Zoraptor

Looks like if there was a truce on Ukraine's energy sector- and even Zelensky seems to think it was a request only in his daily briefing- it's well and truly over after last night. Ukraine admits to 71 strikes getting through as well, which is unusual.

The sheep were bleating. If you told anyone that you actually meant the sheep bleated once, they'd think you mental. So, show your homework. If you didn't mean that, yet wrote it to stay in character, that is your fault not mine. Not the first time you've claimed people misrepresent you when it's your deliberate shtick that's the problem, and it's you misrepresenting yourself. Absolute Classic Gromnir. It's other peoples' fault that they aren't blessed with literal telepathy. No, you didn't. Your immediate response was: "oh and low energy zor is not gonna once again cowardly retreat from his blix misrepresentation. can't even be bothered to literal google "hans blix berkeley"?" I can understand you not wanting to write the correct response you made, because it makes you look like a massive hypocrite again due to refusing to provide sources- the thing you started complaining about here. Classic Gromnir. Accuses someone else of misrepresentation, then proceeds to do exactly what he accuses them of, accuses someone else of not providing sources, didn't provide them himself. No. Again, you're hiding behind Gromnir speak as an excuse. Again. You offered it as an option, and you've certainly misrepresented what you said at the time up to and including deciding that or . Classic Gromnir, accusing someone else of doing the same thing. That's what you said in defence; as if you cannot offer mutually exclusive options like eating a cake, or not. That either betrays complete ignorance of the meaning of words, or... I struggle for a different interpretation except the obvious one: you cannot stand being wrong or looking bad. Most people wouldn't care about being called on a stupid rhetorical device since it's a stupid rhetorical device, you obviously do. Either way: literal lol moment that. Jesus, this is embarrassing even for you. So, according to Gromnir searching for the thing you're looking for is 'ridiculous'. So, so, if you're looking for a specific recipe, just do a search for 'recipe'. If you're looking for information on a Toyota corolla, do a search for 'car'. If you're looking for information on measles do a search for 'disease'. Or maybe that's too precise for all of them, and you should just do a search for 'humans'. I'd call that reductio ad absurdum, except your whole argument starts off absurd. One might even say it's ridiculous. Double Classic Gromnir: say something objectively ridiculous like you shouldn't search for what you are looking for and doing so is 'ridiculous' and once again try projectile vomiting information at the screen in the hope the other person Just Gives Up.

...do you know what the word 'bleating' means. Do you know what 'were bleating' means. Do you know what the plural form is. Show your homework- or clarify in plain english that you don't actually think I am or was 'obsessed' with Blix and WMD. Then, it could all be put to bed. You won't do either though, you'll no doubt just pretend you didn't say what you did. Or we can conclude that that is another thing you demand of others but not yourself. No, I brought him up in the context of you managing to find a source while still taking a just trust me bro approach to something else- at least a theoretical improvement over previous conduct. That just happened to be the Blix video. You brought up the wmd aspect, in the other post I quoted, which for some mysterious reason you are pretending doesn't exist. Truly, mysterious. That the source actually did show that Johnson knew what Aleppo was and was hit by a gotcha question unrelated to the prior sequence was, well; you posting a boxer punching himself is 100% Classic Gromnir. No it wasn't. Took you three years, and me saying I wouldn't look for it for it to turn up. Did 'low effort Gromnir' just decide not to post it for three years because it was so easy to find? We both, and any poor sod unfortunate enough to still be reading this drivel knows if you had it, you would have posted it. I most certainly don't actually care about the video since it was refutation of your delusions of what I said, but the refusal to post it or inability to find it then trying to blame someone else and complaining about you having to find something trivial is the Holy Trinity of Classic Gromnir. lol. My suggestions were to eat a cake... or ignore it. Obviously I cannot eat a cake and not do it, so not eating it was not a stated option. Do you know what the word or means. You're either so obtuse you've rotated past reflex a few times or really do need remedial english. Or you're just arguing perpetually in the hope the other person gives up and you can 'win'. <-- it's this one. Classic Gromnir. Literally lol. Doing a targeted search for Reza Pahlavi doesn't give you relevance, but iran + protests does? Pretty much sums it all up, since we know you'd blow a gasket over that sort of conduct, from anyone else. You want that done solely because it returns everything no matter the direct relevance. Again, favourite tactic for those who don't want to find information, since altavista. FTR: 70 results for iran protests today. 54 for reza pahlavi. Classic Gromnir. My god you really are throwing everything at the screen, aren't you. He has as much chance of leading Iran as cause celebre* Bana Alabad had of leading Syria, and she was a 6 year old girl advocating for rebranded al qaeda. Both of them were embiggened for a completely different reason to Pahlavi. *no alt codes anymore? what even is this new software.

