Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

[Arch Dornan]

That isn't how deniable assets work....
Wagner is a deniable asset as seen in Syira when they got humiliated by the US

They are. Deniable assets come in many forms this is one of them for the best deniable assets as quoted highly sensitive environment and with a high level of political and military risk.

Royal Marines took part in 'high risk' missions in Ukraine, ex-commando chief reveals

It is the first time a senior general has admitted to Royal Marines Commandos being deployed in Ukraine.

www.forces.net

 

[LordsFire]

They are. Deniable assets come in many forms this is one of them for the best deniable assets as quoted highly sensitive environment and with a high level of political and military risk.

Royal Marines took part in 'high risk' missions in Ukraine, ex-commando chief reveals

It is the first time a senior general has admitted to Royal Marines Commandos being deployed in Ukraine.

www.forces.net

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

That article literally says they were there to evacuate, and then later re-establish the British embassy. This is perfectly normal operations for a military in peace-time, much less when the nation hosting the embassy is being invaded.

Have you let the click-bait title completely ensnare you?

 

[Arch Dornan]

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

That article literally says they were there to evacuate, and then later re-establish the British embassy. This is perfectly normal operations for a military in peace-time, much less when the nation hosting the embassy is being invaded.

Have you let the click-bait title completely ensnare you?

When they did both it's quoted during both phases the commandos supported other discreet operations in a hugely sensitive environment and with a high level of political and military risk.

High level of political and military risk. What deniable assets within the special forces do.

 

[Marduk]

When they did both it's quoted during both phases the commandos supported other discreet operations in a hugely sensitive environment and with a high level of political and military risk.

High level of political and military risk. What deniable assets within the special forces do.

Special forces by definition cannot be deniable assets because they are an official part of the armed forces, you can even find them on wikipedia, get your terminology straight.
The whole point of deniable assets is that they are not part of national armed forces, the government who uses them can say "we don't know who these people are and what they did, don't blame us for that" with them if shit hits the fan. Hence stuff like PMCs, terrorist groups, militias and so on can be deniable assets.

What you are referring to here are covert operations by special forces, which work on the basis of "they can't prove it was us if they don't catch us".

 

[Arch Dornan]

Special forces by definition cannot be deniable assets because they are an official part of the armed forces, you can even find them on wikipedia, get your terminology straight.
The whole point of deniable assets is that they are not part of national armed forces, the government who uses them can say "we don't know who these people are and what they did, don't blame us for that" with them if shit hits the fan. Hence stuff like PMCs, terrorist groups, militias and so on can be deniable assets.

What you are referring to here are covert operations by special forces, which work on the basis of "they can't prove it was us if they don't catch us".

Nope they wrote this shit. Plausible deniability. It is supposed to be deniable until it no longer isn't.

The SAS 'deniables'

During the 10,000-day Vietnam war Australia had agreed with the United States to have a team of Australian Army Special Air Services (SAS) soldiers conduct covert missions into Cambodia. The SAS soldiers would be bivouacked in Thailand.With their names changed for security and personal safety...

books.google.com.hk

University of Chicago Press Journals: Cookie absent

Grey is the new black: covert action and implausible deniability

Abstract. For hundreds of years, states have sought to intervene in the affairs of others in a surreptitious manner. Since the professionalization of intel

academic.oup.com

https://dune.univ-angers.fr/fichiers/20031843/20132MALLC1111/fichier/1111F.pdf

 

[Marduk]

Nope they wrote this shit. Plausible deniability. It is supposed to be deniable until it no longer isn't.

The SAS 'deniables'

During the 10,000-day Vietnam war Australia had agreed with the United States to have a team of Australian Army Special Air Services (SAS) soldiers conduct covert missions into Cambodia. The SAS soldiers would be bivouacked in Thailand.With their names changed for security and personal safety...

books.google.com.hk

University of Chicago Press Journals: Cookie absent

Grey is the new black: covert action and implausible deniability

Abstract. For hundreds of years, states have sought to intervene in the affairs of others in a surreptitious manner. Since the professionalization of intel

academic.oup.com

https://dune.univ-angers.fr/fichiers/20031843/20132MALLC1111/fichier/1111F.pdf

And they specifically refer to covert operations where none of them are allowed to be taken by the enemy, dead or alive.

 

[LordsFire]

When they did both it's quoted during both phases the commandos supported other discreet operations in a hugely sensitive environment and with a high level of political and military risk.

