timps
-
Posts
1,864 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
PW Shop
Posts posted by timps
-
-
3 hours ago, serrac said:
I've enjoyed the debate and learned some things from it so thanks for the effort you put into your responses 👍
👍
-
1 hour ago, serrac said:
The mRNA vax promotes production of spike protein mimicking that on the cov-19 virus and has been shown to be itself pathogenic.
All very interesting but Thailand used
Oxford–AstraZeneca: ~36.606 million doses (43.78%)
CoronaVac: ~25.508 million doses (30.50%)
Sinopharm BIBP: ~13.231 million doses (15.82%)
Which are not mRNA vaccines
Pfizer–BioNTech: ~8.199 million doses (9.8%)
Moderna: ~0.07 million doses (0.01%)
Which are the mRNA vaccines and only account for just 10% in Thailand If Wikipedia is to be believed, but it’s irrelevant and not important really, I was just pointing out the John Hopkins charts are not conclusive proof of anything without more data inputs.
This is something you seem to accept when rebutting me but something you didn’t accept when you stated they were proof to support your claims.
If you now accept the charts posted earlier on by themselves prove neither one way or the other without more data and clarification then we are now in agreement.
If you don’t, well I’ve answered your question “what standard of proof would satisfy you” the same you require when the charts don’t show what you believe.
-
3 hours ago, serrac said:
The 2nd Reuters article states that 2.7 Million Thai citizens had been vaccinated against Covid-19 by 4th June. Some might call that a mass vaccination program but since 2.7 million is only ~3.85% of the population of Thailand, let's just call it a quasi-mass vaccination for the sake of argument.
The actual timeline was:
1. Feb 2021, Thailand commenced a quasi-mass vaccination program in the face of minimal cases and zero daily deaths.
2. This was followed by a modest surge of covid cases and deaths
3. June 2021, Thailand began a proper mass vaccination program of most of its populace, in the face of the aforementioned surge of covid cases and deaths, which had already begun to plateau.
4. This was followed by a massive upsurge in covid cases and deathsEach rollout was followed by a proportionately sized surge in cases and deaths, which supports the case for temporal (and "dose" dependent) association.
Our discussion is about the question you originally asked:-
“I believe the John Hopkins charts in themselves are very close to that standard of proof. If you don't agree, what standard of proof would satisfy you?”I’m not going to convince you or change your mind on other things but nowhere in the charts posted does it say any of above you have just posted, which was my reasoning for discounting them.
3.85% of the population (and I’ve not checked the accuracy of those figures or dates) is not mass vaccination by anybody’s definition, calling it something else doesn’t alter that fact, what was written on the chart was "Mass Vaccination Begins".
According to Reuters, The Finical Times (should you want a broad sheet), The Guardian (should you want woke), Russia Today (if you have a VPN to read it and seeing that there are some alleged Russian moles on PW, joke by the way) and plenty more sources all state mass vaccination began on the 7 June 2021. If the author of the chart wants to be believed then that is the day they should state.
The mass vaccination may have started on the 7 June but they did not vaccinate the entire population in one day and the vaccine needs weeks to become effective, as more people are vaccinated the deaths began to decline which goes against your point.
Where does the chart you posted mention “each roll out”, regardless of that point, if you look at the surge starting June 2021 the number of cases mirror the number of deaths, the graphs look similar.
If you look at the surge starting Jan 2022 the number of cases far exceed the number of deaths, the death graph is shallower than the cases graph.
By this time more people are vaccinated, it has had time to work, so on the face of it with no other data input considered, the vaccine seems to be preventing deaths not causing them by comparisons of those 2 graphs alone.
Regarding temporal association, as I stated in my other post regarding the June 2021 surge “a surge that has had a disproportionate impact on the country’s overcrowded prisons.” The prisoners were not at that time vaccinated, but you are happy to include their disproportionate number of deaths in the figures via temporal association to prove vaccines are unsafe.
You cannot use disproportionate unvaccinated deaths in this way if you want to be taken seriously. An unvaccinated prisoner cannot be killed by a vaccine he hasn’t been given yet, you have to remove his death from the data, which hasn’t been done. The same goes for all other deaths not related to the vaccine.
What you are suggesting is the same as the king of Thailand stubbing his toe in June then again in January, overlaying it on the John Hopkins graph and saying it’s temporal association, look, each time the king stubs his toe the cases rise.
