Jump to content

Uh so has Debaltseve fallen?


Zveroboy1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yep, this is familiar....he did the same thing with me. Asked him 2 very simple questions, of which all he did was dodge/insult.... It isn't worth the time because in the end all your gonna get is "Peaches and Luv"

I've been managing this Forum for 16 years. which is how I have amassed 22,000+ posts. Many of them spent engaging in a debate without the other side participating in the debate. Arguing with me? Sure. Insulting me? Yup. But debating? No. Yet they seem rather convinced that they are, and then leave in a predictable huff with the usual excuses. The guy I mentioned helping, whom I banned, was eventually banned for years of that sort of behavior. I finally got tired of having people beg me to ban him for the same pattern of behavior, only much nastier.

 

They mentioned it in one of the VICE news 'Russian Ghost Army' videos and also (tried to) interview/ed some of them.

The Russian state holds a lot of power over the soldiers returning from Ukraine, especially the wounded ones. "Say anything and your pension and/or medical coverage will cease".

Well, we'll see what Monday brings in Moscow. Whatever happens, it's going to be interesting.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Russian woman said this is a reliable source of information regarding lost Russian soldiers in Ukraine. This site is forlost Russian soldiers in Ukraine started by mothers. http://www.lostivan.comThis site is for family members and mothers looking for brothers or sons, to see in English, there is a selection button (small) for language 1/4 of the way down the left side of the page. In one case a brother was looking for his lost last living relative, brother. He said, " he is still in Ukraine", " someone coerced his brother into saying he is being paid a lot of rubles to fight there". He does not think his brother would have accepted the money, and especially would have told him about this. In the video, he said his brother looked really scared.

The few who still cling to the state sponsored lie that Russia isn't directly involved are either beyond intellectual reach or they are knowingly propagating lies. For the rest of us, we are well aware that the world is round and the Earth revolves around the sun. We are also very much aware that Russia is directly involved in waging war on Ukraine. Even Putin admits it now. Or at least he did prior to disappearing. We'll see what else he has to say when he reappears Monday (according to Russian media, at least).

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, do you follow the current conflicts in Iraq and Syria on a similarly detailled level or is it just Ukraine that has got your attention?

I think time constraints prevent him from doing so. He does probably follow all the conflict zones but not at such detail as with the Ukrainian one. Since Ukraine is directly connected to his work (CMBS) he probably had to spend so much time on it plus it's obvious this is not only work but also his passionate hobby. 

 

Correct Steve? :) 

 

I must say I really enjoy reading his insights about Ukraine written in previous and in this thread. Quite remarkable he is doing this. Not many developers out there of any game type that would be so active on the forums not to say Steve is rather unique in that I don't know of any other who would be discussing such topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think time constraints prevent him from doing so. He does probably follow all the conflict zones but not at such detail as with the Ukrainian one. Since Ukraine is directly connected to his work (CMBS) he probably had to spend so much time on it plus it's obvious this is not only work but also his passionate hobby. 

 

Correct Steve? :)

Pretty close :D But there's an added element. I'm a bit burned out on the Middle East and Jihad. It's a problem that will probably never go away, just change form, location, and specifics. I do follow it enough to keep track of what is going on, but it is superficial compared to what I do with Ukraine.

 

I must say I really enjoy reading his insights about Ukraine written in previous and in this thread. Quite remarkable he is doing this. Not many developers out there of any game type that would be so active on the forums not to say Steve is rather unique in that I don't know of any other who would be discussing such topics.

Thanks, but I'm just one guy who has a hobby that happens to intersect with his profession. Funny enough, this was almost my profession and gaming my hobby. When I was getting ready to out in the real world I had a talk with a history profession friend of mine about career options. I didn't want to teach or go into academia, so my other options as holder of a degree in history were limited. Not as limited as a friend of mine who got a degree in masters in 18th Century French Literature (or something "silly" like that), but still not great :D This professor friend of mine suggested I would be good, and perhaps happy with, joining the CIA as an analyst. He had a friend who had taken that career path and he offered to connect me to him. I declined as I didn't find the office location appealing to me. Interesting side note... this professor was born and escaped from the USSR as a youth (teen?). Specifically, as irony would have it, Ukraine ;) Which at that point was not even an independent country yet since the USSR still existed.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said a few posts ago, whatever happened today would be interesting. It was :D However, it appears we're going to have to wait a few weeks or even months to know how interesting. Until then, I'm content to presume that last week was nothing interesting and Russia is on a "business as usual" course.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prove me wrong based on a factual and/or intellectually superior argument...

