No. When you posted the actual title was as stated in my previous comment and has now been changed to "Zelensky says Russia blew up dam as thousands evacuated from flood".
Like I said the title was correct and meant to say exactly what it says, the title of BBC was not.
Like I said, BBC is getting there … hopefully .
I am not going to edit the reality just because BBC is slow. Like I said I took their article as related, nothing more. The idea of title is to express the essence of the topic shortly. BBC have to put some bs at the end because they have failed to work an find out but I do not have to. Actually if we think about it they do not have to as well.
Their role and obligation should be to deliver what really has happened, the objective reality. Not the middle between lie and reality which is a lie by definition and not ‘this side have said this’ and ‘other side have said that’ and BBC have no idea what is credible. What they do is not journalism , it is a BS picture that does not represent the objective reality.
Please refrain from editing me and trying to edit the real event. The same goes for BBC which should also refrain from this.
The confidence of this assertion is at odds with the what is currently known, and in-line with the war of narrative, another fiercely contested front of this conflict. Perhaps nothing corrodes the truth more than war - I wonder what the second order effect this will have on how people view media going forward; we can only ever be more distrustful, and more skeptical of whatever we're being asked to believe
>The confidence of this assertion is at odds with the what is currently known
It is unclear what you mean by ‘known’.
Known to whom? To you? To BBC? If it’s not known to you or to BBC it doesn’t mean it’s not known. It means it’s not known to you or/and BBC.
The title I provided is not at odds to what is known to me.
>.. and in-line with the war of narrative, another fiercely contested front of this conflict.
It is in-line with what well known about the dam construction and russian preparations to blow it more than half a year ago already.
It would be interesting to see you analyse your own efforts here to see how much they are ‘in-line with the war of narrative’
> I wonder what the second order effect this will have …
well, possibly some people would prefer to dwell into entertaining philosophy and contribute to creation of right amount of fog to hide the truth and own ignorance.
>Don't you think that blowing the dam now was premature and pointless?
you should probably discuss it with your russian friends. Not with me. I do not wish to be part of such discussion.
I think there is no a proper time to blow the dam just like I think the whole russian aggression ‘was’ and ‘is’ pointless to begin with. On the other hand there is a lot of dumb idiots in russia who think it was a good idea to start the war against Ukraine. There are also people convinced of having certain level of intelligence and funny enough wish to help those russians in the same time. So you can talk with them and discuss when it is ‘mature’ to blow some dam.
You started it though by retranslating BBC's speculations but back down when merits of blowing up dam are questioned.
"I think there is no a proper time to blow the dam just like I think the whole russian aggression ‘was’ and ‘is’ pointless to begin with. "
No intention to argue with that, but the dam is blown anyway and somebody did blow it up.
It may be blown by Russia, but again it may be not.
Take the NordStream comedy -- many actors, starting from Kiev, were trying to blame Russia for the explosions and inventing bizarre reasons for that and look at the headlines now -- 'U.S. had intelligence of detailed Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream pipeline' [0].
So who should I talk to about reasons for Russia to blow up NordStream?
>You started it though by retranslating BBC's speculation
I’ve corrected BBC speculation. No discussion with russian lies.
> It may be blown by Russia, but again it may be not.
Here we observe the essence of such
posts.
Very in-line with inventing as much versions as possible. Poor performance though. I wonder if there have been any studies regarding how helping russian propaganda affects sleeping quality of those who practice it.
Perhaps try to go with this version:
‘Most likely Harry Potter was involved … after all he was seen on some bridge and was throwing something … ’
Here again you express great enthusiasm about plans of blowing something up and just as before you should probably discuss it with your russian friends. Not with me.
Unfortunately the discussion with you lost any sense long ago when you have ignored provided link and tried to deviate toward typical russian propagandist narrative. Since russian propaganda does not make any sense at all it was hard to expect that you would be genuinely interested in such thing as ‘sense’.
Anyway, sorry to disappoint.
Just as before you should probably discuss it with your russian friends. Not with me.
I am sure they will be more than happy to share obsession with improving plans and reasoning behind blowing something up.
Their lies will most likely make ‘sense’ to you and there you might find some excitement and surprises you are possibly looking for.
23 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 69.8 ms ] threadI just took some random article from ‘internationally recognised credible source’ that somewhat related.
Please refrain from editing titles.
Like I said, BBC is getting there … hopefully .