The above is a flippant remark I know, but without knowing how many people who died were actually vaccinated or why they died means you cannot have any meaningful association at all.
-
4 minutes ago, discobob said:
But that was Mass Vaccination - i.e. Everyone - perhaps vaccination for the over xx's started earlier as @serrac has put?? Just playing Devils Advocate
Answered in my post above. The whole point of the charts was mass vaccination and its alleged correlation to an increase in deaths. Take the mass out of it and the charts are meaningless.
-
2 hours ago, serrac said:
The Reuters article does not state that the rollout of vaccines on 4th June was the first.
In fact a link from that article, published on the 4th of June states:
"The Thai government had used the Sinovac (SVA.O) brand for early inoculations but this week said 11 million more of those had been ordered.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/thailand-says-has-enough-supplies-start-covid-19-vaccinations-2021-06-04/
Therefore vaccination had been going on in Thailand prior to June 4thYour original premise was to look at data for countries that did not have high numbers of Covid -19 deaths prior to MASS vaccination because they afford the simplest comparison.
Now you change the goalpost to SOME vaccination? What does that prove?Your original point was:
1. They had very low rates of death attributed to COVID-19. (correct)
2. Then they commenced mass vaccination. (Factually incorrect)
3. Then they experienced huge increases in deaths attributed to COVID-19. (Factually incorrect)The true timeline was:
1. They had very low rates of death attributed to COVID-19. (correct)
2. Then they experienced huge increases in deaths attributed to COVID-19 (correct)
3. Then they commenced mass vaccination. (correct)Which doesn’t provide the smoking gun proof you tried to claim.
Whoever created the chart clearly labelled MASS vaccination starting several months earlier than it did, in a flat spot, a blatant lie to mislead those that didn’t bother to actually check. When you put MASS vaccination in its correct timeline its impact is lost. The death rate is already increasing.
Secondly it doesn’t go into other causes or factors.
"The country’s death toll now stands at 1,269. More than 80 percent of these infections and deaths have come since the beginning of this third wave in April, a surge that has had a disproportionate impact on the country’s overcrowded prisons."I would speculate Covid 19 entering the unsanitary conditions and overcrowding in Thailand’s prisons more of a smoking gun to the spike in deaths than a mass vaccine rollout that has just started so impact at this point in time would be minimal but that is just speculation on my part without all the data.
Without correlating all the data points (including were the dead in this spike actually vaccinated) the charts you posted offer no proof of anything.
The original question you asked “ If you don't agree, what standard of proof would satisfy you?”
1.Well for a start a chart that is factually correct and doesn't lie by making things up.
2. A chart that shows actual causation not just coincidence, there is a global pandemic, deaths are going to rise directly or indirectly due to Covid, those indirect factors have to be discounted first.
-
4 hours ago, serrac said:
I believe the John Hopkins charts in themselves are very close to that standard of proof. If you don't agree, what standard of proof would satisfy you?
The John Hopkins charts make no mention of deaths due to the vaccine or even how many of those dead people are actually vaccinated, nor do the team at John Hopkins make that inference.
The first graphic you posted for Thailand claims that mass vaccination started on 24th of February 2021 when the graph is nice and flat, unfortunately mass Vaccination started on June 7th 2021 when the death rate was already increasing, and is the start of a third wave and nothing to do with mass vaccine roll out.
“BANGKOK, June 7 (Reuters) - Thailand kicked off a long-awaited mass vaccination campaign on Monday as the country battles its third and worst wave of the coronavirus epidemic.”
There are plenty of other sources should you not like Reuters conformation of date. Add to that the graphic also fails to address the causes of the two other previous spikes in deaths before mass vaccination started.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/thailandWhen you look at ALL the data on the Thailand chart there is no proof at all that vaccines are the cause, as vaccines cannot cause a mass spike in deaths before they are administered in a mass roll out.
Just like my seatbelt analogy, 73% of fatalities were wearing seatbelts but I neglected to mention the other figure, 93% of drivers wear seatbelts, it alters the interpretation. Failing to mention the previous 2 spikes and the third one well underway before mass vaccination starts alters the inference of the chart considerably.
As to the other charts I haven’t bothered to look as when the first one is so easily proven as false and unreliable, I am not going to waste time on the others.
As I said, the John Hopkins figures are correct just the inference and interpretation is so far wide of the mark its laughable.