Really man, you said, and I quote since you didn't- for obvious reasons: No asking to prove a negative there; show your homework. Or is that just for other people again? I do remember the wonderful Senate Report you linked though, and selectively quoted. That is the context- in part, since it was pattern forming- for not believing you about Blix plus your persistent inability to provide a video you insisted was real and easy to find (yet you didn't) until after I said I wouldn't watch it anyway. Due to it being irrelevant to what I actually said instead of what you imagined I said. You never answered how Rumsfeld's definitive statement about knowing where the wmd were wasn't a lie, by the way. We both know you won't this time either. Wasn't anything about WMD though, was it: "Still, at least this time you've managed to find a transcript, unless (sic) your mythical Hans Blix video, and it's actually relevant". It was about you refusing to provide a source, and demanding I find it- highly relevant to now, given your initial complaints yet you clearly being able to identify the articles I used. Pattern, since the first time I brought up Blix it wasn't directly about WMD either, much as you've tried gaslighting that it was. Ironic, and classic Gromnir. Who wanted help doing their homework? As always, the whole thing was based on a straw man argument where you argued persistently about what you wish I'd said, rather than what I did. yeah, Gromnir presented as an option, which is why your question made no sense after we fully explained not only why we didn't personal choose the ignore option in spite o' identifying it were the choice o' wisdom You presented it as an option you'd consider, hence the use of the first person. You then said you'd never actually do it- not a surprise to anyone, I'm sure. So, why list it as an option in the first person? At this point I'll just answer for you: grandstanding. Classic Gromnir. To whit: As I said, if you design a search not to find something you won't. Classic Gromnir. And the best way to do that is to get as much general stuff in there as possible. Hope you didn't waste too much time. As previous, non specific searches has been a favourite tactic of the sophist since altavista became a thing. So, I crossreferenced the general search with a specific one for Pahlavi. Advanced stuff, I know, but I do like a bit of intellectual vigour when refuting what is, really, the rhetorical equivalent of vomiting on the screen in the hope the other person will give up. Now, you will no doubt burble about that not being 'fair' because it doesn't replicate the original search I did and wasn't limited to the first few lines; sure. Neither does yours though. If you criticise me for it, you are, once again, trying to enforce rules on others you won't follow yourself. I was not reciprocating your methodology; that would be stupid since it's solely designed to 'prove' your point by filling search results with irrelevant stuff. I could do a similar search with some other prominent Iranian opposition figures that have repeatedly featured in the news as a comparison... but despite paying a fair bit of attention, I can't remember any? Only Pahlavi. You?

Don't think anyone believes that Russian losses are light, just that their losses aren't as high as Ukraine claims, and Ukraine's aren't as low as they claim. Certainly not me, the mediazona numbers are pretty bad, their equivalent is just worse comparatively for Ukraine. Same of course holds true for Russian casualty claims, in reverse.. The 1.2 million claim is certainly recursive, ie: Ukraine claims it, media and agencies repeat it, when people question Ukraine's numbers people then reply that it's confirmed by media, think tanks and agencies.

I'd be tempted to give Leavitt some latitude since she's pregnant and her wardrobe choices may be rather limited; if it weren't the Trump WH. As it stands: good thing the WH has never criticised anyone else (like, say, Zelensky, who's at least in an actual war rather than battling the numberless ravening hordes of woke) for wearing olive military-istic apparel, eh.

