ywhtptgtfo
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
My little propagandist, I was referring to your inaccurate statement that Russia took over Crimea with zero casualties. My apologies for not spelling out the obvious letter by letter.
Ukraine Crisis Thread III: a new European order?
- Thread starter Winner
- Start date
My little propagandist, I was referring to your inaccurate statement that Russia took over Crimea with zero casualties. My apologies for not spelling out the obvious letter by letter.
Address your father in such way, dear. If you have one
It was a statement of Mechanicalsalvation, if you didn't notice. The fact that I reiterated it, seem to make you restless. What is a correct number of casualties, may I ask you?
Address your father in such way, dear. If you have one
It was a statement of Mechanicalsalvation, if you didn't notice. The fact that I reiterated it, seem to make you restless. What is a correct number of casualties, may I ask you?
I think if we count the direct and indirect causalities in Iraq due to American invasion at 1,5-2 million its fair to state that in the same way there were causalities in Crimea as well. Only about a million times smaller...
i do not know what you have heard but if someone has a legal military base in the region you can expect at least couple of soldiers...
Perhaps he was talking about XVIII century. Because after that, Russian soldiers pretty much never leave it
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Aye, and during that period, Russia still hasn't paid the rent for Crimea to the Great Bulgaria.
It's been good 3-4 centuries, but it's time to give it back.
It's been good 3-4 centuries, but it's time to give it back.
Aye? Come and get it greatless Bulgaria you will get paid - with interests....
Or there is this second option that you will seceede yourself to Russia and save yourself the beating. The ballots boxes are being parashuted into your territory as we speak....
ywhtptgtfo
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
My little propagandist, I am aware that MechanicalSalvation also used used that figure earlier in the thread. But like all those sloppy journalists out there, you appear to be treating it as fact.
I am sorry that doing little fact-checks can cause you such distress. I was under the impression that you'd quickly correct it and move on but it seems like you want to put up a fight just so you can try to come as being "right".
As far as we are concerned, it's not zero.
That part is true. It's just that I can be picky when people try to bend the facts a little. And of course, I am treating a million times smaller as a figurative descriptor.
So, my little nitpicker, if you are aware that he also "used used" this figure earlier, what caused you so much butthurt when I used it too?
A very informative answer, my little nitpicker, but can you be a bit more precise?As far as we are concerned, it's not zero.
ywhtptgtfo
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
Because I like to see how you'd react when I start fact-checking the things you say.So, my little nitpicker, if you are aware that he also "used used" this figure earlier, what caused you so much butthurt when I used it too?
It's precise enough to disagree with the zero casualty claim.
Again, I am very sorry that my little fact-checking has caused you substantial distress. I shoud've known it conflicts with the agenda of little propagandists.
Friends?
It looked to me more like an unprovoked attempt of trolling, because you don't look like an idiot to actually nitpick about this "non-zero" number. Not sure what's worse, if I'm right or if I'm mistaken here.
ywhtptgtfo
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
In fact, I addressed a rather relevant question. If your intent here is to discuss rather than to indoctrinate, I'd expect a greater openness to critiques and readiness to correct mistakes in the event of a factual error. But of course, you immediately went on the offensive.
If you think there's trolling involved, you are welcomed to report to peter_grimes.
Good to know that the reason why you switched to patronizing tone and mocking remarks was to encourage my readiness to correct alleged mistakes. From my experience, though, people who do it usually have other motives.
ywhtptgtfo
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
Oh... you got me wrong.
I have no intention to encourage readiness in any way. My intent was to examine that readiness and to have a little fun - that's all. And your use of "alleged mistake" again reiterates my point.
It doesn't surprise me at all because a substantial amount of people in these threads are here to "win" these political discussions instead of trying to provoke a genuine discourse. And they aren't above attacking fact-checks and trying to hide their sneaky little half-truths.
My question about what you perceive as a correct number of casualties was honest. If you are the one of those rare people who want to have a genuine discussion, you can start with giving a genuine answer to it.
I didn't see fact check on your part - fact check supposed to show where I'm wrong and the source of your data. What you did was merely a personal attack. If you're claiming that I'm a propagandist and posting a "sneaky little half-truth", you can always demonstrate it and catch me red handed. Or can't, if you already understood that you are wrong and trying to hide it behind a bunch of smilies.And they aren't above attacking fact-checks and trying to hide their sneaky little half-truths.
ywhtptgtfo
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
My friend, I've already answered this question in a previous post. All there is to it is that you made a statement concerning that the casualties being zero and I decided to point out there it is, in fact, greater than zero.
Russia is a country with a great heritage in mathematics so I would assume it is not a stretch to expect you to understand that zero is a rather unique number in our laws of reality and has many qualitative differences with respect to every other number in real space.
My friend, I can certainly look a casualty report for you if that is your wish. For instance, I can cite Guardian's report.
I guess that adds a finite number to the casualties... How sad.
And I, in turn, wondered what made you do it in a deriding manner, assuming intent of disinformation on my side - whereas exact same claim was also made by a previous poster?All there is to it is that you made a statement concerning that the casualties being zero and I decided to point out there it is, in fact, greater than zero.
It says about 1 (one) combat fatality, according to report from Ukrainian side, unconfirmed by the Russians.
Is that what supposed to expose my evil propagandist intent, in context of comparing with number of Iraq casualties, rounded to nearest half-million or so?
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
ywhtptgtfo
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
And I, in turn, wondered what made you do it in a deriding manner, assuming intent of disinformation on my side - whereas exact same claim was also made by a previous poster?
It says about 1 (one) combat fatality, according to report from Ukrainian side, unconfirmed by the Russians.
Is that what supposed to expose my evil propagandist intent, in context of comparing with number of Iraq casualties, rounded to nearest half-million or so?
My friend, I've never said propagandists are evil. Maybe they can be like the Force Sensitives with Jedi's like you fighting evil Siths with propaganda that belongs to the light side.
But jests aside, the point in this is the way you reacted. You could've easily corrected yourself by saying "Fine - it's still an almost bloodless annexation with very small number of casualties" - which I would've accepted, but instead you tried desperately to wiggle free of the fact that you made a mistake.
Since this conversation has achieved its purpose, I will leave it at that.
