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-up1·13 days agoSo that others can see how the experts analyse the situation.
minus-squareQuittenbrot@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·13 days agoDo you agree with the book?
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·13 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-up1·13 days agoHow would you know if you haven’t read it?
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·13 days agoThat depends on what you are asking.
minus-squareQuittenbrot@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-213 days agoIt doesn’t. You not being able to know if the book does a reasonable analysis is only due to you not knowing the book. e: typo
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·13 days agoYou are clever, and I try to be clever, too. I only wrote that I think that the book does a reasonable analysis. I am able to know that. If you still want to discuss the message of the book, which one do you have in mind?
minus-squareQuittenbrot@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·13 days ago I am able to know that. How? You don’t know the book.
minus-squareplyth@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-212 days agoBy being nitpicky about the way I phrased my answer. You are right though, I cannot speak about the book. That’s why I only talk about things that are written in the Wikipedia page.
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.
How would you know if you haven’t read it?
That depends on what you are asking.
It doesn’t. You not being able to know if the book does a reasonable analysis is only due to you not knowing the book.
e: typo
You are clever, and I try to be clever, too. I only wrote that I think that the book does a reasonable analysis. I am able to know that.
If you still want to discuss the message of the book, which one do you have in mind?
How? You don’t know the book.
By being nitpicky about the way I phrased my answer.
You are right though, I cannot speak about the book. That’s why I only talk about things that are written in the Wikipedia page.