-
49 minutes ago, Gordon R said:
serrac- what you posted proves nothing.
Agree with you totally Gordon.
The OneAmerica is often miss quoted, the CDC explains that excess deaths are associated with COVID-19 directly or indirectly. The rise in fatalities is largely associated with COVID-19, either directly from the disease or from other causes such as health care shortages, overburdened health care systems or complications from catching COVID 19 to people with ongoing health issues who die many months later.
The OneAmerica CEO did NOT state these are not being filed as Covid deaths but people commenting on his statement have.
It might even be true that they are not filed as COVID deaths but as someone once said there are Lies, damned lies, and statistics. The figures are correct but the inference and interpretation are not.
I could use official UK government figures to write a paper with pretty graphs that prove the figures mean wearing seatbelts causes more fatalities. It’s a rubbish and false conclusion but the figures prove it if you don’t give them context.
Out of all fatalities on uk roads 23% were not wearing seatbelts and 77% were wearing seatbelts (official figures).
The bare bones figures cannot be argued, however the inference that you are less likely to be killed not wearing a seatbelt than wearing a seatbelt can be.
Out of all my family or friends we only had one unexpected death, a blood clot, someone tried to link that to the vaccine until his widow pointed out he was unvaccinated. That same someone still wouldn’t accept it though.
I’m in no way stating there are no deaths related to the vaccine alone, just there isn’t as yet the smoking gun proof of mass deaths due to the vaccine alone as some would have you believe.
-
5 hours ago, Mungler said:
You boys want to take it easy on the nutty pills. If you scoff them all now, you'll have none left for the weekend 😀
I’ve always thought PW needs a like button 😂
-
3 hours ago, Rewulf said:
Just a little taste of what it's like debating with you 🤣
Oh hello, I thought you were ignoring me, my ‘mistake’.😂
But seriously, you will argue every point and never give an inch no matter what. You say you admit when you are wrong, but seriously you never think you are wrong so …. Every time you have asked me to prove what was said, I have quoted it, apart form this last time, as I gave up and tried to get back on track, but I get that you disagree on interpretation, that's the point on forums.
You always want to argue semantics, you say disagree is not the same as differ etc. just as one example ( I get you might have equal on me) but the dictionary on this one differs or disagrees with you, so we get stuck on that rather than the actual subject.
Does it matter for the point of the debate ?
No it doesn’t, but here is the thing, I will argue my corner with anyone just like you. I get you are passionate about what you believe, but I will just be as belligerent / passionate as you when it comes to arguing my point.
Instead of scoring points and just telling me ‘USA did it as well’ which is a **** argument, just keep saying:-
‘If all the troops on the front line, who is administering….’
While I might not agree, it is a salient argument that can be debated the former is not as it is not relevant and I will say so.
Just accept the written word can be miss read, misinterpreted by different eyes and I will try and do the same or don't and actually ignore me 👍.
-
33 minutes ago, Rewulf said:
Jesus christ , if all the troops are on the front line , who is administering the martial law ?
From one daft argument to the next.Eh what the heck you on about no martial law it’s the police and local authorities martial law it’s the soldiers. That’s the whole difference, the whole point of why it’s a mistake 😂 you really don’t read do you.
37 minutes ago, Rewulf said:Youre not wrong , have fun
I was wrong you couldn’t help yourself you replied AGAIN see ya
-
25 minutes ago, Rewulf said:
Absolute rubbish !
There isnt one army that fights on the front and another that bullies civilians, troops get rotated out of combat, and the civilians dont recognise two armies, that bonkers !
You are trying to make up scenarios to suit your opinion, you dont have the technical knowledge to make this work , please dont try.
Timps , Im sure youre a nice guy, but interactions with you seem to drag on and on with no resolution, try not to reply , as its a waste of both our time.
If you feel you cant do this, consider putting me on ignore, or if you dont want that , Ill do it instead.Eh you do understand how martial law works don’t you?
The civilian police force of locals that usually patrol the streets away front the front line is now replaced by a foreign army and checkpoints. It was the argument you lost to welsh1 before.
If there is no martial law then all the troops are on the front line.
Seeing as you’re not my mum I’m not going to do what you say, it’s the second time you asked me to block you, like I say it’s simple you keep quoting me so I keep responding to those quotes where I feel the need.
As for the rest your post, it contained absolutely nothing and answered nothing but you quoted me and responded with quips anyway.