So, you said it then. Saved me a search. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you assert I constantly brought Blix up- as you did- then you have to show it first. You won't, because you did it before and the results were... well, it wasn't me bringing him up (except the very first time, which was not in the context of any Bush admin people lying). To be fair, I did assert that you didn't provide the video multiple times when requested (rather relevant since it's one of the reasons why I didn't provide you with the original links) and since in the context of your current spiel the results of that are hilarious: look it up. don't be low energy. we gave you everything you need to find. names. approx date. location. what more do you need. --Gromnir, July 23, 2000. Also: oh and low energy zor is not gonna once again cowardly retreat from his blix misrepresentation. can't even be bothered to literal google "hans blix berkeley"? amazing. -- Gromnir, October 26, 2000 ps "hans blix berkeley"-- also October 26, same page as above from a 30s search. Remember the sourcing claim that started it all and how you simply couldn't plug actual quotes into a search engine and it was all intellectual dishonesty or whatever? Now that's irony! Classic Gromnir. Just more evidence that there are always rules for others but not for yourself. You could- and did- find every article I quoted from the quotes I took, it wasn't me asking you to do my homework for me. Oh, so it was presented as an option then. Why? You've never answered perhaps the only question I've asked you that I'm (now) interested in your answer to. Mostly because you so obviously don't want to answer it. Would that be because the answer makes you look like a 8 year old threatening to do something they'd never actually do, just for effect? Yes, if you do a general search you won't find a specific thing you're looking for. This has been known for millenia- or at least, since the antediluvian times of altavista.digital.com- pointed out to you multiple times, and is a favourite tactic of people who don't want to find something. Since I now have some time to reciprocate: Reza Pahlavi is (positively) mentioned 4 times in the first 30 results of a ddg search for iran protests limited to last day, checking only western sources. OK, two of them are dreck british tabloids, but one of those is the 9th most visited news website in the world.

You don't actually care about honesty either- since you only care about other peoples'. You care about speculation, when it isn't you doing it, you care about other peoples' reputation, when it isn't you impugning them. That, my friend, is dishonesty, you were an expert in earthquakes, you just posted mr harvard professor to get a discussion going, I constantly brought up Hans Blix (hilarious really, last time you posted a list of links showing my obsession and it was you mentioning him first every time, you even found the link to your mythical video after I said I wouldn't watch it even if you did) etc etc: you're just consistently lying to yourself. I also told you why I don't care about 'slandering' journalists- this is a forum, not a literary review; and if they wanted credit for being correct once they'd have to accept the blame for being wrong all those times before. but it was also shared after you posted this: Clearly stated, by you, as an option, in the 1st person. As I've said repeatedly, you're constitutionally incapable of conceding an argument, so much so you have now resorted to- ironically- ignoring your own posts, instead of mine.

Losses confirmed by intelligence agencies are recursive. They confirm what Ukraine claims because they are the Ukrainian claims- see also the CSIS numbers Bruce uses; they match the Ukrainian numbers for Russian casualties, they're not CSIS' own ones. They've also made some ludicrous claims like the Ukrainian counter offensive failing due to pro Russian shrubbery. I don't accept it, but I find that estimate to be more likely. That's partly due to the outlandish claims made by the other side for sure; it's certainly more likely than Russian soldiers wearing welding kit to burn off faces in no man's land. By its nature it would be a lower estimate. Thinking of it as being embarrassing to have losses is a bit of a 'western' (in this case comfortable or similar might be more accurate) concept: the whole DPRK shtick is that they're in a life or death struggle with the forces of imperialism. Showing losses actually enhances that narrative and they get to show that they have friends in the struggle too. You might compare it with some of the jihadi groups which are keen to publicise suicide bombers because they believe that they've gone to heaven and will encourage others in the struggle while westerners would decry it and never once think of condoning or celebrating it. Well, unless it's Ukrainian intelligence doing the bombing and the bomber is an innocent Azeri at least. Both those claims are propaganda. One is aimed at you, one isn't. (The stills are taken from a video from North Korean TV, no timestamp since you can see all the photos in the first frame)

They certainly don't feel much guilt for throwing all those brave hasbara fighters insisting that every dead palestinian was hamas and that the casualty figures were fraudulent for two years under the bus. And yes, already seen claims that the vast majority of the missing will be hamas fighters in tunnels, not civilians in collapsed buildings/ shelters/ bulldozed into mass graves.