Steve

And this is why DreDay looks the fool in this thread. He attempted to take on a task that was not possible within the realm of logical consistency and then was not big enough to admit his folly when he failed.

 

Bravo Steve!

Edited by BigDog944
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Double talk BS. I asked you a very, very simple and straightforward cause and effect question. I did not ask you about the background to it, but of course there is background to it. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Perhaps that background even excuses the behavior, or at least mitigates it. But how can we have a discussion about that part if you refuse to confirm simple facts.

And down the rabbit hole of Russian aggression apologist we go, again. Your bias is showing through very, very clearly. Example...

Steve

 

On this one I have to disagree with you. Regardless of the rest of this dicussion I find this (at least the statement in the beginning) to be a valid position to take.

Granted, DreDay could just have answered "True". And I believe that is the answer you (and I) expected to hear. However, he doesn't answer because it "ignores much of the origins of this conflict". Yes, you didn't ask about the background. But looking at the whole conflict without looking at the background will produce a biased view of the current situation. Taking something out of context is an easy way to discredit someones opinion and asking for a simple "Yes or No" answer feels, at least to me, just like that.

 

I ask you if Russia hadn't started the war if we would be talking about this at all. You counter with if Kiev hadn't decided to side with the West, after a change in power, would Russia have needed to attack Ukraine (if you are even admitting it is). I can then ask you, in response, would there have been a need for a revolt in Kiev if the government had not been illegitimate and largely controlled by Russia for Russian interests? We can go back and forth like this all day long.

I think here you misinterpreted DreDays answer. He didn't say "Now I ask you: Would we be talking about all the horrors of this war had the new Kiev government (again with full approval of US and EU) had not chosen that its own selfish interests are best served by violently suppressing a sizable regional and cultural minority instead of embracing the dialog with them?” but he said "One could ask", and I think that this "one could ask" is key here. I don't think that you would feel comfortable answering the question "If Kiev hadn't decided to side with the West, after a change in power, would there be a bloody conflict in easter Ukraine?" with "yes" because it takes things out of context. Yes, without a change in power there would be no conflict, but without the government being controlled by Russia there would have been no change in power in the first place. (Probably, but let's not talk about alternative history here.) Asking someone to say just that without explanation forces them to acknowledge something that might be true, but it will show a biased picture of their position.

 

Also, BS? Why would you use the name of such a beautifull and masterfully researched game as an attack? You don't have to do that. We all know who is winning this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general I agree. I've argued pretty hard against getting out ahead of Europe despite their reluctance to deal with the problem instead of wishing it away. I've also argued pretty hard that Ukraine must be left on its own, for the most part, because that offers the best possibility for a favorable outcome for Ukraine. I also have argued in favor of letting the sanctions and free markets do most of the work since the first talk of sanctions was raised. Even if Russia manages to get Ukraine to collapse, Russia is itself not far behind it. Russia is, as Russia often is, it's own worst enemy. Give them some room to once again prove it.

That said, I am not in favor of shirking the US' treaty obligations to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity. Especially because the war is being waged by one of the fellow signatories. In a sense the US vouched for Russia's word as well as giving its own solemn promise. I don't think the US should give the world any more reasons to think that it isn't concerned about its word or its often stated principles of right and wrong.

There are alternatives to blatantly sending Javelins to Ukraine. If some in the US were devious and clever enough to circumvent Congress to arm Iran in exchange for hostages, they can figure out how to get Ukraine some weapons without Russia having smoking gun evidence. Or put another way, treat Russia the way it treats others.

Steve

 

Greetings all! Lurker, first time poster.