Ill guess it’s the last I will hear from you when I post now.
-
1 hour ago, Rewulf said:
History of the outcome of conflicts and learning from them has nothing to do with whataboutery / strawman argument. Read that back to yourself 3 or 4 times , and try and remember it next time you say to someone , thats irrelevant 'whataboutery'
I do wonder if you ever read what you actually write, I know I’m not the first or only one to ask you this. Anyway, for the sake of getting back to the topic I’ll ignore all the pointless stuff you got wrong and move on.
Regarding the above you really need to understand the difference between the two.
History is simple, there are numerous similar conflicts throughout history where liberating armies that then imposed martial law have then been seen as an occupying army after time. This can and does promote conflict and unrest towards them from the locals.
Can this historical knowledge of the failures repeated then be used in the current conflict, answer yes. Russia putting armed roadblocks and curfews in areas that are not at the front line will cause resentment, it has been seen before in other conflicts.
Whataboutry: Russian imposes martial law …. But what about USA they did to….
Can this knowledge then be used in the current conflict, answer no, it’s irrelevant all you can do with this knowledge is tar Russia and USA with the same brush.
You don’t seem to understand that you have to put some content in rather than just say USA bad. All people are asking is why is that relevant. So the USA invaded Iraq how does that knowledge help us understand what is going on in Ukraine?
The reasons why they failed does, but that’s history not just that they did it.
Do you ever read what you write (in bold)
QuoteYes, an army of liberation does become hostile but you have to declare martial law and enact it to make that change. Dont be ridiculous !
But then
QuoteDo you think martial law by foreign troops on a foreign land doesn’t make for heightened tensions and conflict with the once supportive locals ?
Of course it does , what a strange question,
Troops on the front line don’t interact with the local civilians, under martial law they do.
You are saying that it is ridiculous that martial law makes the change to hostile in one breath and of course it makes for conflict in the other.
-
1 hour ago, Rewulf said:
You didnt imply it was a mistake, and you didnt ask me if it was a mistake, if YOU think this is what you meant , then try to form your statements better.
You think from what was written I thought it was a good idea to impose martial law?
If it wasn’t a good idea then has to be a ………. hint the definition is an action, decision, or judgment that produces an unwanted or unintentional result:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mistake
Army of liberation becomes an unintentional army of occupation is a ……..
1 hour ago, Rewulf said:You wrote this in a later post (as you well know) which then set about this rather pointless conversation.
It was the question I asked that you didn’t answer.
You said that I never asked you that question, which was completely wrong, it is in black and white, was asked and never answered so the timeline in this instance is irrelevant. If you are going to correct me make sure you are right.
1 hour ago, Rewulf said:How can I say , NO its not a mistake , when you didnt ask me a if it was a mistake 😆
But I did ask you.
“Are you now agreeing with me that Putin made a mistake declaring marital law?”
How is that an unanswerable question on its own?
No I am not agreeing with you…. NO…. No it wasn’t a mistake….HET
1 hour ago, Rewulf said:The problem is , I used the Americans as a sarcastic example of an army that SAID it was an army of liberation (on multiple occasions) but was an army of occupation from the get go, and went straight in killing thousands of civilians , you and fellow defender of Ukraine Mungler ,labelled this as irrelevant whataboutery.
I disproved your example , and you didnt like it.How did you disprove it, putting SAID in capital letters for the first time now doesn’t alter what you first wrote which was none of the above.
Some parts of the countries ‘invade’ welcomed the USA, some parts didn’t, does that sound familiar?
Either way what has it got to do with Ukraine?
Have the USA a liberating or occupying army in the Ukraine at the present time?
1 hour ago, Rewulf said:OK is it under peaceful military occupation ?
Make your mind up, is this ,as you state, an army of liberation , or an army of occupation ??You completely miss the point, I didn’t use the word ‘HOSTILE’ according to you therefore replace ‘mistake’ with ‘hostile’ in your previous point above:-
I didnt imply it was hostile, and you didnt ask me if it was a hostile , if YOU think this is what I meant , then try to form your statements better.
Or does that only apply to me, you can’t have it both ways.
This is what I mean with you, you change your stance mid post, I knew what you meant by hostile so it is easy to answer. But in this case I argued your exact point above knowing you would argue back against it switching stance.
Yes, an army of liberation does become hostile but you have to declare martial law and enact it to make that change.
