Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

[History Learner]

1) It seems Russian offensive action is likely. Most of the attention is being fixed on the Belarus axis, but I would encourage everyone to also keep an eye on Kherson and Kharkov.

From a few days ago:



Also, with regards to Bakhmut and it's importance:

 

[Marduk]

So, in other words, I'm not a waste of your time then? Please do make up your mind.

You are, the audience isn't.

Why are you avoiding answering a direct question for the third time. You, not I, claimed that his source was a ua-en public release; I asked you to cite said release and where he said it. Why are you so afraid to demonstrate what you claimed you had knowledge of?

And it was a loose guess, as my wording of "some ua-en public release" implies, not an exact claim like you claimed, in contrary. Again, learn to read.

The part where you said, and I quoted, that "chances are she didn't translate it". You left out the rest of that part because it demonstrates you're attempting to make up the claim here. You then proceeded to say she wrote it in second half she wrote it. I know your English is bad, but if you wanted to suggest she didn't write it, you wouldn't have said "and proceed to write the speech herself.".

A claim only in your head, not in the text.

So either you really don't understand English language basics or my characterization here is correct, to which would you like to confess to being wrong on?

On me thinking you're more stubborn than you are retarded. It might be the other way around.

No because as I actually noted, in my very first sentence in said post, I was disagreeing with your contention it was the result of a translation error. When you asked about it, I directly noted my estimate was total casualties, not killed only as she did. Would you like to try again, or should I take this sputtering into ineffectual rage as usual as a sign I've struck a nerve with being correct as usual?

Your wordgames are too pathetic to warrant my rage.

Not at all, because VDL and Milley both said their casualties are over 100,000. How much so? They didn't say, we just know it's somewhere between 100,001 and 199,999. We can use publicly available information to provide an estimate, of course, as I did back in the Summer which suggests they were over 100,000 then. It could now be 190,000 as I said, after all, because both sides have continued to take casualties since then.

If they were 199,999, why didn't they approximate to 190,000 or 200,000? Have you considered that not everyone is your fellow internet troll?

No, it's actually having a pretty basic level of intelligence, enabling me to grasp basic concepts. I know this is a hard concept for you, of course, given your constant struggles and bits of rage show it, but it's really not that difficult. If it was 117,000 then, as I estimated, and now it's 190,000 now (for example, not my actual estimate), then both are completely in line with what we know for sure so far.

Fuck off with your attempts at read my mind and emotional statee, i can assure you they are inaccurate and you can't check. If you think you know better, i recommend a visit with a good psychiatrist.
And you know well that your "hahaha it could be 199,999 now so it could be totally vindicating me" are plain internet trolling and i will treat it as such.

Your inability to argue the point and reduction to rage is very telling of my superiority, yes.

Rage? You would have to earn that, and your flopping around in attempt to do that is simultaneously hilarious and pathetic. You are pretty much a living parody of the political option you seem to represent.

No, actually, as I've already explained it many times. Again, my reducing you to sputtering rage as usual is telling in who is winning this engagement.

Are you hearing things? Like sputtering? That's not a sign of mental health.

 

[strunkenwhite]

No, it's actually having a pretty basic level of intelligence, enabling me to grasp basic concepts. I know this is a hard concept for you, of course, given your constant struggles and bits of rage show it, but it's really not that difficult. If it was 117,000 then, as I estimated, and now it's 190,000 now (for example, not my actual estimate), then both are completely in line with what we know for sure so far.

Hang on. An official report in November that casualties are over 100k is logically not inconsistent with the idea that they were already over 100k in July—but the November report in no way supports the July claim.

So, to be clear, are you saying the recent figure supports your earlier claim, or that it does not explicitly contradict your earlier claim? (I trust you appreciate the distinction there, but if you do not then please tell me that extremely important fact.)

The part where you said, and I quoted, that "chances are she didn't translate it". You left out the rest of that part because it demonstrates you're attempting to make up the claim here. You then proceeded to say she wrote it in second half she wrote it. I know your English is bad, but if you wanted to suggest she didn't write it, you wouldn't have said "and proceed to write the speech herself.".

So either you really don't understand English language basics or my characterization here is correct, to which would you like to confess to being wrong on?

Sorry, but I suspect you're not interpreting the sentence correctly. "Chances are she didn't translate it and proceed to write the speech herself."

What Marduk was saying is that she neither translated it herself nor wrote the speech herself. Both items are encompassed by "didn't".
Chances are she didn't (translate it and proceed to write the speech) herself.
If he had intended "didn't" to apply only to translation, but not to writing the speech, he would have had to say "Chances are she didn't translate it and proceeded to write the speech herself.
Chances are she (didn't translate it) and (proceeded to write the speech herself).
i.e. that she was working with numbers she hadn't translated the context of.

