None of the points you made were relevant to the OP.
You obviously thought the point of the thread was, “Is [network Z] biased?” And you might be forgiven for that, since those words do appear in the OP.
But the OP, when read in its entirety, is not about that, but about what arguments are permissible to prove bias. This is why it linked to the other thread: the same arguments being offered to prove liberal bias for Network Z were not acceptable, apparently, to prove bias at Network N.
In order to illustrate that, I created the thread that Shodan linked to. Every argument used there against Fox was simply ported back to the first thread, and every argument used in the first thread to prove the lack of bias at the other networks was ported back to the Fox network. It was the rhetorical equivalent of playing two chess masters by taking white in one game and black in the other, and simply duplicating white’s move against my black pieces in the game where I was playing white, then carrying black’s response against me back to the first game. Done against two grandmasters in chess, it forces them to essentially play each other; done here, it exposed the puerile and ridiculous arguments in the first thread, a fact not lost on many of the thread participants:
The entire thrust of that thread was, in other words, not to take a position on the bias itself, but simply to show that evidence-wise, what was good for the goose was not so hot for the gander.