skepller@lemmy.world to Europe@feddit.orgEnglish · 15 days agoChina Is Joining Russia’s Shadow War on Europewww.bloomberg.comexternal-linkmessage-square63fedilinkarrow-up177arrow-down14file-text
arrow-up173arrow-down1external-linkChina Is Joining Russia’s Shadow War on Europewww.bloomberg.comskepller@lemmy.world to Europe@feddit.orgEnglish · 15 days agomessage-square63fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·13 days agoThat is a good attitude. I obviously don’t see the need in this case. It’s not prose but facts. They can’t be significantly altered in the summary.
minus-squarerandomname@scribe.disroot.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·edit-213 days ago@plyth@feddit.org That is a good attitude. I obviously don’t see the need in this case. It’s not prose but facts. They can’t be significantly altered in the summary. Ah, now it’s clearer how your comments come about. Very illuminating. Don’t read. Just the summary and Wikipedia.
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·13 days agoDo you think my comments are wrong because I haven’t read the book?
minus-squareQuittenbrot@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·13 days agoYou want to judge something you don’t know. That’s never a good idea.
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·13 days agoI don’t judge the book. I judge the situation of a war by a summary of an analysis of the geostrategic relevance of the area.
minus-squareQuittenbrot@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·13 days agoWhy are you regularly referring to this precise book?
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·13 days agoSo that others can see how the experts analyse the situation.
minus-squareQuittenbrot@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·12 days agoDo you agree with the book?
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·12 days agoIn which way? The original book or the adjusted part of the reprint? With the given assumptions I think the book does a reasonable analysis.
minus-squareQuittenbrot@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·13 days ago I obviously don’t see the need in this case. You don’t think you’d benefit knowing what you regularly cite? It’s not prose but facts. What facts?
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·13 days agoFor the most part I reference the Wikipedia page. The quotes were on your request. The Wikipedia page describes the way the situation is conceptualized.
minus-squareQuittenbrot@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·13 days ago I obviously don’t see the need in this case. It’s not prose but facts. Since you “obviously don’t see the need” to read it, yet still feel the need to regularly cite it, I’d like to know which facts from this book you are talking about.
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·13 days agoIn the same way that the words you are reading right now are not imaginary.
minus-squareQuittenbrot@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·13 days agoThere’s a difference between opinions and facts.
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·13 days agoWhen the topic is ideas then ideas are facts.
That is a good attitude. I obviously don’t see the need in this case. It’s not prose but facts. They can’t be significantly altered in the summary.
@plyth@feddit.org
Ah, now it’s clearer how your comments come about. Very illuminating. Don’t read. Just the summary and Wikipedia.
Do you think my comments are wrong because I haven’t read the book?
You want to judge something you don’t know. That’s never a good idea.
I don’t judge the book. I judge the situation of a war by a summary of an analysis of the geostrategic relevance of the area.
Why are you regularly referring to this precise book?
So that others can see how the experts analyse the situation.
Do you agree with the book?
In which way? The original book or the adjusted part of the reprint?
With the given assumptions I think the book does a reasonable analysis.
You don’t think you’d benefit knowing what you regularly cite?
What facts?
For the most part I reference the Wikipedia page. The quotes were on your request.
The Wikipedia page describes the way the situation is conceptualized.
Since you “obviously don’t see the need” to read it, yet still feel the need to regularly cite it, I’d like to know which facts from this book you are talking about.
The concepts
They are facts to you?
In the same way that the words you are reading right now are not imaginary.
There’s a difference between opinions and facts.
When the topic is ideas then ideas are facts.