You obviously didn't read the articles

You "obviously" didn't read the part where I pointed out your articles are biased.

they said exactly what I claimed

That doesn't prove they aren't biased. Imbecile.

You have given no critique of the articles either.

I have given precisely as much critique as you have given that the articles support your argument (i.e. none). If something is written somewhere which you believe supports your neo-Nazi bullshit then please quote it directly. Don't post generic links. Thanks.

As you yourself said, one of which had left wing bias, the other had right wing bias.

And the one with left wing bias claimed the BBC was biased against the left, and the one with right wing bias said the BBC was biased against the right. I'm sure that if you really strain that neo-Nazi brain you can find the pattern.

Did you? Care to show any evidence of this?

I showed you evidence of it half an hour ago when I translated what you had said about "heuristic" processes and "peripherally" into plain English. I showed further evidence of it ten minutes ago when I pointed out that you don't know how to spell the (rather basic in comparison) word, "propaganda".

You were off-topic and I assumed you were on-topic

I have no idea what this even means. You accused "site owners" of being "tyrants" unless they accept abuse of feminists on their websites. I challenged this and you responded by acting as though I had said something I plainly didn't say. That is the literal definition of straw man argumentation.

I've given very strong evidence that you are using 8 sock puppet accounts

Oh, so now I am Quantumhead too? Lol. Tell me, in your fantasy universe where "very strong evidence" is the same thing as your utterly baseless (and very possibly mentally ill) opinion, is there anybody who disagrees with your neo-Nazi bullshit that ISN'T secretly Quantumhead?

EDIT: I now see you have changed your original reply quite drastically. Initially you accused me of "obviously" not reading the articles, and you have now changed that to "obviously" not reading the studies. The "studies" of course being the generic red herrings you provided when I pointed out your articles were biased. I asked you twice to provide quotations from these "studies" to support your position and you deflected. Twice.

Let's be honest. You are a crooked little liar, aren't you? When you meet people who are cleverer than you are, you try to bridge the gap with dishonesty. I would not be surprised if this were a subliminal effect caused by the self-deception you are clearly under that you are not a pseudo-intellectual nincompoop.