Zoraptor

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.

That is context. You'd have some sort of point if I'd pulled the quotes from elsewhere in the articles, but I pulled them from the place which every source (other than you) has as a summary giving what the author thinks was the most important facts. As I didn't, you don't. In order for your claims to be relevant you have to show that there's some unique property about Reza Pahlavi that makes articles about him different. We both know you won't, because you can't. I mean, it does, in english, and for news articles. Hence it isn't sophistry from you, it isn't semantics, it's just refusing to concede something which is blatantly obvious and hoping the other person will just give up so you can 'win'.

Can't see any way it wouldn't. Very hard to envisage any situation where rump NATO could politically sell any other response to their populace. Best result would likely be the US being suspended, but there's neither precedent nor method for doing so in the North Atlantic Treaty. Indeed, the broad calculus of those pushing it in the US is that Denmark values NATO and the US so highly that they'll eventually fold in some face saving way in order to preserve NATO; and if they don't, well, what are they going to actually do when faced with a Little Green Men type situation let alone an invasion? Greenland is not really defensible from the US, and short of threatening nukes (via France, no way Britain does it) rump NATO has no viable military response available. There really isn't a face saving way out of it for Denmark short of the US backing down on the idea. It'd be asking everyone involved to commit political suicide at very least and, really, handing over a chunk of your land to a foreign country would be tantamount to treason. For the same reason Europe would have to respond somehow, no matter how much von der Leyen/ Kallas/ Mers/ Macron etc might like to patch things up and not make a permanent break they'd have to do something. The problem is that support for the US and having the preservation of NATO be a very top foreign policy goal works well when it's a traditional actor as US President- you might get drawn into a bunch of wars that aren't really your concern, but the balance is worth it- but all Trump sees is a vassal with pretensions. And vassals are supposed to give stuff to their overlord when demanded. The ultimate problem is that appeasement doesn't work- as stated by Europe for the past four years, and true enough- but they then rolled over for Trump first time he growled to preserve relations. All that says is that you can be bullied, and your instinct is to fold. The likely misjudgement from some in the Trump Admin is that Europe will fold over Greenland, when if an invasion or Little Green Men situation arises they simply cannot.

You'd have a point, if they weren't from the first paragraph. Since they were, you don't. After all, the first paragraph, to quote some random "presents essential facts" hmm. I do hope you don't say the exact opposite in the very next sentence, otherwise some might suspect it isn't me who is being false and misleading. Well now, that's just plain embarrassing. Everything about the description of the lede is what you'd expect in a summary. Burbling about it not actually being a summary isn't even really sophistry, it's just denying reality. I think I may owe Bruce an apology.

Holy moly, you do a fabulous impression of being denser than the galactic core. Good thing I know from experience it's actually MAGAesque refusal to accept the obviously true. The first paragraph of an article is always a summary. It is, by design, what the author thinks is a 'meaningful representation' of their article and its most important points. ie, the complete opposite of what you are saying above given that all but one? of the quotes came from the first paragraph. They are what the authors' thought were the most important points in their article. Since you, apparently, need a citation for facts that are taught to nine years olds: "The lead is the opening paragraph of a news article—the top of the inverted pyramid. It sets the tone for the story and delivers the core facts to hook the reader." "1. The Headline: Your First, and Often Only, Impression.. Immediate Impact: Deliver the most significant piece of information upfront. Don’t hide the lede.. Ask yourself: If a reader stops after the lede, have they fully grasped the fundamental facts of the story?" Do I need more? Do I need to provide, lol, 'context' for those quotes? Well, you're not going to get any. If you really and genuinely cannot grasp the basics of article structure may I suggest enrolling in elementary school for a refresher?

Do you know what 'context' is. Because you were most definitely given it. If you really need it spelled out for you, again, lead paragraphs of articles are introductions to and summaries of the main points of their content. That's context, and you were told that, and anyone who has completed primary school would know that. You were told why they were picked, you were told how they were picked, you were told where in the article the quotes were taken from... that's context. You just don't like it so have decided to burble on MAGAesquely (again) as if you get to make up definitions to suit you (again). Boring.

Yes, but there are definitely legitimate questions for Bill, especially. Much like Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, Peter Mandelson and others Bill seems to have kept contact up after Epstein had his legal troubles whereas Trump cut him off years beforehand. Not for morality concerns, one very much suspects, but still. Obviously a non partisan approach would have Trump answering questions too, but neither side really wants a non partisan approach. It's rather like Jimmy Saville in the UK; nobody in power really wants a proper investigation because a lot of influential people stand to get caught out and they aren't limited to one political slant. They were all of those at times and most of them very frequently, unfortunately they all too often weren't incompetent/ ineffective. Most of the 2nd tier of leadership was very good; for a certain definition of good of course. Even some of the top tier were effective. Himmler was a terrible guy to say the least but his secret police was very competent, and Speer was perhaps the best administrator of the 20th century. Donetz ran the navy well and Jodl/ Keitel implemented a lot of stupid orders as well as they could. There's also been a certain amount of effort put in to frame the competent Nazis as not really being ideological Nazis, but convenience ones. And, if you describe Nazi Germany that way then you don't leave any room for describing the almost complete talent free zone which was Fascist Italy.

Apart from the cringe of trumpeting a copy cat as american innovation why on earth would you have to reverse engineer a Shahed? It's pretty much literally a delta wing moped, a decent number of people could build an equivalent in their garage. And if you go by reports, it's also completely ineffective (it's not, but according to the US...). They should be reverse engineering highly successful designs like the Flamingo instead.

well yes, you certainly do very much love an out of context quote. Indeed, most of the time you spend your effort arguing against them since it's all you've got. As per original, it certainly isn't just Trumpists who use word vomit as a tactic. You got the explanation of why that was- which was not really for you in any case, since I knew you'd ignore it; because that's the part used in search engine summaries, which is what most people will see. Announcing you're planning to use that as a- rather pathetic- gotcha in the future is also... pretty damn sad. That is essentially, a large part of why engaging with you is so worthless. It's pretty clear you don't actually disagree with my assessment of Pahlavi nor of his actual influence. As usual, you just want to nitpick and try to pick a fight. Fact is: All 7 western media used similar lines, all towards the start of their articles, that is a pattern when none of the 3 non western ones used similar lines. The narrative driver that Pahlavi was getting significant numbers out to protest is pretty obvious and localised to western sources; and, again, it's pretty clear neither of us think that's what is actually happening.

I read the whole BBC article, it's certainly the best out of the 7 western ones. Not as good as the Emirati one and about the same as the two Indian, to be fair. My main beef with the BBC is them having a video clip labelled as being of people chanting for Pahlavi where it's actually a generic anti regime chant. I don't really care in the slightest for you trying to pick holes in a pattern- selected by a search engine using the most generic search I could think of- by hand picking articles. Indeed, I didn't even bother to mention that your idea of western journalism amounted to, well, all US sources. Because that is, sadly, very very typical. I based my view on what most people will see. Every single quote I picked was in the first few lines of the articles. Most (all but one?) of them were in the lead or second paragraph. ie the part people actually read, and which gets summarised by search engines. Are there sources with a better grasp of Pahlavi's influence? Sure, I cited one myself, and I got my personal views of him from somewhere, rather than it appearing to me via a vision of the archangel Gabriel. Nevertheless, when every single article from western sources on the first page of a non biased search on a ongoing current affairs issue has the same slant- and it is a slant, because the vast majority obviously aren't protesting for Pahlavi's return, and anyone who thinks they are is mad; probably something we actually agree on- well, it certainly ain't coincidence.