High level of political and military risk. What deniable assets within the special forces do.

'Supported' and 'other discreet operations' being the key terms.

Which are incredibly nebulous, to the point of being meaningless.

The terms are expansive enough that they could mean anything from 'participated in a commando raid into Moscow to sabotage the command chain for Russia's nuclear arsenal,' to 'stood guard while the Ambassador met with Zelensky.'

You are just projecting what you want to see on those terms.

What was explicitly said is that they do what is normally expected for guard forces at embassies to do. Anything else is speculation; stop acting like you have some sort of smoking gun.

Especially given there's no visible need for western forces to get themselves directly involved in anything. The Ukrainians are kicking ass just fine without NATO units getting directly involved, something that stands in sharp contrast to how the proxy wars in the 20th century went.

 

[Arch Dornan]

And they specifically refer to covert operations where none of them are allowed to be taken by the enemy, dead or alive.

That is why they are deniable.

'Supported' and 'other discreet operations' being the key terms.

Which are incredibly nebulous, to the point of being meaningless.

The terms are expansive enough that they could mean anything from 'participated in a commando raid into Moscow to sabotage the command chain for Russia's nuclear arsenal,' to 'stood guard while the Ambassador met with Zelensky.'

You are just projecting what you want to see on those terms.

What was explicitly said is that they do what is normally expected for guard forces at embassies to do. Anything else is speculation; stop acting like you have some sort of smoking gun.

Especially given there's no visible need for western forces to get themselves directly involved in anything. The Ukrainians are kicking ass just fine without NATO units getting directly involved, something that stands in sharp contrast to how the proxy wars in the 20th century went.

It's anything they are told to do by their government and since they clearly support them to the point of financial stability it is whatever the report quotes as a "hugely sensitive environment and with a high level of political and military risk."

We're not supposed to know that's classified.

 

[Marduk]

That is why they are deniable.

Not the deniable kind in the strict sense of the term.
Proper deniable assets are things like Wagner or Hezbollah. There can be dozens of them dead or captured, and it's still not considered an intervention by the country that gives them orders, because officially the government has nothing to do with them. Meanwhile good luck claiming UK has nothing to do with SAS soldiers, especially if one was to be captured alive.

 

[Zachowon]

Mercenary groups are deniabl, armed forces arnt if dead or captured

 

[History Learner]

Really? And where do you think she got the figure (aka the "external sources" in the correction), and in what language?

American intelligence agencies, given almost three weeks previously JCS Chairman Milley had given the exact same figure of over 100,000 casualties for the AFU.

Chances are she didn't translate it and proceed to write the speech herself.

Cool, provide me with proof, especially given we know VDL has a team with speech writers.

Ukraine anger over von der Leyen's unverified "100,000 dead soldiers" claim

Russian state media seized on the high figure, which the European Commission has since explained refers to troops both killed and injured.

www.newsweek.com

Ukraine has denied these figures and a EC representative has posted a correction that this was referring to casualties, not dead, the hell more do you want?

Of course Ukraine would deny those figures, that's not really relevant to what she means and the EC member from her team specifically confirmed total casualties were over 100,000. The more I want is for you to admit you were wrong, now, to argue with me over this when I cited the Milley figure; we know have multiple high ranking Western officials saying AFU losses are over 100,000.

What i think most likely happened, is that she was using some German or Ukrainian media source for that figure, but whoever was writing her speech or points for it didn't notice the nuance between killed vs casualties and went with killed.

Or she was using the figures U.S. intelligence officially has out there via Milley? What makes it even funnier is this confirms Russian MoD estimates of AFU losses.

 

[Marduk]

American intelligence agencies, given almost three weeks previously JCS Chairman Milley had given the exact same figure of over 100,000 casualties for the AFU.

We talked about this one and you forgot that you got humiliated about it once already.
It's ILLEGAL for him to demonstrate those intel sources in public, so he went with some badly translated ua-en public release like EC did resulting in casualty-killed translation mistake.

Cool, provide me with proof, especially given we know VDL has a team with speech writers.

Of course she has staff you lolcow.

https://twitter.com/danaspinant

She even has a "deputy spokeswoman" who issued the correction, sod off with these childish games.