I believe my interpretation of Marduk's post is supported by the fact that he concluded the post with, "What i think most likely happened, is that she was using some German or Ukrainian media source for that figure, but whoever was writing her speech or points for it didn't notice the nuance between killed vs casualties and went with killed." If I'm misinterpreting your own argument regarding said post, ... whoops.

 

[WolfBear]

How Putin’s War in Ukraine Became a Catastrophe for Russia - The New …

archived 17 Dec 2022 22:32:07 UTC

archive.ph

Russia Can Finally See that Putin’s ‘Days Are Numbered’

archived 18 Dec 2022 02:49:06 UTC

archive.ph

 

[History Learner]

Hang on. An official report in November that casualties are over 100k is logically not inconsistent with the idea that they were already over 100k in July—but the November report in no way supports the July claim.

So, to be clear, are you saying the recent figure supports your earlier claim, or that it does not explicitly contradict your earlier claim? (I trust you appreciate the distinction there, but if you do not then please tell me that extremely important fact.)

No, because it can be both given the range of figures in November was between 100,000 and 200,000. If it was 117,000 as I estimated in July/August, and is 190,000 now (for example), there is no contradiction. Neither VDL nor Milley gave an exact figure, just that it's "well over 100,000" now.

Sorry, but I suspect you're not interpreting the sentence correctly. "Chances are she didn't translate it and proceed to write the speech herself."

What Marduk was saying is that she neither translated it herself nor wrote the speech herself. Both items are encompassed by "didn't".
Chances are she didn't (translate it and proceed to write the speech) herself.
If he had intended "didn't" to apply only to translation, but not to writing the speech, he would have had to say "Chances are she didn't translate it and proceeded to write the speech herself.
Chances are she (didn't translate it) and (proceeded to write the speech herself).
i.e. that she was working with numbers she hadn't translated the context of.

I believe my interpretation of Marduk's post is supported by the fact that he concluded the post with, "What i think most likely happened, is that she was using some German or Ukrainian media source for that figure, but whoever was writing her speech or points for it didn't notice the nuance between killed vs casualties and went with killed." If I'm misinterpreting your own argument regarding said post, ... whoops.

Can you please explain to me how using didn't in the past tense makes any sense when proceed was in the present tense? Unless it was exactly as I said?

 

[History Learner]

You are, the audience isn't.

And yet, you're responding to me, not them.

And it was a loose guess, as my wording of "some ua-en public release" implies, not an exact claim like you claimed, in contrary. Again, learn to read.

Again, that's not what you said and even if it was, I've asked you multiple times to cite said release and/or Milley's testimony to this effect. That you cannot speaks volumes about the fact your original claim was entirely made up, there is no wiggle room there for you.

A claim only in your head, not in the text.

I don't agree, but even if I'm wrong on this, I've still asked you for the above four times now.

On me thinking you're more stubborn than you are retarded. It might be the other way around.

Say it with your chest. Insults don't bother me, but at least have the conviction to do it directly.

Your wordgames are too pathetic to warrant my rage.

"I do believe he protests too much."

If they were 199,999, why didn't they approximate to 190,000 or 200,000? Have you considered that not everyone is your fellow internet troll?

Why would they, when that would undermine confidence in Ukraine? If you feel that isn't a valid reasoning, then explain to me why they wouldn't given an exact figure?

Fuck off with your attempts at read my mind and emotional statee, i can assure you they are inaccurate and you can't check. If you think you know better, i recommend a visit with a good psychiatrist.

Most of this post consists of you refusing to answer questions and being only capable of saying some variation of "fuck off" before asking me to stop attempting to read your emotional state. Personally, I would've been more than happy to keep this at a higher level given it is the Christmas season, but from the get go in these last few days, you started with personal attacks. That I've now responded in kind is apparently too much for you.

And you know well that your "hahaha it could be 199,999 now so it could be totally vindicating me" are plain internet trolling and i will treat it as such.

And yet, here you still are responding to me. If you genuinely believed that, you wouldn't be.

Rage? You would have to earn that, and your flopping around in attempt to do that is simultaneously hilarious and pathetic. You are pretty much a living parody of the political option you seem to represent.

I literally reduced you into a one paragraph screed about how you're not emotionally unstable; I think the results speak for themselves.

Are you hearing things? Like sputtering? That's not a sign of mental health.

All jokes, disagreements or anything else aside, I've never commented on your mental health beyond noting your fits of rage that come through in all of your recent replies; I see that as far too low to do. If you would also go back, you would notice in my first few replies I refrained from responding in kind to the insults. You are the one that lowered the level of discourse, so please don't attempt to project your failings onto me when it's demonstrably not.