1 hour ago, Rewulf said:Try reading what I said, condense it , give it some thought before replying.
Then read the highlighted a couple of times.History of the outcome of conflicts and learning from them has nothing to do with whataboutery / strawman argument.
I purposely didn’t get into the debate of whether Russia should be there on this one, just they are now in the prosses of changing from a so-called army of liberation to an army of occupation due to imposing martial law.
Do you think martial law by foreign troops on a foreign land doesn’t make for heightened tensions and conflict with the once supportive locals ?
-
1 hour ago, Stonepark said:
Question... Should the UN\Nato have intervened in Ukraine and supported the last democratically elected Russian orientated Ukranian government in order to prevent the illegal coup in 2014?
No
-
49 minutes ago, Rewulf said:
Well because it doesn't.
Oh so what was written in no way implied it was a mistake and that I was actually writing a post supportive of a foreign power imposing martial law in a foreign land, errr my mistake its clearly obvious now, how silly of me.🙂
51 minutes ago, Rewulf said:You never asked me a question, and you never mentioned a mistake so sorry, my powers of telepathy didn't get that.
I guess when I wrote
“Are you now agreeing with me that Putin made a mistake declaring marital law?”
Then put a question mark at the end it wasn’t a question?
Why did I have to use the word ‘mistake’ previously, it is a simple question with a simple answer to say “No it's not a 'mistake'”.
If you can’t fathom that I thought it is a ‘mistake’ from all the previous posts I wrote I’m not too sure what you are reading. I knew you would just focus on the word ‘mistake’ just like the word ‘disagree’ in the previous post before.
I thought you would have understood the definition of 'mistake' and applied it to the previous posts, it really isn't that difficult to work out.
54 minutes ago, Rewulf said:For 2 reasons, the first being its only been done 24 hours, how would you know its a mistake? Because of your historical precedent?
Yes, isn’t that what history teaches us?
If it was only going to last 24 hours then you would be correct, however, you and I have no idea how long it is going to last, so I ask you back how do you know it’s not a mistake if time is the only factor?
If it lasts longer would you be incline to agree it was a mistake?
55 minutes ago, Rewulf said:Second, if the area is under hostile military occupation, as you state it is, what's the point of declaring martial law?
I didn’t state it was under ‘hostile’ military occupation, is this where because I never mentioned the word ‘hostile’, I ignore the question or pretend I don’t know what the question means without telepathy?
Or do I actually know what the definition of hostile means so I can debate it properly without the silliness.
Anyway, are you trying to say Putin hasn’t declared martial law?
What I did state is how people view an army of liberation as an army of occupation once that army starts to control their every day lives with check points and ‘accidental’ shootings of people who don’t comply (yes just like the Americans did).
If, however, the troops stay on the front line and just engage the enemy this tends not to happen. So based on that I think it is a tactical mistake.
But I do struggle to understand what point you are making in point 2.
57 minutes ago, Rewulf said:I ask you and Mungler questions all the time, but you both dodge the hard ones,
What hard questions? Please enlighten me
You have asked irrelevant ones that have nothing to do with the current conflict that I haven’t answered, like what about this or what about that.
-
16 minutes ago, Mungler said:
Yeah good luck with that 🙂
😂 I know and seeing as Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results I must be insane, but one can hope a question can be answered without “but what about…”😜
-
59 minutes ago, Rewulf said:
Your posts do confuse me too.
Because this bit where you say Putin made a mistake declaring martial law is where exactly?
Are you confused about what you've said? 😂
Sigh I’m not confused at all I said.
“History has taught us throughout the years, that a foreign army on foreign land may well be there at the behest of the majority of the population. However, once you start with martial law and controlling the population like a foreign police force on a day-to-day basis rather than fight the so-called common enemy watch the good will sour.
You then lose the moderates and those indifferent to the Russian presence who were broadly supportive, then ultimately it turns nasty as they all see you as a foreign army of occupation impeding and controlling their life and not as allies.”
Obviously the above implies that I think it was a mistake that Putin instigated martial law. I know you are going to argue that it doesn’t.But let’s try and not go off at tangent on that argument and seeing as you haven’t answered the question let’s try again.
Do you think it is a mistake that Putin instigated martial law ?
Just to preempt you, yes I think the the Americans were wrong in trying martial law and regime changes in Afghanistan and Iraq as a foreign army enforcing it on a foreign land.