The actual deaths for North Korea is likely around 100, since Kim opened a memorial for them. You can count how many pictures there are in the videos (though CNN doesn't, and repeats the claim of 4000 casualties). It's probably better than claims based on the Russians going out under fire to blowtorch dead koreans to hide numbers, which was an actual scenario proposed for the low apparent casualties compared to claimed. Oryx has the same problem that video footage has when assigning casualties: it has to be videoed/ pictured, and the Ukrainians are far more likely to do that. They also, well, aren't unbiased Missing is a category for Ukraine because there are a lot of people 'missing': it's cheaper than admitting that the people are dead, since dying in service elicits a payout. Ukraine itself admits to a bit less than 60k in that category (which is distinct from the two 'deserter' categories of AWOL and not reporting). Not like Russia is being 'nice' handing over bodies; it's returning corpses because they know it costs Ukraine a lot of money when they go from missing to confirmed dead.

Jesus, that's full of it even for you. I didn't see anything wrong with impugning the 'honour' of journalists for the reasons I stated- they'd consistently been wrong beforehand on Ukraine and other similar situations. Fact. You don't get much credit for a 1/6 accuracy rate, on that specific issue plus sundries for the denominator if you count the others, or at least you shouldn't. Indeed, one might think you'd get some flak for the 5/6+ times you were wrong. But apparently not. This is also a forum; I'm not blackballing them for the Pulitzer same as you aren't going to get the AMA or whoever it is to revoke the medical certificates or whatever of Trump's medical staff. The only reason I care about you questioning the integrity of those 'quacks' (most professional article writer evar! most convincing evidence evar!) is because of the hypocrisy, not because of some concept of their honour. Academics aren't likely to mind you quoting them, but they may well mildly dislike you hiding behind their opinions when you're wrong, if they learn about it. If they're good academics they probably don't much like their incorrect views being constantly defended past the point of absurdity when incorrect. But they especially might not like it if they knew you'd have claimed it as a win, if it had been one, and definitely would not have just posted it for academic interest to stimulate discussion or whatever you're now telling yourself under those circumstances. You spent pages and pages and pages over months and months defending that article- from multiple people-, after all, and only switched fullscale to the 'but muh Harvard Prof' after the six month prediction had conclusively elapsed. Your evidence based approach to Trump's health mostly amounts to vibes, like Trump taking dementia tests in and of itself being evidence he had dementia. Indeed, under your conditions he'd have had dementia for 8 years and through two presidential campaigns, since he started taking them in... 2018, wasn't it? As for the example of options... could you prove my point about you just randomly writing words to bore the other person any better? Your scenario/ example isn't equivalent and barely even makes sense. Did you perhaps think you'd posted that you'd never actually do it before saying it? Because you didn't, as I reminded you you said it after. I even quoted the relevant paragraph for you, same as when you said I didn't say it was option I quoted that I in fact did.

Even if Zelensky were telling the truth- and he may well be, twenty if not an unreasonable number given that some bodies will be hard to identify and he used the plural exchanges so it would be over thousands of returnees- that would barely shift the ratio- eg to ~ 16:1 if we applied it to the last batch- which is not really significant. That's also why the recent exchange was interesting; it should include the casualties Ukraine claimed from Kupiansk, since they did advance there, and claimed hundreds of Russian dead, and should have been able to recover their bodies after advancing. Instead, it wasn't much different from previous times; about twice the number of Russians but in absolute terms only ~20 more. As previous, I personally tend towards the obituary approach being most accurate, at least in terms of the trends between the two.

lolwut. Saying it was an option does not preclude there being other options- indeed, it more than implies that there are other possibilities offered, or it wouldn't be an option. That isn't exactly university english. I've said multiple times that your tactic would be to try and bore the life out of me, I always knew ignoring me was an empty threat. Maybe you need a reminder of what you said? So again, why say there's an option to ignore if you were never going to do so? Ok as, per usual your grammar is appalling and you left out the pronouns, but surely even you can recognise 'am' as the first person single form (ie referring to you, Gromnir) of to be and 'us' as first person plural (referring to you, Gromnir, and others). You got one thing right though.