I am not going to edit the reality just because BBC is slow. Like I said I took their article as related, nothing more. The idea of title is to express the essence of the topic shortly. BBC have to put some bs at the end because they have failed to work an find out but I do not have to. Actually if we think about it they do not have to as well. Their role and obligation should be to deliver what really has happened, the objective reality. Not the middle between lie and reality which is a lie by definition and not ‘this side have said this’ and ‘other side have said that’ and BBC have no idea what is credible. What they do is not journalism , it is a BS picture that does not represent the objective reality.
Please refrain from editing me and trying to edit the real event. The same goes for BBC which should also refrain from this.
It is unclear what you mean by ‘known’.
Known to whom? To you? To BBC? If it’s not known to you or to BBC it doesn’t mean it’s not known. It means it’s not known to you or/and BBC.
The title I provided is not at odds to what is known to me.
>.. and in-line with the war of narrative, another fiercely contested front of this conflict.
It is in-line with what well known about the dam construction and russian preparations to blow it more than half a year ago already.
It would be interesting to see you analyse your own efforts here to see how much they are ‘in-line with the war of narrative’
> I wonder what the second order effect this will have …
well, possibly some people would prefer to dwell into entertaining philosophy and contribute to creation of right amount of fog to hide the truth and own ignorance.
From what sources? Kiev?
https://nitter.hu/Gerashchenko_en/status/1666061532080361472...
Don't you think that blowing the dam now was premature and pointless?
you should probably discuss it with your russian friends. Not with me. I do not wish to be part of such discussion.
I think there is no a proper time to blow the dam just like I think the whole russian aggression ‘was’ and ‘is’ pointless to begin with. On the other hand there is a lot of dumb idiots in russia who think it was a good idea to start the war against Ukraine. There are also people convinced of having certain level of intelligence and funny enough wish to help those russians in the same time. So you can talk with them and discuss when it is ‘mature’ to blow some dam.
You started it though by retranslating BBC's speculations but back down when merits of blowing up dam are questioned.
"I think there is no a proper time to blow the dam just like I think the whole russian aggression ‘was’ and ‘is’ pointless to begin with. "
No intention to argue with that, but the dam is blown anyway and somebody did blow it up.
It may be blown by Russia, but again it may be not.
Take the NordStream comedy -- many actors, starting from Kiev, were trying to blame Russia for the explosions and inventing bizarre reasons for that and look at the headlines now -- 'U.S. had intelligence of detailed Ukrainian plan to attack Nord Stream pipeline' [0].
So who should I talk to about reasons for Russia to blow up NordStream?
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/06/...
I’ve corrected BBC speculation. No discussion with russian lies.
> It may be blown by Russia, but again it may be not.
Here we observe the essence of such posts.
Very in-line with inventing as much versions as possible. Poor performance though. I wonder if there have been any studies regarding how helping russian propaganda affects sleeping quality of those who practice it.
Perhaps try to go with this version: ‘Most likely Harry Potter was involved … after all he was seen on some bridge and was throwing something … ’
Anyway, sorry to disappoint.
Just as before you should probably discuss it with your russian friends. Not with me.
I am sure they will be more than happy to share obsession with improving plans and reasoning behind blowing something up.
Their lies will most likely make ‘sense’ to you and there you might find some excitement and surprises you are possibly looking for.
Oh, no, I have very low expectation for russophobes, you didn't disappoint me.
You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Phobia suggests imagination of non existing threat.
Contrary to that deadly Russian aggression is reality we are witnessing daily in Ukraine.
“russophobia” is another term invented by russian propaganda to cover own aggression. Usage of this term informs enough about those who use it.
Your efforts are in vain. There is awareness of crimes against humanity and human rights performed by russia again and again.
It's comical that you even didn't bother to check the definitions before lecturing me. As I said, you cannot disappoint me))
"A phobia is an anxiety disorder defined by a persistent and excessive fear of an object or situation." [0]
"Russophobia, noun - an intense and often irrational hatred for Russia, or esp the former Soviet Union, its political system, etc." [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia
[1] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/russoph...
>> intense and often irrational
There's nothing excessive or irrational in not wanting to die for your bunker rat's fever dreams.
And they are absolutely correct to point out that using the word 'russophobia' only highlights who you are.
That makes two of us. Unfortunately, they go far beyond that.
"that using the word 'russophobia' only highlights who you are"
That's what russophobes say.