Of course Ukraine would deny those figures, that's not really relevant to what she means and the EC member from her team specifically confirmed total casualties were over 100,000. The more I want is for you to admit you were wrong, now, to argue with me over this when I cited the Milley figure; we know have multiple high ranking Western officials saying AFU losses are over 100,000.

And EC itself denied them too as they were a mistake.

EU Commission chief in hot water over Ukraine war loss estimates

www.euractiv.com

A spokesperson for von der Leyen tweeted a correction within a few hours, stating that the original video had been edited because the 100,000 figure related to estimates of total casualties, including those killed but also the injured.

Or she was using the figures U.S. intelligence officially has out there via Milley? What makes it even funnier is this confirms Russian MoD estimates of AFU losses.

"External source" was quoted and obviously not classified one.
This means it was not from "internal sources" aka intel agency material.

 

[History Learner]

We talked about this one and you forgot that you got humiliated about it once already.

No, if you recall you got mad and said I wasn't worth your time. Would you like me to quote you doing so?

It's ILLEGAL for him to demonstrate those intel sources in public, so he went with some badly translated ua-en public release like EC did resulting in casualty-killed translation mistake.

No, he didn't.

Of course she has staff you lolcow.

https://twitter.com/danaspinant

She even has a "deputy spokeswoman" who issued the correction, sod off with these childish games.

Which is to deliberately avoid the question I asked, which is proof she wrote the speech as you contend. Perhaps you should stop projecting your cowardice when it comes to direct questions?

And EC itself denied them too as they were a mistake.

EU Commission chief in hot water over Ukraine war loss estimates

www.euractiv.com

They denied KIA was over 100,000 but did not deny that total casualties were over 100,000 which is what I said back in the Summer and said again when we debated over Milley's statement. Do I take you conceding on the 100,000 total bit as your concession that I was indeed correct in my casualty numbers?


"External source" was quoted and obviously not classified one.

 

[Marduk]

No, if you recall you got mad and said I wasn't worth your time. Would you like me to quote you doing so?

Thanks for reminding me how thick your head is.

No, he didn't.

Fine, let's play your game, demonstrate his source.

Which is to deliberately avoid the question I asked, which is proof she wrote the speech as you contend. Perhaps you should stop projecting your cowardice when it comes to direct questions?

It's proof you are a moron who annoys people with vexatious proof demands to "win" if they can't dig the right things out for you to ignore anyway.

They denied KIA was over 100,000 but did not deny that total casualties were over 100,000 which is what I said back in the Summer and said again when we debated over Milley's statement.

That's the friggin point, 100k KIA vs total casualties means a very different story.

Do I take you conceding on the 100,000 total bit as your concession that I was indeed correct in my casualty numbers?

What casualty number?

You can't blame bad translation when it was included in the original written remarks and she was speaking in English in the video:

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has brought death, devastation and unspeakable suffering.

We all remember the horrors of Bucha.

It is estimated that more than 20,000 civilians and 100,000 Ukrainian military officers have been killed so far.

First, Russia must pay for its horrific crimes, including for its crime of aggression against a sovereign state.

You even nicely bolded the "killed" for me to be sure you are wrong.
You didn't use the term. You thought the 100k were killed until after i've linked the correction. But i will be magnanimous and take that as your admission of being wrong and corrected.
And to deepen your humiliation, you were stubbornly arguing Ukraine had 100k military casualties in June already.

No, what eliminates the "context" of the 100k figure is that nowhere in it does it say civilian, it uses the word Ukrainian; you took that, because of your nature, as meaning what you wanted it too. The only part that does talk about civilian casualties is the OHCHR and the fact they don't comment on that is because there is no evidence for the 100,000 number being mostly civilians. Hell, CNN even did an interview with the guy and asked him directly; he refused to elaborate how many of 100,000 figure were civilian. Tell me, why he would do that if the majority are civilian? The propaganda value of that is obvious.

So were you wrong them, or are you saying Ukraine is not losing soldiers since then?

 

[Zachowon]

Milley can't declassify reports only the president and a few select groups can that are in charge of that stuff.
So unless it was cleared, which I am sure it wasnt, he is using OSINt

 

[History Learner]

Thanks for reminding me how thick your head is.

So is that a yes or no?

Fine, let's play your game, demonstrate his source.

No, because I asked you that first and you're the one who claimed to know the source; that's not how the burden of proof works Marduk.

It's proof you are a moron who annoys people with vexatious proof demands to "win" if they can't dig the right things out for you to ignore anyway.