The US has no 'treaty obligations' to Ukraine, and certainly not to 'guarantee' anything. The Budapest memorandum is exceedingly short and easily understood, and is a mere political agrement, not a formal treaty at all. Its provisions are as follows:

"1) Respect the independence, sovereignty, and existing borders of Ukraine;

2) Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and pledged that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the UN Charter;

3) Refrain from economic coercion;

4) Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to assist Ukraine, should it be threatened or attacked with nuclear weapons;

5) Not use nuclear weapons against Ukraine unless attacked by Ukraine in association or alliance with a nuclear-armed state;

6) Consult if a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments."

That's effectively the long and short of it. There's nothing there that the US has agreed to do that it is not in fact already doing. In fact, its weak 'go to the Security Council' provisions merely applies to the threat of nuclear weapons.

As to alterantives to sending weapons directly, that would be massively irresponsible - the Russians will not care whether there is 'smoking gun' proof or not, they will escalate regardless, and more dead people will be the result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On this one I have to disagree with you. Regardless of the rest of this dicussion I find this (at least the statement in the beginning) to be a valid position to take.

Granted, DreDay could just have answered "True". And I believe that is the answer you (and I) expected to hear. However, he doesn't answer because it "ignores much of the origins of this conflict". Yes, you didn't ask about the background. But looking at the whole conflict without looking at the background will produce a biased view of the current situation. Taking something out of context is an easy way to discredit someones opinion and asking for a simple "Yes or No" answer feels, at least to me, just like that.

He was the one trying to distort context. I was merely trying to clarify it. If he said "yes" then we have a starting point to talk about "why". I even invited him, twice, to present his case that Russian aggression is more the fault of Kiev than Moscow. Notice that he refused to answer that, and certainly I did not force that into a yes/no question. Which should show that my initial question was merely for clarification, not a be-all-end-all to the whole conversation.

I think here you misinterpreted DreDays answer. He didn't say "Now I ask you: Would we be talking about all the horrors of this war had the new Kiev government (again with full approval of US and EU) had not chosen that its own selfish interests are best served by violently suppressing a sizable regional and cultural minority instead of embracing the dialog with them?” but he said "One could ask", and I think that this "one could ask" is key here.

I don't. I see it as trying to worm out of a rather simple question that does, in fact, have a black and white answer. In fact, it is about the only thing in this whole sad mess that does have a black and white answer. The other one is that Ukrainians are dying every day because of this war.

I don't think that you would feel comfortable answering the question "If Kiev hadn't decided to side with the West, after a change in power, would there be a bloody conflict in easter Ukraine?" with "yes" because it takes things out of context.

And there you are wrong :D The answer to this direct question is "No, there would not have been". I have no problem saying that as a precursor discussion about the rights of self determination and that Ukraine is not the property of Moscow for it alone to decide what happens in Ukraine. In fact, I welcome it because it does help with the discussion.

The difference is I am sure of my position and the facts at my disposal to prove it. I also feel I have adequate debating skills to present my position and my facts against anybody who wishes to challenge them.

Also, BS? Why would you use the name of such a beautifull and masterfully researched game as an attack? You don't have to do that.

Not sure I understand what you meant by this. Are you talking about me asking him to explain how I could come up with the Black Sea backstory years before Putin carried it out, nearly the same as predicted? That came up because DreDay directly stated that I don't know what I am talking about (for various reasons he stated and refused to defend). As a means of getting him to explain his position, I asked him to reconcile a charge of ignorance with the fact that I pretty closely predicted what happened years before it happened. I dunno... maybe it is just me, but I thought it was a pretty good starting point for further discussion about my credibility to be having this debate in the first place.

We all know who is winning this discussion.

Oh, not all ;) My experience with these sorts of things is when someone ducks out after repeated failures to engage in a real debate they blame me for it. Since that is exactly what DreDay did, I expect that he (and those like him) feel that he withdrew for reasons other than losing. The constant is that it's always my fault, never their own.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greetings all! Lurker, first time poster.

Greetings!

The US has no 'treaty obligations' to Ukraine, and certainly not to 'guarantee' anything.

In concrete terms, this is true. But if there is no "moral obligation" to preserve the territorial integrity of Ukraine, then that sets a really bad precedent. People do not tend to respond well to being aggrieved when they get a wall of legalize excuses for the agreement not applying despite a rather obvious need.

