Because i want to deny you the satisfaction of having the last word and inevitably claiming victory, while humiliating you in front of an audience is a bonus,
So, in other words, I'm not a waste of your time then? Please do make up your mind.
"some badly translated ua-en public release"
Behold, History Learner's definition of "claiming to know exactly what the source was"
Why are you avoiding answering a direct question for the third time. You, not I, claimed that his source was a ua-en public release; I asked you to cite said release and where he said it. Why are you so afraid to demonstrate what you claimed you had knowledge of?
I'm sorry for your education level. What do you think my words of "chances are she didn't" in front of that sentence mean? That it's me claiming that she in fact did?
The part where you said, and I quoted, that "chances are she didn't translate it". You left out the rest of that part because it demonstrates you're attempting to make up the claim here. You then proceeded to say she wrote it in second half she wrote it. I know your English is bad, but if you wanted to suggest she didn't write it, you wouldn't have said "and proceed to write the speech herself.".
So either you really don't understand English language basics or my characterization here is correct, to which would you like to confess to being wrong on?
Again, fuck off with your usual pretzel twisting of quotes.
I've linked the correction from killed to casualties, and then you disagreed with it, with a quote using the term killed.
You can either agree that it was a mistake or else you are implying that the original, uncorrected speech was correct, but then you have the problem that it was officially corrected.
No because as I actually noted, in my very first sentence in said post, I was disagreeing with your contention it was the result of a translation error. When you asked about it, I directly noted my estimate was total casualties, not killed only as she did. Would you like to try again, or should I take this sputtering into ineffectual rage as usual as a sign I've struck a nerve with being correct as usual?
Yet the official numbers of 100k are only showing up now, so you are pretty much fictionalizing.
Not at all, because VDL and Milley both said their casualties are over 100,000. How much so? They didn't say, we just know it's somewhere between 100,001 and 199,999. We can use publicly available information to provide an estimate, of course, as I did back in the Summer which suggests they were over 100,000 then. It could now be 190,000 as I said, after all, because both sides have continued to take casualties since then.
So this is your new way of trolling? Post ridiculous interpretations of AFU casualty figures that put them way beyond reason, and then wait for the war to last long enough for the official figures to eventually catch up, then claim you were right all along?
No, it's actually having a pretty basic level of intelligence, enabling me to grasp basic concepts. I know this is a hard concept for you, of course, given your constant struggles and bits of rage show it, but it's really not that difficult. If it was 117,000 then, as I estimated, and now it's 190,000 now (for example, not my actual estimate), then both are completely in line with what we know for sure so far.
Yeah, sure, get bent, you keep maliciously misinterpreting these statements as usual.
Your inability to argue the point and reduction to rage is very telling of my superiority, yes.
Yeah, sure, only 5 months after you were claiming it was the figure, and referring to current state. Go troll some children in CoD or something if you think that kind of bullshit will fool anyone.
No, actually, as I've already explained it many times. Again, my reducing you to sputtering rage as usual is telling in who is winning this engagement.