Rather, it proves you're a liar that seeks to avoid being held to account for your claims. I asked you to prove your claim, and now you are refusing to do so.

That's the friggin point, 100k KIA vs total casualties means a very different story.

Sure, but if you recall our original disagreement was over whether or not total casualties for the AFU was over 100,000 not if it was 100,000 KIA. You seem to have conceded on that point, hence why I'm asking for you to admit this now.

What casualty number?

That AFU losses were over 100,000 months ago.

You even nicely bolded the "killed" for me to be sure you are wrong.
You didn't use the term. You thought the 100k were killed until after i've linked the correction. But i will be magnanimous and take that as your admission of being wrong and corrected.

I'm not sure how I can be wrong when I never said that, nor claimed it. I'm not sure how I can think that after you linked to an article, when my initial post was responding to said article by showing an archived copy of the written statement. Do better Marduk, because this is a really bad effort.

And to deepen your humiliation, you were stubbornly arguing Ukraine had 100k military casualties in June already.

No actually Marduk, this is what I was saying AFU losses were:

Grand total for the conflict so far is thus 27,000 KIA and 101,000 WIA for the Ukrainians.

What I was doing with that post, and is shown by looking at others, was using it as evidence military losses were far higher than reported at the time because no one was given civilian losses as that high nor would the Ukrainian Defense Minister directly say what the breakdown on that figure was.

So were you wrong them, or are you saying Ukraine is not losing soldiers since then?

No, I'd actually estimate they're far closer to 200,000 now.

 

[Marduk]

So is that a yes or no?

Yes, you are still a waste of time.

No, because I asked you that first and you're the one who claimed to know the source; that's not how the burden of proof works Marduk.

Let's get these things straight.
I don't know what his source is and you want me to trust it.
You want me to either prove what it is and that it's not trustworthy, or else i have to consider it trustworthy even if it's not public what it is?
Are you for real?
What are you smoking?
Is it legal where you live?

Rather, it proves you're a liar that seeks to avoid being held to account for your claims. I asked you to prove your claim, and now you are refusing to do so.

I've linked you to the friggin official twitter account of one of the people doing speaker work for her, what more do you want. This?

President von der Leyen's team

President von der Leyen's team supports her in her daily work.

ec.europa.eu

Sure, but if you recall our original disagreement was over whether or not total casualties for the AFU was over 100,000 not if it was 100,000 KIA. You seem to have conceded on that point, hence why I'm asking for you to admit this now.

I've just quoted you specifically using the term "killed", not "killed or wounded", not "casualties" in regard to the 100k, get bent.

Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

Targeting and intelligence have been provided from the get go, so that's no escalation. Different types of equipment being sent to meet evolving needs is no escalation of involvement either. The idea of "deniable assets" as volunteers or reinforcements is laughable and entirely unsupported. You...

www.the-sietch.com

That AFU losses were over 100,000 months ago.

So were they 100k now or 100k in June?

I'm not sure how I can be wrong when I never said that, nor claimed it. I'm not sure how I can think that after you linked to an article, when my initial post was responding to said article by showing an archived copy of the written statement. Do better Marduk, because this is a really bad effort.

If you never said that, and were skeptical of that, why were you arguing for that figure being military casualties only?

No actually Marduk, this is what I was saying AFU losses were:

10 days earlier

What we can establish here is that you will randomly start defending the highest figure for UA casualties you can spot in a media article at a given time.

What I was doing with that post, and is shown by looking at others, was using it as evidence military losses were far higher than reported at the time because no one was given civilian losses as that high nor would the Ukrainian Defense Minister directly say what the breakdown on that figure was.

No, I'd actually estimate they're far closer to 200,000 now.

Source: your ass.
So if you currently disagree with the 100k casualty figure now, why the hell are you acting as if it was your position instead of mine over the last several posts?

 

[History Learner]

Yes, you are still a waste of time.

And yet, here you are responding still. I'm fairly convinced at this point you're a masochist.

Let's get these things straight.
I don't know what his source is and you want me to trust it.
You want me to either prove what it is and that it's not trustworthy, or else i have to consider it trustworthy even if it's not public what it is?
Are you for real?
What are you smoking?
Is it legal where you live?

And yet, you claimed to know exactly whom his source was here:

It's ILLEGAL for him to demonstrate those intel sources in public, so he went with some badly translated ua-en public release like EC did resulting in casualty-killed translation mistake.

