March 17 that those numbers were "staggering" and "really shocking."

"We haven't seen that rate of death among children in almost any other conflict in the world," Russell claimed at the time.

The statistic was cited frequently in the international press, leading to accusations that Israel had committed war crimes, including targeting babies and children intentionally.

Even Hamas has since admitted that those numbers turn out to be off by at least 40%. The United Nations revised its numbers last week, without providing an explanation.

"When it comes to Israel, it's clear that the U.N.'s goal is not accuracy, but rather to immediately seize on any report, no matter how unsubstantiated or even manifestly false, in order to portray Israel as malevolent," Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, told JNS.

"The right thing for the U.N. to do now would be to admit that their casualty count in Gaza is a complete failure," Neuer added.

Last Wednesday, the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) released updated casualty figures. Some 7,797 Gazan children had died in the war as of April 30, it said — a roughly 42% drop from the mid-March numbers.

It also revised its casualty figures for women by nearly a half — from more than 9,500 to fewer than 5,000.

Stop swallowing crap, eider.

So you believe the UN figures? Really?
So the real number of child deaths as been 7,797?

And you don't care?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No wonder you refused to answer from whence those numbers came...

UN Blames 'Fog of War' for Overcounting of Gazan Child Deaths

The United Nations now claims that "the fog of war" is to blame for a major overstatement of the number of Gazan children who have been killed in the war.

In mid-March, the U.N. Children's Fund stated that 13,450 children had been killed in Gaza, citing figures from the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry. Catherine Russell, the director of UNICEF, said in a television interview on March 17 that those numbers were "staggering" and "really shocking."

"We haven't seen that rate of death among children in almost any other conflict in the world," Russell claimed at the time.

The statistic was cited frequently in the international press, leading to accusations that Israel had committed war crimes, including targeting babies and children intentionally.

Even Hamas has since admitted that those numbers turn out to be off by at least 40%. The United Nations revised its numbers last week, without providing an explanation.

"When it comes to Israel, it's clear that the U.N.'s goal is not accuracy, but rather to immediately seize on any report, no matter how unsubstantiated or even manifestly false, in order to portray Israel as malevolent," Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, told JNS.

"The right thing for the U.N. to do now would be to admit that their casualty count in Gaza is a complete failure," Neuer added.

Last Wednesday, the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) released updated casualty figures. Some 7,797 Gazan children had died in the war as of April 30, it said — a roughly 42% drop from the mid-March numbers.

It also revised its casualty figures for women by nearly a half — from more than 9,500 to fewer than 5,000.

Stop swallowing crap, eider.

[With added contempt] Only an estimated 7,000+? Oh well, that's all right then.

[seer]

Due to Israel's actions, neither the UN nor Hamas are in any position to take any detailed census.

Sorry, you must have meant due to Hamas' actions in starting this war...Any other position would be anti Semitic...

[Cow Poke]

[With added contempt] Only an estimated 7,000+? Oh well, that's all right then.

You really are sick. The point was that there seems to be such a hunger to believe anything and everything that Hamas says.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You really are sick. The point was that there seems to be such a hunger to believe anything and everything that Hamas says.

Did you miss where I wrote [Contempt]?

Irrespective of the estimated figure thousands of children are dead.

[Cow Poke]

Did you miss where I wrote [Contempt]?

I ignored it.

Irrespective of the estimated figure thousands of children are dead.

Yes, ma'am - it's called war --- and the idiots who run Hamas knew full well that they were going to cause Israel to rain down hell on Gaza.