 

[Marduk]

And yet, you're responding to me, not them.

That's the show.

Again, that's not what you said and even if it was, I've asked you multiple times to cite said release and/or Milley's testimony to this effect. That you cannot speaks volumes about the fact your original claim was entirely made up, there is no wiggle room there for you.

Who gives a damn. You hang on to a completely irrelevant loose statement of mine that you have reinterpreted into some kind of important, meaningful and certain declaration of mine like the fucking clown you are. People don't use terms like "some release" when they mean a specific thing. It's yet another example how you are doing your damn best to shift the discussion from subject matter to silly exchanges about who said what with what quotes for you to misread and if you liked the quotes enough and so on, because you insist so much on the discussion to be all about you and the satisfaction of your requests.

I don't agree, but even if I'm wrong on this, I've still asked you for the above four times now.

And i've explained the meaning of these words of mine before already. I will not do it again. Go troll somewhere else if you don't like it.

Say it with your chest. Insults don't bother me, but at least have the conviction to do it directly.

More personal focus.

"I do believe he protests too much."

As above.

Why would they, when that would undermine confidence in Ukraine? If you feel that isn't a valid reasoning, then explain to me why they wouldn't given an exact figure?

Because war is chaos, there is no such thing as perfectly current and precise (nevermind open) information available to anyone, and people exactly like you would try to exploit the attempts for own goals.

Most of this post consists of you refusing to answer questions and being only capable of saying some variation of "fuck off" before asking me to stop attempting to read your emotional state. Personally, I would've been more than happy to keep this at a higher level given it is the Christmas season, but from the get go in these last few days, you started with personal attacks. That I've now responded in kind is apparently too much for you.

As i've explained above, funny that you say that. I started with personal attacks? You don't say. You are just acting as you always do, it's not the first rodeo. I attack you on material claims and make a joke out of you, you demand quotes about this about that, you get some quotes, so then you keep shifting the discussion to the wording of quotes, sources, and how mean i am for not giving you specifically, exactly the quotes you demanded as the primadonna you are, turning this into a metadiscussion rather than a discussion about the subject matter.
If you haven't noticed, this isn't "attempt to read other poster's emotional state" thread, so all mockery and insults you receive are warranted by that alone.

And yet, here you still are responding to me. If you genuinely believed that, you wouldn't be.

When a pigeon shits on your doorstep, do you let him be, or chuck a rag at him to shoo him away and clean the shit?

I literally reduced you into a one paragraph screed about how you're not emotionally unstable; I think the results speak for themselves.

Keep imagining things.

All jokes, disagreements or anything else aside, I've never commented on your mental health beyond noting your fits of rage that come through in all of your recent replies; I see that as far too low to do.

"I've never commented on your mental health except trying to insult and provoke you through comments about your mental health, such as accusing you of fits of rage that i can mysteriously see through forum text." True, so you do understand why i insult you back after all. Also i suggest a career as a crystal ball attendant in your circus if you can do that.

If you would also go back, you would notice in my first few replies I refrained from responding in kind to the insults. You are the one that lowered the level of discourse, so please don't attempt to project your failings onto me when it's demonstrably not.

If you weren't asking stupid and irrelevant things like demanding proof that the President of European Commission has staff aiding her with her work, you wouldn't get insulted. If you are going to make the discussion about your vexatious quote demands instead of using a minimum of common sense, people are going to insult you for lacking said common sense.

 

[Megadeath]

No, because it can be both given the range of figures in November was between 100,000 and 200,000. If it was 117,000 as I estimated in July/August, and is 190,000 now (for example), there is no contradiction. Neither VDL nor Milley gave an exact figure, just that it's "well over 100,000" now.

Sometimes, for all that I honestly believe you do possess some intelligence, you sound incredibly dumb. Of course something can be both. Anything that supports something else will ipso facto not logically contradict it. That doesn't mean that anything that doesn't contradict something supports it though. Consider the statements "I argued with an idiot today." and "I didn't argue with an idiot yesterday." They do not contradict each other in anyway. They can both be true. However, they do not support each other. If one is true, it does not logically follow that the other must also be true.

The fact that casualties are now over 100,000 does not in any way support the claim that in the past casualties were over 100,000. It doesn't contradict it, but it does not support it.

Can you please explain to me how using didn't in the past tense makes any sense when proceed was in the present tense? Unless it was exactly as I said?

That's... Just backwards. And almost feels like you didn't read what was written at all. It's also an entirely specious and irrelevant digression. The person who wrote the thing has directly and personally explained what they meant. It was not what you were interpreting it to mean. Rather, it was what apparently everyone else understood it to mean.