Quote me where he said this was the source and cite the article in question. You seem to consistently forget we have a quote function. No more of this very obvious effort to avoid questions, it's unbecoming of even your low standards.

I've linked you to the friggin official twitter account of one of the people doing speaker work for her, what more do you want. This?

President von der Leyen's team

President von der Leyen's team supports her in her daily work.

ec.europa.eu

For the third time, I'm not asking about that. I'm asking about this:

Chances are she didn't translate it and proceed to write the speech herself.

You claim she wrote the speech herself, I'm asking you to provide me a source of that.

I've just quoted you specifically using the term "killed", not "killed or wounded", not "casualties" in regard to the 100k, get bent.

Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

Targeting and intelligence have been provided from the get go, so that's no escalation. Different types of equipment being sent to meet evolving needs is no escalation of involvement either. The idea of "deniable assets" as volunteers or reinforcements is laughable and entirely unsupported. You...

www.the-sietch.com

Yes, because I was directly quoting the original written statement and even included the link to the archived copy. Nowhere in that post did I pass judgement on that point, in fact, as the very first line of the post says, I was disagreeing with you that it was a translation error.

So were they 100k now or 100k in June?

Over 100,000 by July and growing since then; not that hard of a concept to understand. Both Milley and VDL noted AFU losses were over 100,000 but without giving precise numbers; could be 190,000 now, for example.

If you never said that, and were skeptical of that, why were you arguing for that figure being military casualties only?

For the same reasons I explained then, again a few months later, and now; third party sources said civilian casualties weren't that high nor would the Ukrainian Defense Minister explain what the actual number was when asked by CNN at the time. We now have Milley saying it's 40,000 and VDL saying it's just 20,000 too. Both said, irrespective of the civilian deaths, Ukrainian military losses were over 100,000.

10 days earlier

What we can establish here is that you will randomly start defending the highest figure for UA casualties you can spot in a media article at a given time.

It's almost as if new information can come out to enable an individual to update their figures, and that new events happened after. Every single piece of information I used at the time came from either Zelensky himself, his advisers or U.S. intelligence. If we are to conclude none of those sources are viable, then what does that say about the future of the Ukrainian war effort if all of the senior leadership involved doesn't have a clue about the state of the AFU?

Source: your ass.

I can provide a breakdown, if you like? You never asked.

So if you currently disagree with the 100k casualty figure now, why the hell are you acting as if it was your position instead of mine over the last several posts?

Because the 100,000+ figure has been vindicated, fully. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept that Ukraine (and Russia) have continued to take casualties since July and August.

 

[Marduk]

And yet, here you are responding still. I'm fairly convinced at this point you're a masochist.

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,

And yet, you claimed to know exactly whom his source was here:

"some badly translated ua-en public release"
Behold, History Learner's definition of "claiming to know exactly what the source was"

You claim she wrote the speech herself, I'm asking you to provide me a source of that.

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?

Yes, because I was directly quoting the original written statement and even included the link to the archived copy. Nowhere in that post did I pass judgement on that point, in fact, as the very first line of the post says, I was disagreeing with you that it was a translation error.

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.

Over 100,000 by July and growing since then; not that hard of a concept to understand. Both Milley and VDL noted AFU losses were over 100,000 but without giving precise numbers; could be 190,000 now, for example.

Yet the official numbers of 100k are only showing up now, so you are pretty much fictionalizing.

For the same reasons I explained then, again a few months later, and now; third party sources said civilian casualties weren't that high nor would the Ukrainian Defense Minister explain what the actual number was when asked by CNN at the time. We now have Milley saying it's 40,000 and VDL saying it's just 20,000 too. Both said, irrespective of the civilian deaths, Ukrainian military losses were over 100,000.

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?

It's almost as if new information can come out to enable an individual to update their figures, and that new events happened after. Every single piece of information I used at the time came from either Zelensky himself, his advisers or U.S. intelligence. If we are to conclude none of those sources are viable, then what does that say about the future of the Ukrainian war effort if all of the senior leadership involved doesn't have a clue about the state of the AFU?

Yeah, sure, get bent, you keep maliciously misinterpreting these statements as usual.

Because the 100,000+ figure has been vindicated, fully. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept that Ukraine (and Russia) have continued to take casualties since July and August.

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.

 

[History Learner]

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.