However, this weekend Putin just offered up a concrete legal requirement for the US to be involved.

4) Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to assist Ukraine, should it be threatened or attacked with nuclear weapons;

Putin, on camera, boasted that he positioned nuclear capable missile launchers in the Crimean area in the event anybody tried to interfere with Russia's military invasion of Crimea. He specifically stated he was ready to put nuclear warheads on those missiles. If that does not fit the definition of "threatened", nothing does.

But here's the main one that was cited prior to this weekend:

6) Consult if a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.

The situation certainly has arisen, and there are questions concerning these commitments. I think everybody can agree that this clause got triggered. So, if the purpose of the agreement was to guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity against a foreign military force, which has also clearly happened, what exactly is supposed to happen after "consult"? To me it's open ended in that it neither obligates nor does it preclude action. Again, given the "intent and purpose" of the agreement I think there is a pretty strong argument to make that doing nothing is in violation of the "spirit" of the agreement.

That's effectively the long and short of it. There's nothing there that the US has agreed to do that it is not in fact already doing. In fact, its weak 'go to the Security Council' provisions merely applies to the threat of nuclear weapons.

Technically, true.

As to alterantives to sending weapons directly, that would be massively irresponsible - the Russians will not care whether there is 'smoking gun' proof or not, they will escalate regardless, and more dead people will be the result.

This aspect is a particularly difficult one to debate because nobody knows what Russia will do. And since that is the key to knowing the wisdom of the move, it's not really possible to say definitively that it is "smart" or "dumb".

Short term Russia can do a lot to escalate, but surely there are those in the Kremlin that understand that each of these options carries great risks with it. Some, including me, see almost all their options as dead ends that are more likely to result in harm to Russia than to Ukraine or the West. Similar to Russia's sanctions against Western food products is hurting their economy far more than it is hurting the exporters'. This then begs the question about what would Russia do if Javelins started showing up. We know what the Soviet Union did when Stingers showed up in Afghanistan... nothing. But would Russia react the same way this time around? I do not think so, but each option I ponder hastens the end of this conflict and the end of the Russian state as we know it. So it all comes down to how grounded in reality the Kremlin leadership is and/or how much they view reality as important.

I wish we knew more about what happened last week with Putin. I think the answer to the questions I just pondered could be at least narrowed down if we did.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

As to alterantives to sending weapons directly, that would be massively irresponsible - the Russians will not care whether there is 'smoking gun' proof or not, they will escalate regardless, and more dead people will be the result.

 

So, 75 years after WW2, we've come to "it would be irresponsible to help a weak nation being attacked because the aggressor will escalate".

 

Pretty sad summary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE:

 

However, this weekend Putin just offered up a concrete legal requirement for the US to be involved.


Putin, on camera, boasted that he positioned nuclear capable missile launchers in the Crimean area in the event anybody tried to interfere with Russia's military invasion of Crimea. He specifically stated he was ready to put nuclear warheads on those missiles. If that does not fit the definition of "threatened", nothing does.

UNQUOTE

 

 

Does anyone have a link to this in original Russian please? Im interested to hear what he actually said and the manner in which he said it.
 

Edited by VasFURY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sending arms now to reduce escalation is somewhat contradictory to the diplomatic effort that has so far calmed the fighting down and got the Seps to pull back most of their heavy stuff. I don't see the 2 strategies working together all that well.

 

Steinmeier made it pretty clear in his CSIS speech that if for example Mariupol was to be attacked Minsk II would be dead and that there will not be a Minsk III, meaning a shift in strategy to military means.
Edited by Kraft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Does anyone have a link to this in original Russian please? I'm interested to hear what he actually said and the manner in which he said it".

 

VasFURY,

he's reported to have have said it in this documentary shown on Rossiya 1 on Sunday. I haven't watched it so can't comment on whether he actually said what's reported, and if so, how.

 

http://russia.tv/video/show/brand_id/59195/episode_id/1180834

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you let worries of how a bully might escalate determine your actions you will always be a victim of that bully. The only way to stop a bully whether it be in domestic violence or national aggression is to make it clear to the bully that violence will be met in kind. Negotiations that allow them to continue their behavior only prolong the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting vid. Im only 70 mins in, no such comments regarding nuclear detergent yet. Probably will be towards the end, in order to enforce a point across. Will continue watching tomorrow.