The issue isn't really that Ukraine lies about casualties- Russia most certainly does as well- it's more that their claims tend to be accepted without much if any criticism even when they don't make any real sense. That is done in part for 'morale' reasons, for want of a better word, but it does lead to unrealistic expectations among the general population and, if their statements are taken at face value, among intelligence agencies etc who repeat them. Ironically, doesn't seem to have that much effect in Ukraine itself, where war enthusiasm has clearly dropped massively since 2022. Probably the best measure, at least in the sense that it's broadly speaking independent and any biases should be similar is the monitoring of formal obituaries and social media obituaries carried out by mediazona and ualosses. That comes out with a close to 1:1 ratio, albeit with a lot of the Ukrainian losses technically listed as 'missing' rather than dead; and it's obviously an underestimate of true numbers but should be a similar underestimate for both sides. Since it's current and fairly relevant, the latest body exchange yesterday was 1000 Ukrainian to 38 Russian. There are plenty of reasons to accept that the real casualty rate isn't 25:1 in Russia's favour of course, not least that the war would be over if it was, but also this is over a time period where Ukraine claimed to kill hundreds of Russians in Kupiansk, a city they'd recaptured so should have been able to claim most bodies from.

hmm. What do you know, I stated it was an option, in the post you quoted. Oh dear. Really, really not beating the accusations of throwing anything at the screen with that little gem. That may not be obtuse- if we're generous- but it's certainly reflex and, well, not very acute.

Nope. I'm just not bothering to argue. As I said I wouldn't, from the outset. You got the context, and they were all taken from, to forestall yet another semantic dissimulation, the top of the informational pyramid of a news article, ie where the most important, easy to see and most frequently summarised information came from. You complained about not getting direct citations yet apparently you got enough information to find them and read them too. Your summary of their contents is, of course... interesting, but that's par for the course, in any case it's clear that your demand for citations was not from any genuine need for the information but just for a complaint (and make work, lest we forget you've linked a 2 hour video with 'just watch it' before, for similar effect). As I said: your argument shifted to It's all the Harvard Professor's fault! once it became obvious Russia wasn't going bankrupt and indeed, hasn't in 130+ months since. Point proven, methinks. lol, the poor unfortunate journalists, it's their eternal good fortune that Gromnir is on the case to defend them from vile calumny on the Obsidian forums. Of course, works a bit less well when you've just thrown a Harvard Professor under the bus to avoid admitting you were wrong. And when you've accused Trump's medical staff of effectively lying about his health to prop up your speculation about it. (Journalists had been wrong about Russia imminently invading for just about every year since 2022- that's the evidence. You don't get much credit nor benefit of the doubt for being correct, on the sixth(?) attempt. Indeed, I posted a rather long list (with cites) of them doing so. I've also posted a rather long list, with cites, of articles claiming Russia would be bankrupt in x months in 2014 to show a pattern there, the usual yellowcake/ WMD laundering from 2003 when you claimed no one lied over the lead up to that war and rather a lot of others. They are the reason I've come to the conclusion doing so with you is pointless and a waste of time) In the eternal words of the great philosopher Kylie Minogue Stock Aitken Waterman: I should be so lucky. Seems you're well, never gonna give me up. One might wonder why you bothered saying it as an option then, if you were so adamant about not doing it.

Funny, I thought you needed a list of citations in order to check 'context' yourself? Isn't that what you were been complaining about ad nauseum? Yet now you know their context. Most strange. Both rhetorical questions, but perfectly illustrates why you aren't worth arguing with: you don't actually want citations, you just want to complain about not getting them in order to 'win'. Classic Gromnir, especially when accusing someone else of being dishonest. Couldn't care less about being wrong on Ukraine in 2022. That's always the risk you take having an opinion; and I certainly have no interest going back over all the previous times Russia was going to invade to find out who was wrong there. It's only a problem if the person insists they were right after being shown to be wrong. I would note however that that isn't a great example for you since you were hardly Nostradamus when it came to things Ukraine related, ie your claims that Russia would be bankrupt in 6 months back in 2014. Which even literal years later you were defending (then switched to it all being in the service of pure debate or some such, I had difficulty reading my eyes were rolling so much) wow less than an hour.