 

[ATP]

From a few days ago:



Also, with regards to Bakhmut and it's importance:

You are citating yourself.
And,postsoviets are building trenches,try to take Bachmut,but - so what? they are still losing war against ukrainians fighting with one hand tied by USA.
Of course,it all could be kind of plot,and hidden armies or supersoviets/apemans/whatever are waithing for RIGHT HOUR to strike,but...
All i see are loosing postsoviet,which do not lost only becouse USA are keeping Ukraine from beating them completly.

Pity.I really belived in powerpuff KGB empire,it is sas to see what happened to them.
So - it must be ruse.Putins apemans are waiting in hidden cities,and they would certainly conqer world.
That is my official version from now.

P.S are you mistaking death with casaulties.100k casaulties mean 20-25k deaths.

 

[strunkenwhite]

No, because it can be both given the range of figures in November was between 100,000 and 200,000. If it was 117,000 as I estimated in July/August, and is 190,000 now (for example), there is no contradiction. Neither VDL nor Milley gave an exact figure, just that it's "well over 100,000" now.

I know that they don't contradict each other. I said that they don't contradict each other. I am asking you if you are also claiming that the one supports the other. It is exactly as Megadeath said, the mere fact of non-contradiction does not demonstrate support.

Can you please explain to me how using didn't in the past tense makes any sense when proceed was in the present tense? Unless it was exactly as I said?

I'm sorry, I presumed you were proficient in English and didn't bother to remind myself of the correct technical term when describing your misunderstanding. I will remedy that now.

"I go" - present tense.
"I went" - past tense.
"I didn't go" - past simple tense.

"I didn't go there and do that" - BOTH "GO" AND "DO" ARE IN PAST SIMPLE TENSE. Contrast against "I didn't go and did that", suggesting that "didn't" applies only to "go", so that "didn't go" is past simple tense while "did" is merely past tense. (I had previously said "past tense" as a colloquial catch-all encompassing all past tenses.)

Do you get it now?

No, of course you don't.

"Chances are she didn't translate it and proceed to write the speech herself."
"didn't translate it and proceed..." both "translate" and "proceed" use "didn't" to be in past simple tense, the same way as "go" and "do" are in the above example. The interpretation you ascribe to the sentence would have called for "proceed" to be in past tense, not past simple tense. If you disagree, please explain. [edit: It can't be in present tense both because that makes no sense and because it would be "proceeds".]

Do you get it now?

 

[Husky_Khan]

These videos hit my feels so hard. While America has to trick its Lesbian Youth into fighting Balrogs to join the military, Russia has these heartfelt moments.

 

[Captain X]

It's like poetry, it rhymes...

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Isn't it funny how every incident that the pro-Russian side jumps on is suddenly not a big deal when they turn out to be wrong?

 

[LordsFire]

Isn't it funny how every incident that the pro-Russian side jumps on is suddenly not a big deal when they turn out to be wrong?

It's classic 'I've already come to my conclusion, now I just need to make the facts fit it' thinking.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

It's classic 'I've already come to my conclusion, now I just need to make the facts fit it' thinking.

Good point. I think it’s a natural human tendency to be biased towards your own conclusions, but some people take it to the point of pretty much discarding rationality entirely.

 

[Batrix2070]

It's classic 'I've already come to my conclusion, now I just need to make the facts fit it' thinking.

More Hegelian if the facts contradict my theory then so much the worse for the facts and given that Marxism takes heavily from Hegel and today's Russia is a post-Soviet corpse, it is hardly surprising how Russians think.

 

[Bacle]

More Hegelian if the facts contradict my theory then so much the worse for the facts and given that Marxism takes heavily from Hegel and today's Russia is a post-Soviet corpse, it is hardly surprising how Russians think.

Sorry, anytime some one takes Hegel seriously I cannot help but picture them like this guy:


Edit: Also, Girkin giving Rogozin some advice.

 

[Batrix2070]

Sorry, anytime some one takes Hegel seriously I cannot help but picture them like this guy:

Well, it is Marxism as well as a few other aborted ideas that draw deeply from Hegel.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

More Hegelian if the facts contradict my theory then so much the worse for the facts and given that Marxism takes heavily from Hegel and today's Russia is a post-Soviet corpse, it is hardly surprising how Russians think.

Dismissing facts inconvenient to one's favored ideology is really not exclusively Hegelian; it's something you arguably see with *every* ideology.

 

[Batrix2070]

Dismissing facts inconvenient to one's favored ideology is really not exclusively Hegelian; it's something you arguably see with *every* ideology.

This is a quote from Hegel.