The direct translation was something like "we discussed and considered using the nuclear option". I have not seen a direct translation of his comments about moving mobile missile launchers into position or having them on alert. But whatever he said, it apparently was detailed enough that he specified no nukes were on those missiles, but that he would put them on if he felt the need.

The mere fact that he explicitly stated he was even considering nuclear options in the context of violating Ukraine's sovereignty, is enough for me. However, I would love to get a direct translation. I haven't found a transcript yet in either Russia or English.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you let worries of how a bully might escalate determine your actions you will always be a victim of that bully. The only way to stop a bully whether it be in domestic violence or national aggression is to make it clear to the bully that violence will be met in kind. Negotiations that allow them to continue their behavior only prolong the problem.

 

Hey, just out of interest (Im not picking sides here) - would you view the US deployment in Iraq/Afghanistan as "national aggression"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The direct translation was something like "we discussed and considered using the nuclear option". I have not seen a direct translation of his comments about moving mobile missile launchers into position or having them on alert. But whatever he said, it apparently was detailed enough that he specified no nukes were on those missiles, but that he would put them on if he felt the need.

The mere fact that he explicitly stated he was even considering nuclear options in the context of violating Ukraine's sovereignty, is enough for me. However, I would love to get a direct translation. I haven't found a transcript yet in either Russia or English.

Steve

 

Yeah, thats what Im trying to hear from the video, so that I can directly translate it and post here, because what he says and how he says it may indeed give rise to the precedent which you mentioned earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sending arms now to reduce escalation is somewhat contradictory to the diplomatic effort that has so far calmed the fighting down and got the Seps to pull back most of their heavy stuff. I don't see the 2 strategies working together all that well.

I agree, but that means pursuing at least one strategy fully. This was the problem with Minsk 1 where the ceasefire was a joke. There was no ceasefire as Debaltseve and the airport prove. So it's started again with Minsk 2 and the German response is to put the bar pretty high up to declare Russia in violation. I think most people would consider daily coordinated ground attacks with tanks, artillery (heavy mortars), and infantry to be a deliberate violation of the spirt of the agreement at the absolute minimum.

 

Steinmeier made it pretty clear in his CSIS speech that if for example Mariupol was to be attacked Minsk II would be dead and that there will not be a Minsk III, meaning a shift in strategy to military means.

I find it depressing to say this... but I think Merkel has less credibility for drawing "redlines" and sticking to them than does Obama. For example, Merkel and Steinmeier said they would implement new sanctions if the terms of the ceasefire were not respected by Russia. Well, as I just stated certainly it is not being respected. Do we now see those promised German sanctions going into effect? Nope, we find that "violations" has been redefined to be "major violations" so that the current fighting is exempt from Minsk 2.

Since Merkel and Steinmeier should have anticipated serious breaches of the ceasefire by the separatist/Russians (i.e. because their leaders said they don't respect it!) then I don't see the Germans having an excuse for inaction now. Unless they are utter fools, they made the threat of more sanctions knowing very well that the probability that the separatist/Russians would respect the ceasefire would be low. That doesn't mean arming Ukraine, but it should at least mean additional sanctions. Or at the very least a phone call to Moscow saying "tell your boys to knock it off by tonight or you'll see these sanctions in the morning. We're tired of playing this game with you".

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem with these sanctions Steve, is that they are hurting Ukraine even more than they are hurting Russia. I have family living in both countries (far from the fighting, thank God), but those in Ukraine have been far far worse off than those in Russia from the moment that even the first round of sanctions was imposed (even though financially both relative camps were on equal grounds ). I really dont think sanctions are the answer to this mess. I think the Germans understand this, thats why they act how they do.

Edited by VasFURY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem with these sanctions Steve, is that they are hurting Ukraine even more than they are hurting Russia. I have family living in both countries (far from the fighting, thank God), but those in Ukraine have been far far worse off than those in Russia from the moment that even the first round of sanctions was imposed (even though financially both relative camps were on equal grounds ).