Yeah, someone's pathological here, less than convinced it's me. (Personally, I had you pegged as a belligerent troll who couldn't stand losing and would throw words at the screen to 'win' by boring the other person to death way back those 16 (actually 15, since I spent 30s looking it up) years ago when you were an expert in earthquakes. Seems I at least was a good judge of character from the outset, eh. Eerily similar pattern too, with you trying to nitpick quotes) feel free, we'll see how long it sticks. and really, don't threaten me with a good time.

Well, he certainly ain't alone in that. I'd even give some grudging respect for the strategy, since it's effectively zero risk and will only antagonise Canada and others who already hate him. It's a bit eight year old (hah I told you to keep breathing and you did) but... that's Trump and always has been. You're still wrong, but at least it ain't a dissertation where one word would have sufficed. You certainly weren't getting away from the accusations of throwing words at the screen in the hope the other person gives up previous. I mean lol. You're certainly correct that this isn't an academic discussion, except in the respect that you're getting schooled hoooooooo I_just_ended_his_whole_career.gif There's only one reason you want 'academic vigour' here: because it gives you something to complain about. You've already said the transcription of the quotes was accurate (dispute with the bbc one accepted, but it was an accurate quote) and we're talking newspaper articles- hence the grammerly quote- and forum posts, not PNAS/ Science/ Nature. In any case, the correct method for identifying a replicable trend is to give how you found it, not cite the individual data points. I don't ask you to cite the 60 or whatever articles that you said didn't have Pahlavi in them, after all. If I could be bothered I could check myself.

You had the context. Repeatedly complaining about a lack of citation for a trend is solely being done because it's all you have. Since it's proving a trend the bulk result is important and complaining about lack of individual attributions means nothing when you can replicate the method used. Fact. I mean, you're the one writing dissertations to restate the same thing over and over. At least I'm spending two minutes on it. Children's entertainer, remove thine own red nose.

That was dependent upon Canada reaching a free trade deal with China though, which was never really on the cards. Those sort of things (as opposed to some tariff relief on certain items) take multiple years to work out. Carney saying there won't be a free trade deal makes it look like a 'win' for Trump, at least to his supporters.

If you're wondering why I cannot be bothered arguing with you, this is the reason. Happens every time. It's obvious to anyone that isn't being willfully obtuse that you've decided to take that, well, out of context, as a single line. Big difference, in this case it's as a deliberate effort to obfuscate. To remind you, and far more effort than you deserve: This was the post I made immediately beforehand, and which you took issue with. The context of the list is establishing a pattern, the quotes were taken from what every source agrees is where the authors' 'important facts' (/opinions) are located and thus establish that. All you have done is suggest I do things that actually would be stupid. Like do a general search- iran + protests, lest we forget- for establishing a pattern about a specific person. Literally the only reason you want me to do that is because it would be stupid and let you 'win'. Firefighter, extinguish thine own pants. Literal lol. No, merely getting coverage doesn't mean he's getting embiggened. It's the disproportionately positive coverage that shows the embiggening. Hence the quotes you've spent the past week objecting to. Sheesh man. If you're wondering why I cannot be bothered expending any actual effort on you, this is the reason. Happens every time. (for extra lol, the al jazeera article I originally linked to did mention a bunch of other Iranian opposition figures. ho hum)

It's more of an inevitable than a predictable. Doesn't even really need to be conservative though, at least as a political designation. To whit: centrist darling Emmanuel Macron and his approach after the 2024 French elections. He pretty clearly would have preferred to work with the far right over the left, if he had to work with one.

You were given the context. Saying you weren't doesn't change that. Again, that is how you indicate a trend; it's not by cherry picking results nor by doing a general search for, lol, iran + protests. The trend about Pahlavi's coverage is clear as it's also clear that he's the only Iranian opposition leader that has had any appreciable coverage at all. I cannot say I'm surprised that you don't know how to indicate a trend though, given our previous interactions. It's not particularly rigorous but it's easily replicable- and to be blunt, you simply aren't worth the effort required for proper rigour nor for quoting of ten fricking articles. Whatever is provided I know you'd just go off on a tangent and end up repeating the same thing over and over in the hope I'll give up; so it's a waste of time.