No I don’t think Zelenskyy was wrong as it’s his own country with his own troops police and border force.
Stating what about the USA and Zelenskyy doesn’t answer the question.
-
1 hour ago, Rewulf said:
Now where have I heard that before ?
Hearts and minds, its on the tip of my tongue....Thats the one , like the Iraqis and Afghans invited the Americans in to err, help them ?
A fix ?
Ahhh so your rebuttal is to just critique the Americans again, it would have only helped you win the debate if I’d have said that it only applied to the Russians. However, as I didn’t you have just made my point for me again.
Therefore, what are you inferring?
Your posts do confuse me, I made a post that Putin made a mistake in declaring martial law and all your subsequent replies regarding that post just criticize the USA or Zelenskyy but not Putin.
Are you now agreeing with me that Putin made a mistake declaring marital law?
Or are you just wanting to criticise the USA and Zelenskyy but not Putin rather than debating the actual point made?
Regarding the 75% being a fix.
In the first round he only got 30.3% and not over the 50% threshold required to become president so a rubbish fix. It then went to the second final round of voting with only two candidates and seeing as he was widely seen as a protest candidate that appeals to younger voters he was likely to pick up votes from other candidates, (the anybody but Poroshenkoso vote) what % would you not consider a fix in this second round?
-
46 minutes ago, Rewulf said:
If hes right, I get a dacha, and you two get defender of Ukraine medals, and an evening of wokery at he National Virtue Signalling awards
I’ve never been called woke before, my son’s girlfriend will be pleased as I’ve seemed to have transcended from her opinion of inappropriate sarcastic to woke. But your response was to attack Zelenskyy rather than defend Putin’s actions.
However, you seem to miss my point which was an army of liberation becomes an army of occupation in very short period of time.
History has taught us throughout the years, that a foreign army on foreign land may well be there at the behest of the majority of the population. However, once you start with martial law and controlling the population like a foreign police force on a day-to-day basis rather than fight the so-called common enemy watch the good will sour.
You then lose the moderates and those indifferent to the Russian presence who were broadly supportive, then ultimately it turns nasty as they all see you as a foreign army of occupation impeding and controlling their life and not as allies.
The same doesn’t happen with the Ukraine troops on Ukraine soil, the anger may one day be directed at Zelenskyy but not Ukrainian presence so all you need is just to change Zelenskyy as Ukrainians will always be present.
46 minutes ago, Rewulf said:Its an odd one saying big Z has been democratically elected, he did indeed get 75 % of the vote,
What would you call someone who gets 75% of the vote, I get you don’t like him and you don’t like what he stood for however the Ukrainians did hence why he’s democratically elected regardless of whether you like him or not, that’s how it works, not odd at all.
-
18 minutes ago, Rewulf said:
Thats terrible ! The mans a tyrant !
Its a good Job good king Zelensky isnt like that...Oh ...wait..
I knew that would get the first response out of you and I knew exactly what the response would be, I’m starting to believe Mungler about your dacha now.😂😜
Anyway, last time I looked Zelenskyy was Ukrainian and their democratically elected president and Putin, well isn’t Ukrainian or democratically elected. Therefore, when the president of an invading superpower instigates martial law in
occupiedsorry liberated land it’s a bit different than the president of Ukraine doing it. -
Today Putin declares martial law in occupied parts of Ukraine.
As always, a so called army of liberation becomes an army of occupation in very short period of time. Therefore, it seems that all these pro-Russian regions with 99.23% of the population wanting Russian involvement cannot be trusted by Russia.
Who’d have thought 🙄😄.
-
40 minutes ago, Rewulf said:
I think not.
Maidan was a student protest originally, do you think they envisaged a coup?Im not sure even the US, feeding money into it, envisaged the result TBH.
It was the start of the coup, it is irrelevant what anyone envisaged or even what you think, you even said so yourself, “the ball was rolling and other eyes could see a prize in their grasp” without the student protesters the ball wouldn’t have been rolling, nothing to grasp, therefore they were the start.
It’s quite simple logic, if you are to be believed, the right wing ultras jumped on the bandwagon, they didn’t start it, they, in your own words “Entered the fray”.
But it’s pointless because you will argue that you know what was in their minds and that of the USA and know for certain they never envisaged it so that discounts them even though their actions caused the coup.