Here's the thing. Without sanctions the Ukrainian economy and government would be pretty bad off simply because Yanukovych ran the country into the ground, the government is riddled with corruption, there's a war going on, and there is a significant amount of terrorist activity. In short, it would be a mess in Ukraine under any realistic scenario.

Russia, on the other hand, started off from a position of much greater economic and domestic strength. Though for sure the Russian economy is only a tad bit less corrupt and more stable than the Ukrainian one, it had the oil money keeping standard of living increasing for the average Russian. Thanks to the collapse of oil prices, things are changing rather more dramatically. Fighting a war and having large scale military activity is further putting a strain on finances.

On the trade front, Russia has enacted punitive actions against incoming Ukrainian goods, Ukraine has done the same for Russian goods. Both are designed to hurt the other.

Notice that I have not mentioned sanctions at all. That's because sanctions are likely not doing much compared to the other things I mentioned.

What sanctions are doing is harming the Russian state's other options to mitigate its own internal problems. The ruling elite have had their accounts frozen and their movements in the West blocked. Critical Russian enterprises now find they do not have any, or at least easy, access to outside capital. They also have found that the stock and currency markets view this negatively. Russia is, in effect, isolated from the world.

Ukraine, on the other hand, has no such sanctions against it and in fact is receiving major aid from international sources. $5b IMF loan was just received, for example. Doors are opening for Ukraine, not closing.

 

I really dont think sanctions are the answer to this mess. I think the Germans understand this, thats why they act how they do.

Then the Germans are guilty of extremely bad logic. In a conflict there are generally 3 ways to counter an adversary:

1. Diplomatic -> find some way to resolve the conflict to the reasonable satisfaction of all parties.

2. Economic -> find a way to make the economic pain of the conflict hurt the other side enough to go to Diplomacy.

3. Military -> directly confront the adversary with actual or threatened military force with the goal of forcing a Diplomatic solution (best case) or destroying the adversary (worst case).

These are in rough order of which is used first and last, though they can all be going at one time. Diplomacy with Russia has failed utterly and completely on its own. Only an idiot would argue that Diplomacy has not been given a fair attempt. So the West moved to Economic actions, which for the most part are what the sanctions are. And that has not stopped the war in Ukraine nor has it resolved anything related to it.

Which means we are at the point where either more economic pressure is brought against Russia or it's time to try military actions of some sort. The Germans, on the other hand, want to leave things "as is" even though "as is" clearly isn't a solution. In the last 24 hours Ukraine lost 3 soldiers dead and 5 wounded. There are daily reports of coordinated ground attacks being launched against Ukraine's positions while Russian and separatist forces regroup. This is pretty much the same story as after Minsk 1. If it is not nipped in the bud through proactive means, then it seems that we're destined to have the whole thing collapse as soon as good weather arrives.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And there you are wrong :D The answer to this direct question is "No, there would not have been". I have no problem saying that as a precursor discussion about the rights of self determination and that Ukraine is not the property of Moscow for it alone to decide what happens in Ukraine. In fact, I welcome it because it does help with the discussion.

Oops,

I actually wanted to answer my question with "No". Looks like I copied something and didn't read my answer before posting. Sorry if my mistake caused any confusion.

 

Not sure I understand what you meant by this. Are you talking about me asking him to explain how I could come up with the Black Sea backstory years before Putin carried it out, nearly the same as predicted? That came up because DreDay directly stated that I don't know what I am talking about (for various reasons he stated and refused to defend). As a means of getting him to explain his position, I asked him to reconcile a charge of ignorance with the fact that I pretty closely predicted what happened years before it happened. I dunno... maybe it is just me, but I thought it was a pretty good starting point for further discussion about my credibility to be having this debate in the first place.

Actually, I wasn't. I tried to make a (bad) joke about the ambiguity of "BS" as an acronym for both "Black Sea" and "Bull excrements" since you used it abainst DreDays post ("I call "BS" on this."). Making a (bad) joke is something I usually do while entering a discussion to set up the right mood: Nothing is personal, we all understand each other, we can make jokes about stuff. Again, my excuses if I caused any confusion.

 

The rest of you answer was (as expected) well argued and rational. I think we are talking about the same thing, just in different situations. Thanks for the clarification, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...