Zoraptor

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.

Nah. We both know my search wasn't a misrepresentation, and we both know that the quotes were genuine, and from the start of the articles where the author puts their essential facts- or if you prefer, summary opinions. It's spectacularly easy to prove otherwise if they weren't, since I provided the methodology for it. If you have difficulty with advanced search features ask an AI to do it for you. Personally, I have no doubt you put the quotes into google (or asked an AI to do it for you) and found they were genuine, and from where I stated too. If you're looking for articles about Reza Pahlavi- essentially biographicals and not general articles- then including him in the search terms is, well, kind of a requirement. That you'd want me to do the most general search possible- iran protests, absolute lol- instead is very much indicative that you don't have a leg to stand on and know it. We both know every article on Venezuela doesn't mention Machado prominently, every article on Afghanistan didn't mention Karzai prominently, every article on Iraq didn't mention Chalabi prominently, every article on Syria didn't mention al-Jolani prominently, etc, etc. Providing methodology is perfectly acceptable in lieu of providing links, and is essential when trying to show a trend- it is the fundamental difference between anecdote and data. If you're trying to show a trend about a specific person, you include their name. This is very basic stuff. I've also told you you are not a high effort response and that you insults just prove to me you don't have an actual argument but are just throwing a tanty. Funny, given your sheer volume of repetitive verbiage.

You were told how they were found, it's easily replicable by anyone with the most basic internet skills. It literally literally takes five seconds. Fact. We both know it isn't misrepresentation, and the quotes are real. Again, that's not opinion, it's fact. From the later parts it appears you don't actually know how to use a search engine properly though (<--this is opinion). There are a shedload of Pahlavi stories about the TV hacking. Took me 5s to find them. Fact; fact. Just repeating stuff ad nauseum when you've lost is most definitely yours, as is posting multiple theses length replies in the hope of boring people to death. Quoting what the purpose of a lede is, then insisting that actually the quotes I took weren't the author's main points or part of a summary is certainly one of your more... interesting takes. As a matter of fact, you're wrong about that; and it's a bit sad that that is just one of your more... unique takes rather than the most.

It would have partly redeemed the Board of Peace if they'd livestreamed Netanyahu's reaction to Turkey/ UAE/ Pakistan and Qatar being members. One suspects they're happy to have an excuse to decline more than anything. I suspect the Prime Minister here for one wishes he had such an excuse, or that the White House map had left us off it so no decision would have to be made.

This seems pretty likely from circumstantial evidence; Gigabyte has already released new AM4 motherboards, which suggests they don't see the socket as dead. You'd expect them to just do a new manufacturing run of the old designs under normal circumstances to save on costs.

Considering how bad Trump's prose is it's amazing that his writing style isn't the most embarrassing thing about that, uh, missive. It isn't even the second most embarrassing. It's ten year old gets hold of the family AOL account and posts on usenet levels, and the ten year old has the excuse of being ten- and doesn't have access to US military.

This is what is known as a straw man argument. to whit: make up something you wish had been said, then argue against that. Ironically, that is a summary of pretty much every single one of your arguments, going back a decade. It's clear that those quotes were part of a summary. I'm not arguing with you, I'm stating a fact. As last time, I don't really have any patience to lose since I'm not putting any effort into arguing with you. I'm just telling you you're wrong.