I however, know exactly what started the ball rolling as do you form your previous post, which logically means it was the start.
It’s not a last word thing, it is defending my point when quoted, as I keep stating, and with you I will never get the last word.
But it is pointless as no mater what I write you will argue black is white.
-
1 hour ago, Rewulf said:
Pretty sure youve used both personal insults
Nope I might criticize your view but not you personally
1 hour ago, Rewulf said:Find me the sentence where I said 'The coup was started by students who wanted Netflix anjd Mc Ds'
It is quoted below and before you try to argue it is generally accepted Maidan was the start of the coup regardless if any others joined later.
22 hours ago, Rewulf said:The students that started Maidan, had never known anything different , they wanted McDonalds and Netflix ,
1 hour ago, Rewulf said:There you go with NATO again....
Of course I mentioned NATO again, I was quoting the original post of mine to stonepark that you decided to comment on that started this, That’s why it’s in quotations and italics... please keep up
1 hour ago, Rewulf said:Thats probably because all you do is waiut for me to post something so you can disagree with it,
This really makes me laugh, I think I have quoted you once first this year, I purposely try not to, I keep telling you this, you are the one who keeps quoting my posts to other people as soon as I post them, even on other threads. As I have said once I get a notification that you have quoted me I will defend my position. I’ve taken this stance since 2021 when I decided it was pointless debating with you in the COVID thread. So, I take it you can quote me and I’m not allowed to respond?
This post is again pointless, I’m not the only one that thinks your posts don’t always make sense or are contradictory, it just seems I am the one drawn in to it publicly by you commenting on my posts to others.
This last one was started by you commenting on my post to stonepark, the previous one was started by you commenting on a post by me not aimed at anyone in particular.
As I keep saying if you don’t want to engage with me don’t quote my posts, if you do quote them, which you are entitled to do, then expect a reply if I don't agree . Its not difficult to understand that you are the instigator but don't like anyone disagreeing with you.
-
2 hours ago, Rewulf said:
You started this latest rant by misquoting me
Ah it’s a rant again, glad I had that one covered, strange how your lengthy posts with personal insults are never rants. 🙄😜
I love the irony but I didn’t miss quote you, its what you actually wrote and how it read regardless of what you meant, but I digress.
This was all in response to my original post:-
"A coup happened because the people of Ukraine willed it to happen, NATO could not engineer it without those people."
I stand by what I said, the west cannot engineer a coup unless the population want change.
You seemed to disagree or as you prefer differed to this notion.
Therefore, I tried to clarify your view on this with
“You can’t buy a coup if no one is prepared to fight for it, just look at Afghanistan”
Again, you seemed to disagree or differ intimating that all supporting this coup did it for money paid by the USA to protest and carry out a paid coup and for no other reason.
I do struggle to understand what point or stance you are taking, whether you are disagreeing or agreeing as you seem to change as the post count rises.
My point is that the Ukrainian people did not want to go back to Russian control and are prepared to fight to try and keep it that way. They felt that way for a variety of reasons and a variety of different factions (students and Nazi's included), and even if they were funded by the USA to protest, this did not alter their view or aims which was/is to be free from Russian control.
Scottish Black Pudding - delicious
in Food and Drink
Posted
Depends which Bury black pudding you mean, there are two on Bury market, Chadwick’s or the Bury Black Pudding Co.
The Chadwick's black pudding stall itself was established in 1954 but the recipe goes back to1865 and the one my grandad took me to as a lad as it was the only dedicated black pudding stall selling warm ones on Bury market back then, they are sold as lean or fat and are cooked in vats of simmering water and sold as a whole. These are the ones I used to bring down to the Pigeon Watch charity shoots back in the day if anyone remembers.
The Bury Black pudding co is about 20 years old, they bought an old recipe (might have even been off a member of the Chadwick family IIRC) to add a bit of history to the stall ( and I guess are considered the new pretenders by 50 year old locals like me that frequented the market as a kid (my Granddad opened a sweet stall on the market when he retired so I spent my weekends there earning pocket money).
To be fair they are the only ones made in Bury but they are certainly more commercialised than Chadwick’s who manufacture up the valley in Rossendale (or at least they use to), which is next door to Ramsbottom in Bury where the World Black Pudding Throwing championships are held every year.
You wont find any like Chadwick’s ‘fat’ ones in the supermarkets and they are my favourite so I guess you can see where my loyalties lie.